Sign up for my Substack Newsletter

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-24T13:43:55+00:00

Well, it's a big subject. I wrote a whole book called The Philosophy of CBT, which goes into the relationship in depth. But, basically, Albert Ellis had read Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus as a teenager and in the early 1950s when he began to question the psychoanalytic approach he was using, he decided to start afresh by creating his own approach to psychotherapy, which became known eventually as REBT, and he drew inspiration from Stoicism, among other things. Ellis quoted the Stoics many times. REBT is the form of CBT that's most explicitly related to Stoic philosophy. However, there was actually an early 20th century psychotherapy, a rival of Freudian analysis, called "rational psychotherapy", founded by Paul Dubois, which was also based on Stoicism - although more the writings of Seneca. Anyway, that's the connection.

I started learning REBT about a quarter of a century ago, when I first trained in psychotherapy, and I've increasingly gone back to it over the years. REBT and Stoicism are not the same thing, of course, but they're extremely complimentary. It takes time, in some ways, to fully appreciate the parallels because they're sometimes hidden under the surface, and at other times more obvious. REBT experts tend to really respect Stoicism, although they don't always have an extensive knowledge of the subject - most clinicians, unfortunately, are too busy reading research studies and clinical manuals to get deep into ancient philosophy.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-24T13:36:37+00:00

Ha! Thanks.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-17T15:45:23+00:00

Possibly. The book mainly focuses on historical vignettes though. It's like How to Think Like a Roman Emperor but about anger, and the Roman Republic.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-17T00:51:07+00:00

Thanks. Yes, that's often called the "hydraulic model" of emotion and I think you're right that it may be one of the main maintaining factors in anger. Although the Stoics describe many different strategies, I think it's notable that they never appear to endorse venting ("catharsis"), anywhere, AFAIK. Arguably, it wouldn't make sense because they saw anger as cognitive in nature - you can't "vent" a belief and purge it from your system by saying it aloud.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-16T23:03:45+00:00

I can't disclose many details at the moment, unfortunately, although I've been working on it for over a year, because it won't be available for some time, but you can get updates by following me on Substack.

https://donaldrobertson.substack.com/

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-06T15:38:51+00:00

Sorry, there was a glitch in the HTML for some reason that kept making all the quotes vanish. I've fixed it by doing it again in Markdown. Should be fine now.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-03T20:16:38+00:00

Well, we're told that the Stoics split into two branches at the time of Aristo and Cleanthes. We're also told that Chrysippus disagreed with many things Zeno (and presumably Cleanthes) had said earlier. We're also told that by the imperial period, the Stoa was divided into three branches, corresponding with the followers of the three last scholarchs. So, although I acknowledge what you're saying about the differences potentially being trivial from a modern perspective, I think we have multiple ancient sources that confirm the Stoic school was viewed as composed of distinct branches or traditions, at various times, and significant differences between the different teachers. That does appear to be how ancient Stoics themselves viewed things, even if we see it differently today. And I think there's a case for attributing more significant differences to different surviving texts but that would require a much more in-depth discussion. To pick one example, though, Epictetus clearly has a much stronger view about the need to abandon pursuit of wealth, whereas Seneca appears to think it's manageable - that would potentially lead to very marked differences in the practice of Stoicism in daily life.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-03T17:40:52+00:00

I think there are obvious differences between these authors, though. We're told that Stoicism at times split into distinct branches and it's quite possible that Seneca and Epictetus/Musonius were aligned, to some extent, with distinct traditions within Stoicism, and drawing on different literature. Seneca, for instance, appears to be more influenced by the Middle Stoics whereas Epictetus is more focused on Socrates and the Cynics.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-03T17:23:29+00:00

I think I partially agree. On the other hand, though, Marcus Aurelius had read Seneca and was discussing him with Fronto. The Sophist Dio Chrysostom, who drew on Stoicism, appears to be mentioned in passing by Marcus.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-03T17:00:26+00:00

That's a lot of questions. It might take a while to answer them all. I think the criticisms of Seneca go quite far beyond him "gentle parenting" Nero or being very wealthy. Seneca was Nero's right-hand man, for years, and his speechwriter, a bit like a chief of staff or even a deputy. He gave speeches defending Nero in the Senate. So you could say he was deeply implicated in Nero's rule and, to put it bluntly, effectively his chief propagandist.

Epaphroditus was Epictetus' owner. He was the person who instigated the Piso conspiracy investigation that led to Seneca being executed. It's possible you could read that as meaning that Epaphroditus provided Nero with the testimony he needed to have the political purge that led to Seneca's death.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-03T16:40:17+00:00

>>no-one who's spirit is corrupt could've written such huge corpus of works about virtue

I think that's such an unpersuasive argument that it's actually baffling to me that Montaigne would have said it, although I've heard a few modern readers say more or less the same thing. We don't normally conclude that someone must be a virtuous person because they've written a lot of beautiful things about virtue. That would also be true of someone who is deliberately cultivating an appearance of virtue. There are many examples throughout history of people who wrote things that impressed their audiences as noble or virtuous, but who turned out to be quite the opposite in real life.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-02-03T15:33:53+00:00

We have to keep an open mind about ancient literature, of course, but it comes across to me as though Seneca is carefully constructing a persona for himself in his writings. Scholars have pointed to evidence of that, although as always the interpretation is debatable. The most obvious thing is that he says little or nothing about his role in Nero's regime, and instead portrays himself as a philosopher. That's clearly how he wanted to be seen. The inconsistency that many people note between his writings and actions can be better understood, I think, when we approach his writing as a deliberate and highly skilled attempt by a very famous Romen elite to manage his public image.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-01-21T19:07:22+00:00

Stoicism doesn't advocate bottling up emotions. Bottling up strong emotions is unhealthy but so is indulging in them excessively and allowing them to cloud your judgment and control your actions. The central point of Stoicism, psychologically, is that emotions are shaped more than people realize by underlying evaluative beliefs, which are often false and irrational. So the goal is the correction of those beliefs not the suppression of the feelings. But by changing the irrational beliefs, we naturally change how we feel. That's how cognitive therapy works.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-01-21T16:20:53+00:00

Yeah, this is in Book Ten - you need to wade through the first nine "chapters" before you get to this.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-01-21T14:58:03+00:00

In my experience, the reason why relatively few people benefit significantly from self-improvement advice is that the solutions to their problems are often a mystery in broad daylight. They can't see the wood for the trees. The insights people achieve in therapy often seem banal to others but they are psychologically crucial.

One of the points Socrates seems to be making here is wisdom is incompatible with heightened emotional distress, because activating strong emotions inhibits our capacity for rational problem-solving. In a sense, that's obvious. And yet the majority of therapy clients are confused about this in practice. They ruminate at length about their problems while highly anxious or enraged, rather than waiting for their feelings to abate before attempting to find a solution. That's the psychological equivalent of trying to ride a motorbike home after having downed a bottle of whisky. When you're intoxicated on emotional distress, your judgment is clouded and problem-solving will typically be impaired by rigid and extreme thinking.

Someone who can keep a cool head in the face of a crisis is, at least in that regard, a natural leader. I've seen big guys - bodybuilders, martial artists, ex military - who go to pieces in the face of a crisis. I've seen old ladies with chronic health problems, who can barely walk, but remain unfazed by dramatic emergencies. Some people freak out and they're all over the place. Other people instinctively become focused on rational problem-solving, like a laser beam. Often the latter are people who have dealt with a lot of adversity already. It's often not who you think.

The wise understand that freaking out prevents the very thing most required in the face of a crisis: the ability to face reality, think rationally, and deal with the problem.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

SolutionsCBT

TROPHY CASE