Albert Ellis (1913–2007)

All of Albert’s books are quite similar—not that that’s a bad thing or anything like that, it’s just that his philosophy applies equally well to most of the different psychology topics—so I’ll just make a little note about “should” statements, and possibly other points if they come up.

Ie, people say you should, you tell yourself you should, but it’s an unreasonable standard. In a way this sounds like pushback against religion, kinda like Freud, who was very anti-religion, although he was also rather ambivalent (at best) about philosophy, unlike Al (to cut to the most essential difference, perhaps). But Albert doesn’t mean this advice in a reactive way: “(blah blah blah, should be nice, etc). Actually, these are often fine goals; it’s the way they are conveyed (shoulding) [should statements] that’s a problem.”

In fact, this is actually quite like many Christian complaints about “the law” made in the New Testament—“the law brings wrath” etc—and, more, it’s actually almost a stereotypically Calvinist point, that having become in the US and often other places one of the more conservative strands of religion, more sensitive about secular pushback. (I won’t belabor the point, but it can be bad.) Calvinists in their rhetoric, at least, can actually be almost paranoid about “good works”, (or just “works”, they like to deny that there’s anything good about it, once it’s “works”), which is not unlike what Al calls “should” statements, ie religion (or morality) gone bad. The stereotypical 16th century Protestant maintained almost that an action was, in itself, Bad, if the Catholics said that you “should” do it, because it was a “good work”. Even purely symbolic stuff, or even charity, sometimes! (At least, that’s the impression you can get.) Try to get more reactive than that! Al would try not to!

I don’t know whether this makes church sound intricate and strange like a puzzle, or merely off-putting, but my point is, much that, upon a semi-close inspection, can seem like a pushback against religion, (you might not notice anything on a superficial examination), upon a really deep analysis, is simply part of an ancient back in forth that has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years in Christianity, and other religions as well. (The same basic quandary about how I have to trust God and not be anxious, and yet also be motivated to do good things, also comes up in Hinduism and all the Eastern religions, whatever you like.)

…. And, anyway, there are a lot of should statements.

About politics:

—People in (some other country), should stand up to injustice, the way we would if we were in their shoes.
—People (in our country), shouldn’t be “divisive”, but should focus on subsidizing donuts or something, something any old moron would like, something all the good people agree on, the normal people.

Lest you think the last suggestion would lead anywhere, lol:

—You should have as much money as I do!

Unless it’s:

—You should NOT have more money than me!

Now, those are ideas we all agree on, although I suppose they’re a little divisive in their application. Lol.

…. I don’t know—I mean, you have to have standards; you will, one way or another. But a lot of standards is just the village gossip gasping and saying, You mean you don’t agree with our intolerant/moron ideas? *incoherent babbling*

…. (If only I hadn’t been about to write about honesty, I would’ve lied and gone on break on time. My manager made a joke about writing the customer’s name in blood if I didn’t have a pen. Whoever did that ‘Life is good’ slogan has got a real scam going on, ha.)

It’s been said (in the Letter of Aristeas, which is pretty good 98% of the time, if you don’t count the answers getting a little pat after while) that contentment comes from the knowledge of not having done wrong, but one of the things I got from Al is how hard it is to really succeed at that. It’s in between general negative emoting (‘awfulizing’) and blaming people (or cursing at them), and making excuses for them or rationalizing. The first set is a little worse than the last one, but I do that a lot, so maybe I would have discovered subsets. I mean, I imagine a prison camp with a maximum calorie intake of 2400 is better than one with a maximum of 1200, but do I really want to find out? I mean…. Anyway, I mean, say I agree to do a trivial task for a very lazy, stubborn, dishonest person (but friendly!). In a way I only agree out of my bad opinion of him—I honestly don’t think he could *really* do it for himself, if you really take everything into consideration—but then I don’t think he has enough, honest (active, in this case) respect for me to dialogue about it fairly. But if you wanted to argue that I’m rationalizing and making excuses, I don’t know….

I mean, that’s why in religion we have this buzzword that’s kinda relevant, although forgiveness without justice is actually just rationalizing…. The thing is, really, a lot of people, probably most, who pose about this sort of thing haven’t the slightest intention (honestly) to apply either side of it, just just make excuses for their “friends” and curse at everyone else. And some of them will lecture or moan about morality, and some of them because they’ve been to church. (The others have Joseph Conrad’s idea of church.)

…. Of course, they do kinda use elite examples—the doctor who kills himself because he realizes he’s not Jesus Christ, to the extent that it’s not abstract, so maybe some people would prefer a different style, but I do think that there’s a benefit to knowing that people who have had every advantage “will die like any mortal, and fall like any prince”…. Sometimes success is an act, and if you actually have found something, either for that reason, or because they don’t care, they find some reason to say that you just don’t look like the other guys in the band, who look the right way, you know. Popular music is petty…. [People are small-minded, I mean. I guess the one thing I can say is that I take things less personally than I did once. People are just going through a lot.] So yeah, sometimes the big name writer is okay, because at least they have something to say, your Rational Al—the classic people, you know. Sometimes classics are a scam too, but, not always. It’s hard to have rules for life, that’s certainly a New Testament belief.

…. He does cover marriage a lot, proportionally, but basically in the form of straight fights—me vs you. I wonder what it would be like if there were a third person—bad waiter etc—and one partner (either a marriage partner, or a parent or something) wants to blame, and you want to make excuses, etc.

That would suck, right. I schedule my whole life around avoiding that, lol.

…. Sometimes secular psych isn’t good at summing up, lol. Always remember: (cliche or popular saying, plus commentary)!

But Al was right about one thing—living life is surely more an art than a science….… (plus d'informations)

Much of what was in this book really doesn’t apply to me. For instance Ellis mentions and spends quite a bit of time using fear of public speaking and insecurities in people’s love lives as a springboard to coping with anxieties. Well, I taught school for 40 years, so getting up in front of an audience doesn’t bother me a bit. And at the age of 72 and having been married for almost 50 years, I have not anxieties in my love life. I did find much of what he said about “Irrational Beliefs” helpful. I wish he had had a section of geriatric anxiety, anxiety for old folks, because it is a pretty unique kind of anxiety. It often doesn’t include much of what he covers in the book (love life, speaking publicly, money problems, etc.). Maybe there are books devoted to exactly that topic. This book is very prescription and will undoubtedly help many people who try to cope with anxiety on their own. I recommend it.… (plus d'informations)

Ellis does what he calls Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, so you can have good behavior if you emote rationally. When you think amiss you create problems for yourself, and less troublesome thinking relieves these problems.

Rational emoting can be distinguished from other psychological or rational theories. A poet in psychoanalysis would want to just feel all their feelings as deeply as possible as an end in itself, and a philosopher or (especially he’s not a) monastic would probably make their goal to feel perfectly unemotional, but rational emoting is in the middle: feel whatever you want, but don’t hurt yourself. It’s very similar to many forms of philosophy, but it’s attenuated in strictness. (“Not *completely* true—but true enough!”)

I don’t use rational emoting exclusively, but I think it’s important to keep all your strategies straight so you can understand yourself. (Eg, he usually likes to implicitly distance himself from Christianity, but he’s certainly not illogically anti-Christian or against all Christians equally regardless of what they say.)

…. He’s right that insight into why you have a problem needs to be followed up with taking up responsibility for yourself and doing something different, not just brooded on.

It still is rationalistic or insight-based, though, as it’s basically a book about treating cognitive distortions, something that’s certainly important.

…. Although Ellis does use Epictetus against Freud before that was cool, it’s important to realize it’s also post-Freudian rather than pre-Freudian because it’s based on his 20th century experiences as a therapist; he knows that people have cognitive distortions because he’s seen and heard it all, not just because he read it in a book.… (plus d'informations)