Skip to main content
Log in

Ellis and Epictetus: Dialogue vs. Method in Psychotherapy

  • Published:
Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some recent commentators have found problems in the scientific status of Ellis's REBT, which seem not to be present in Beck's CBT. We argue that this may be partly because they drew differently from the traditions of thought available to them, which appears most clearly in their first published articles. Beck's articles were more in the modern medical tradition, whose history forms part of the search for method leading to abstract knowledge and control that has been so powerful a feature of Western culture. Ellis was more discursive in style and drew more explicitly on the dialogic tradition, in which obstacles to self-awareness and freedom are removed by enlisting the power of reason through question and answer. Socrates and Epictetus are the classical representatives of this tradition, and Ellis's first article shows clear signs of being modelled on Epictetus. Later, however, though continuing in this tradition in his personal style and popular self-help books, Ellis also developed abstract models and methods that belong to the medical tradition. His dual allegiance has made him vulnerable to criticism from both sides.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: 1. Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9, 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T. (1964). Thinking and depression: 2. Theory and therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 10, 561–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, F. W., & Dryden, W. (1996). Why two, central REBT hypotheses appear untestable. Journal of Rational–Emotive and Cognitive–Behavior Therapy, 14, 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., & Murdoch, D. (1985). The philosophical writings of Descartes, vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley, E. M. (1978). Descartes against the sceptics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryden, W., & Still, A. W. (1998). REBT and rationality: Philosophical approaches. Journal of Rational–Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 16, 77–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryden, W., & Still, A. W. (1999). When did a psychologist last discuss 'Chagrin'? American psychology's continuing moral project. History of the Human Sciences, 12, 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (1958). Rational psychotherapy. The Journal of General Psychology, 59, 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (2nd ed.). New York: Birch Lane Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epictetus. (1955). The enchiridion. Indianapolis: Bobbs–Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, C. (Ed.). (1995). The discourses of Epictetus. London: J. M. Dent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A. A. (1986). Hellenistic philosophy (2nd ed.). London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic guide to life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long. A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic philosophers (vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J., & Gabriel, T. J. (1987). Psychotherapy and cognitive sciences: An evolving alliance. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montaigne, M. de (1991). The complete essays. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, W. J. (1983). Ramus, method and the decline of dialogue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The effectiveness of psychotherapy: The Consumer Reports study. American Psychologist, 50, 965–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, D. S. (1914). Epictetus and the New Testament. London: Charles H. Kelly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorabji, R. (2000). Emotion and peace of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Still, A. W., & Dryden, W. (1999). The place of rationality in Stoicism and REBT. Journal of Rational–Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 17, 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale, J. B. (1995). Testing Epictetus's doctrines in a laboratory of human behaviour. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 40, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, R. L. (1992). Constructivism and Rational–Emotive Therapy: A critique. Psychotherapy, 29, 620–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessler, R. L. (1996). Idiosyncratic definitions and unsupported hypotheses: Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy as pseudoscience. Journal of Rational–Emotive and Cognitive–Behavior Therapy, 14, 41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xenakis, J. (1969). Epictetus: Philosopher–Therapist. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Still, A., Dryden, W. Ellis and Epictetus: Dialogue vs. Method in Psychotherapy. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 21, 37–55 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024181101796

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024181101796

Navigation