I like the way you are going. I'm coming to realise that psychotherapy and philosophy are terrible as bedfellows. We're seeing Stoicism increasingly pitched as a consolation and a way to cope with the stresses of life. CBT garnished with "timeless" maxims. But we're ignoring the universalist, profoundly revolutionary nature of Stoicism's "good news" - we can be happy, not just not-sad, and that's entirely within our control.
Steven, exactly. I've been worrying about those trends as well. I still think there is a place for philosophically informed psychotherapy (like REBT), but people need to keep the distinction in mind. It seems, however, that "positive" psychologists wish to expand their domain to include philosophy, and that's not good.
"The triangle at the center makes explicit the three types of core beliefs we all have: about ourselves, about other people, and about the future."
I would suggest that it is missing a couple of items: core beliefs about other things in general and beliefs about the past (the second of which you pointed out). Considering reality as a space - time continuum, you, right now, are the origin, then other people and things are translations in space and the past and future are translations in time.
Seen this way, a case could be made that this encompasses all core beliefs about c
oncrete objects: yourself and everything else in space and time. Considering that the world also consists of abtract things (ideas or concepts), there are core beliefs about concepts, also.
The reason I am mentioning this is because these other core beliefs are important too. As an example, I want to contrast the fear of death to the fear of disease. There are many people who have problematic thoughts, feelings and behaviors around Covid and the efficacy of vaccines. This is due to their core beliefs about objects (viruses and diseases) and abstract objects (knowledge of science, in general, and whether or not the "deep state" manipulates you). This is more than a core belief about other people, such as Dr. Fauci.
Anthony, I agree. I think the original set of three types of core beliefs was not meant to be exhaustive, but focus on what might more likely be relevant in therapy. Which is why I pointed out that beliefs about the past are also relevant. But I think your point is well taken: all core beliefs have consequences for how we act in the world, and are therefore appropriate targets for CBT.
Thanks. Since I like playing around with ideas like this, here is a way of looking at it that is relevent to psychotherapy, including CBT.
My description here had an underlying notion: what differentiates the three categories (four once you consider the past)? It was obvious that this was considering, in terms of ontology, only concrete objects that are people, and then just distinguishing them in terms of a particular accidental characteristic - in this case., location in space/time. Thus I added the abstract objects in an effort to complete the set.
This allows me to question whether the analysis is complete, considering that the set of core beliefs is incomplete. And it is possible to point out certain things that are left out, such as a person's fear of disease, which may be amenable to treatment.
But this also points out a deeper question. Splitting the ontology according to these two particular fundamental and accidental characteristic smakes us focus on an analysis in terms of these characterisitics. But the distinstion between yourself and other people distributed in space/time is important because those characteristics are essential in the way we deal with the world.
But we can productively use other accidental (and fundamental) characteristics that are more appropriate to therapy, such as CBT. For example, we can split our core belief in terms of (to use a Stoic concept) the things we can change and the things we can't. Another equally important characteristic is the things that affect us and the things that don't. A third characterisitic could be the emotional valence we attach to things.
Using these other characteristics creates an new "inner [polygon? network?]" that may be even more useful, especially if the characteristic that is utilizes is directly related to the behavior, thoughts, feelings triad of CBT. This is true for the three examples I just gave.
My point here is that the inner triangle can problaby be replaced by a diagram of core beliefs structured in such a way that it elicits a way of thinking about one's state of mind that is more effective than just thinking of people in sapce/time.
Yup, I think the inner triangle should be replaced by a n-side polygon representing all of one's core beliefs, though which ones the therapist will focus on depends on the specifics of what is currently bothering the client, or creating a problem for him/her.
I have another problem. I remind myself all the time that we only live in the present and I try not to focus on the past or the future, so I don't want to plan too much and decide not to book a flight to visit my loved ones for next Christmas.
Eliza, there is a difference between not worrying about past and future (because they are not up to you) and not learning from the past or planning for the future (which are both good things). The trick is to do it rationally, not emotionally.
I was listening to an old episode of Stoic Nova conversations with Christopher Gill where Joe (new to Stoicism then) ask about the "Golden Rule" in Stoicism. The Golden Rule doesn't really apply in Stoicism, people should be treated justly, which can be different than how you would like to be treated based on the context.
Jonathan, correct. From the virtue ethical perspective (as distinct from a deontological one, which is usually the context for the golden rule) it is about we as agent decide to treat others. As you say, we should do it justly, with fairness, regardless of how we ourselves feel we should be treated.
Not easy, this one. I really liked the article on cosmopolitanism that you linked to early on.
Thank you, appreciated. Not easy, but worth it!
I like the way you are going. I'm coming to realise that psychotherapy and philosophy are terrible as bedfellows. We're seeing Stoicism increasingly pitched as a consolation and a way to cope with the stresses of life. CBT garnished with "timeless" maxims. But we're ignoring the universalist, profoundly revolutionary nature of Stoicism's "good news" - we can be happy, not just not-sad, and that's entirely within our control.
Steven, exactly. I've been worrying about those trends as well. I still think there is a place for philosophically informed psychotherapy (like REBT), but people need to keep the distinction in mind. It seems, however, that "positive" psychologists wish to expand their domain to include philosophy, and that's not good.
This is an interesting statement:
"The triangle at the center makes explicit the three types of core beliefs we all have: about ourselves, about other people, and about the future."
I would suggest that it is missing a couple of items: core beliefs about other things in general and beliefs about the past (the second of which you pointed out). Considering reality as a space - time continuum, you, right now, are the origin, then other people and things are translations in space and the past and future are translations in time.
Seen this way, a case could be made that this encompasses all core beliefs about c
oncrete objects: yourself and everything else in space and time. Considering that the world also consists of abtract things (ideas or concepts), there are core beliefs about concepts, also.
The reason I am mentioning this is because these other core beliefs are important too. As an example, I want to contrast the fear of death to the fear of disease. There are many people who have problematic thoughts, feelings and behaviors around Covid and the efficacy of vaccines. This is due to their core beliefs about objects (viruses and diseases) and abstract objects (knowledge of science, in general, and whether or not the "deep state" manipulates you). This is more than a core belief about other people, such as Dr. Fauci.
Anthony, I agree. I think the original set of three types of core beliefs was not meant to be exhaustive, but focus on what might more likely be relevant in therapy. Which is why I pointed out that beliefs about the past are also relevant. But I think your point is well taken: all core beliefs have consequences for how we act in the world, and are therefore appropriate targets for CBT.
Thanks. Since I like playing around with ideas like this, here is a way of looking at it that is relevent to psychotherapy, including CBT.
My description here had an underlying notion: what differentiates the three categories (four once you consider the past)? It was obvious that this was considering, in terms of ontology, only concrete objects that are people, and then just distinguishing them in terms of a particular accidental characteristic - in this case., location in space/time. Thus I added the abstract objects in an effort to complete the set.
This allows me to question whether the analysis is complete, considering that the set of core beliefs is incomplete. And it is possible to point out certain things that are left out, such as a person's fear of disease, which may be amenable to treatment.
But this also points out a deeper question. Splitting the ontology according to these two particular fundamental and accidental characteristic smakes us focus on an analysis in terms of these characterisitics. But the distinstion between yourself and other people distributed in space/time is important because those characteristics are essential in the way we deal with the world.
But we can productively use other accidental (and fundamental) characteristics that are more appropriate to therapy, such as CBT. For example, we can split our core belief in terms of (to use a Stoic concept) the things we can change and the things we can't. Another equally important characteristic is the things that affect us and the things that don't. A third characterisitic could be the emotional valence we attach to things.
Using these other characteristics creates an new "inner [polygon? network?]" that may be even more useful, especially if the characteristic that is utilizes is directly related to the behavior, thoughts, feelings triad of CBT. This is true for the three examples I just gave.
My point here is that the inner triangle can problaby be replaced by a diagram of core beliefs structured in such a way that it elicits a way of thinking about one's state of mind that is more effective than just thinking of people in sapce/time.
Yup, I think the inner triangle should be replaced by a n-side polygon representing all of one's core beliefs, though which ones the therapist will focus on depends on the specifics of what is currently bothering the client, or creating a problem for him/her.
I have another problem. I remind myself all the time that we only live in the present and I try not to focus on the past or the future, so I don't want to plan too much and decide not to book a flight to visit my loved ones for next Christmas.
Eliza, there is a difference between not worrying about past and future (because they are not up to you) and not learning from the past or planning for the future (which are both good things). The trick is to do it rationally, not emotionally.
you see, you are good in this...I'm still learning :)
We are all still learning! Together!
Is this serious, or what? https://www.gocomics.com/mike-du-jour/2023/09/29
I was listening to an old episode of Stoic Nova conversations with Christopher Gill where Joe (new to Stoicism then) ask about the "Golden Rule" in Stoicism. The Golden Rule doesn't really apply in Stoicism, people should be treated justly, which can be different than how you would like to be treated based on the context.
Jonathan, correct. From the virtue ethical perspective (as distinct from a deontological one, which is usually the context for the golden rule) it is about we as agent decide to treat others. As you say, we should do it justly, with fairness, regardless of how we ourselves feel we should be treated.
The toga-subway rule is a good one... 😆
being able to chuckle at oneself is another good one
“Humor is just another defense against the universe.” (Mel Brooks)
I’m glad to read the Stoics also have the past as part of the core beliefs. 👍
So clear, so important, AND so helpful! Thank you, Massimo!
You're welcome, Ann!