Stoicism Is Not Therapy, But Training
Stoicism Is Not Therapy, But Training
Author: Grant C. Sterling
Source: International Stoic Forum, February 25, 2008 (three-part exchange with Jules Evans)
Compiled by: Dave Kelly
Corpus status: Primary source — Sterling’s argument; Kelly editorial framing
Editorial Note — Dave Kelly
In February 2008, Grant Sterling engaged Jules Evans in a three-part exchange on the International Stoic Forum concerning whether Stoicism functions as therapy. Sterling’s position, developed across the three messages, is that Stoicism operates as immunization rather than cure, that its psychological benefits are fully parasitic on its philosophical doctrine, and that no technique carries Stoic content apart from the beliefs that give it content. The exchange is reproduced here in full as a primary source document.
Part One
Sterling’s first message, responding to Evans’s proposal that Stoicism can help ordinary people with emotional suffering through practical techniques and concrete applications.
As one of the professional philosophers on this List, and someone who has often engaged on this list in highly technical discussions, I thought I should say something on this topic.
My position, which I am sure is unpopular, is that it is impossible to give people an idea of “how Stoicism can help their emotional suffering” without having a clear grasp on what Stoicism is.
Suppose my neighbor has lost a loved one. What does Epictetus advise? Simply that I console him and pretend to grieve with him. In a situation like that, it is highly unlikely that Stoicism [or, I think, virtually any other belief system or therapeutic method] will be able to do much for him.
I didn’t say that Stoicism is helpless to deal with such grief. It is not. The problem is that the Stoic medicine has to be administered before the shock. Stoicism functions as an immunization, not as a cure. Let me have a chance to convince my neighbor of the truth of Stoic doctrine long before the loved one dies, and he will feel no debilitating grief when it occurs — or, at least, he will be in a position where he can feel no grief, and where I can help him by reminding him of the Stoic truths he has embraced.
So what would this Stoic immunization therapy look like? It will and must take the form of nothing other than convincing him of the truth of the core doctrines of Stoicism. If I can convince him that things not in our control are neither good nor evil, and that Virtue is the only Good and source of happiness, then he will be able to have a better life. But if he does not make these beliefs part of his belief system, Stoicism can do little or nothing to help him with his distress from the outside. That’s why I disagreed with Malcolm’s claim that a modern day Stoic would be a psychologist and not a philosopher — all psychological benefits that Stoicism conveys can come only to those who believe Stoic principles. [The psychological systems that most resemble Stoicism do precisely this — they teach some basic Stoic doctrines, sometimes with direct quotes from Stoic philosophers.] The psychology is parasitic on the philosophy.
Now of course I need not convince him of these things using Stoic technical terminology. But such terminology is helpful on this List in allowing us to say things quickly and precisely. But if I begin to discuss Stoic thought with my neighbor, I will bet [given my experiences doing this sort of thing with friends and students] that he will ask questions like “but doesn’t this mean that I’d have to be an emotional zombie?” and “doesn’t this mean that I’d never eat or do anything else, since it wouldn’t be good or evil to do so?”, etc. If he is persuaded of these things, he will never believe in the principles of Stoicism, and will never rid himself of desires for external things, and will therefore continue to suffer distress. How can I answer such questions? By understanding the doctrine of eupatheia, and the doctrine of preferred indifferents. Again, I need not use that terminology with my neighbor, but I will have to explain those ideas if I wish to convince him that Stoicism is not absurd.
“But”, he will object, “I cannot change my desires.” So I will have to explain to him [in whatever words I choose] the Stoic doctrine that desires follow from beliefs about value, that such beliefs are in our control, that I can refuse to assent to impressions that I have been harmed, etc.
So, speaking for myself, all my successes at making other peoples’ lives better through Stoicism have come from convincing them of the truth of Stoic ideas — in other words, by engaging in exactly the kind of conversations we have on this List. While [e.g.] Epictetus talks a great deal about dealing with distressing circumstances, in every case that I can think of off the top of my head his comments are addressed to someone who already accepts Stoic doctrine. He offers little or nothing in the way of advice as to how to deal with the suffering of someone who does not know and accept Stoic ideas already. Indeed, I don’t think he can say anything about that, because at the bottom Stoicism says that distress comes from false beliefs about the world, and the distress will not go away while the false beliefs remain. If your problem is dealing with the suffering of someone who is not able to rationally consider these fundamental truths, then Stoicism has nothing to offer you — look elsewhere for that advice. But even then, if Stoicism is true [and I think it is], you will look elsewhere in vain — unless the sufferer changes his beliefs about being harmed, he will continue to suffer.
Now I am not very good at offering general advice to people who already have Stoic beliefs but fail to follow them in some area or other. So if that’s what you want — advice on dealing with anger for someone who is convinced that Stoicism is true but still gets upset — then of course it will be fine for people on this List to offer whatever suggestions they may [or to cite suggestions from the ancients on such matters, some examples of which you gave in this post]. But I claim no special expertise in such matters, and in any case as I said such advice comes only after the person has come to believe that Stoicism is true — and whatever small contributions I might be able to make to Stoicism will have to come in that area — “Stoic Apologetics”, if you will.
Regards, Grant
Part Two
Sterling’s second message, responding to Evans’s objection that Stoic benefit does not require acceptance of all Stoic theory, and that millions have benefited from Stoic techniques without committing to the full metaphysics.
Well, I don’t agree with you, Grant. I’m not saying that you haven’t done useful and helpful work with others, but I don’t agree that to get the benefit from Stoic techniques and ideas, you must accept all of Stoic theory.
I never said that. I said you must accept the core Stoic beliefs.
Imagine you went to the doctor with a terrible fever and they said ‘now, before I can treat you, I’ll need you to accept in entirety all of my theories’!
If the fever was caused by false medical beliefs, that’s exactly what I’d expect him to say. [Leaving out the “in entirety all” part.]
Imagine if Buddhists said, ‘before you come in and learn this meditation technique, you must accept all Buddhist doctrine and metaphysics’.
Again, Buddhists do not hold the same view as Stoics with regard to the origin of the ills meditation is meant to deal with.
In fact, millions of people have been greatly helped by learning the basic insight of Stoicism — that much of our suffering comes from our interpretation of external events, rather than the events themselves.
Specifically, that the events themselves are never worth suffering over. Yes, I quite agree. That is why the only doctrines I claimed must be accepted to derive benefits from Stoicism are the ones connected with this concept. Please re-read my post.
People can grasp that quite quickly, and take a leap forward in terms of how they view the world and their own minds.
I quite agree. I never said otherwise. But what you’re saying is that to derive the benefits of Stoicism, what is needed is that the person come to believe the core principle of Stoic thought — which is what I thought I was saying in my post. Stoic therapy does not work without this belief.
Of course you can use Stoic techniques (thought journals, staying in the moment, visualizations, thought analyzing and challenging) without accepting all of Stoic metaphysics.
I never said otherwise. But you cannot use these techniques — or, at any rate, there won’t be anything remotely Stoic about your use of these techniques — if you don’t accept the core principles of Stoicism.
Nonetheless, I used Stoic techniques to overcome social anxiety, by focusing on how my own thoughts caused my anxiety, rather than the people around me; and then learning to control those thoughts.
That’s great. But, as you say, that is a direct and simple application of a basic part of the Stoic belief system. Unlike the doctor’s fever medicine, or even the Buddhist’s meditation techniques, this method does not work unless you believe the principle upon which it is based. If you believe that our desires and emotions are caused by external events, or that they are not in our control, or that the external events are truly evil and so the anxiety is justified — then you can’t relieve the anxiety “Stoically”.
As to Stoicism only working as an immunization rather than a cure, there are literally millions of modern examples which disprove that, millions of examples where people have used Stoic techniques to overcome emotional disorders which they are already in the grip of.
Not without changing their beliefs, they didn’t.
And in the ancient world, Cicero used Stoic teachings to get over his breakdown when his daughter died. If he had fully accepted Stoic teachings before she died, he wouldn’t have had a breakdown. But he still found Stoicism very helpful to get over his bereavement. Stoicism is a therapy — it’s a cure. If we weren’t sick in the first place, we wouldn’t need the cure.
We are sick in the sense that we have an underlying condition that breaks out in incidents of distress. No real cure for the distress exists that doesn’t address the underlying condition.
Regards, Grant
Part Three
Sterling’s third message, responding to Evans’s claim that the “core insight” of Stoicism is more accessible than the radical claim that virtue is the only source of happiness, and that CBT and positive psychology have successfully incorporated Stoic techniques without the full doctrine.
This would be a pity, because the core Stoic insight — that our suffering often comes from our own thoughts and beliefs rather than from externals — is much easier to accept for most people. It’s much more practically useful. Stoicism has survived because of that insight, not because of the more radical idea that the only real source of happiness is inner virtue.
Slow down. The belief that our suffering comes from our own thoughts and not from externals is equivalent to the belief that externals are neither good nor evil. If externals were genuine goods or evils, then our perception of a genuine evil would cause suffering, as would the loss or absence of a genuine good. So you cannot coherently believe that our suffering never comes from externals without holding that externals are neither good nor evil.
Now, as I said, you can phrase this doctrine in whatever way will help the other person learn it. You don’t have to use the words “good” or “evil”. But that’s the doctrine.
It would be a shame to teach someone that externals have no value [in whatever way you wish to phrase it] and not teach them that Virtue does have value. It would be odd to teach them that suffering comes from our thoughts and beliefs and not from externals, and not teach them that happiness comes from having the proper thoughts and beliefs. I see no reason why this “more radical idea” would be hard to swallow for anyone who swallowed the “core insight”. Why would that be?
And the techniques of Stoicism — training oneself to stay mindful, to stay in the moment, to keep thought journals, to challenge negative thoughts etc. — are also much more generally accessible and applicable than the more radical idea that the only source of happiness is inner virtue.
Train oneself to stay mindful of what? To keep thought journals about what? All these techniques, it seems to me, either reflect the underlying Stoic doctrine [we are to challenge negative thoughts because negative thoughts are based on the false belief that externals have value], or else they are in no way distinctively Stoic techniques [many other philosophical systems recommend that you stay mindful of something, etc.]
The “pure” Stoic therapy would be to tell them that a girlfriend or a boyfriend is an indifferent, it’s not a source of real happiness, so they should rather spend their time trying to accept the will of the Logos. So they accept the will of the Logos and don’t change their situation.
This is false. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of goodness that results from not understanding the doctrine of preferred indifferents. Pure Stoic therapy would tell them no such thing. [Although it would tell them to accept the will of Logos if they try to meet someone and fail — but you’d better be teaching them that, or else your method won’t be relieving their suffering at all.]
This more practical form of Stoic therapy is what CBT, REBT and positive psychology has incorporated. Because it has retained the core insight of Stoicism (thoughts often cause suffering) without the more radical claims (only source of happiness is virtue) it has gained great acceptance with the medical community, with governments, and with ordinary people.
The success it has had is the result of incorporating Stoic doctrine. I see no reason to suppose that it would have less success or popularity if it incorporated more Stoic doctrine.
[This is no different from the way in which Freudian psychotherapy is based on Freudian doctrines about the nature of the unconscious, repression, etc. The only difference is that Freudian psychotherapy doesn’t work, because the underlying doctrines are false.]
There are six million people with depression in the UK, and about 4 million with anxiety disorders. You can’t wait for them all to accept that the only source of happiness is inner virtue. If they don’t, I still believe Stoic ideas and techniques can help them.
Indeed, it can help them because they will then be “making progress”, by adopting the first and most basic Stoic principles and working upwards. More power to them. I have no objection whatsoever to the expansion of Stoic-based psychological programs.
Regards, Grant
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home