A Philosophical Introduction to a Therapeutic School

Even if you are not into philosophy, you have probably read Socrates' brilliant statement that "the unexamined life is not worth living," but perhaps you have less often asked yourself: how can one examine life?

One of the preoccupations of philosophers is to spill the guts of this question and other difficult questions. (And perhaps that is why following the fruits of philosophers' reflections is sometimes not very pleasant: spilled guts are not a pretty sight!)

Imagine you are talking with a friend about a football match you both recently watched. You say that the free kick a certain player took from outside the penalty area, even though it didn't result in a goal, was a very beautiful shot. Your friend, who has recently become a philosophy student, upon hearing this, strikes a Socratic pose and asks: How can a shot be beautiful? Yes, a shot can be technical and skillful, powerful, unstoppable, and so on, but why beautiful? Now, if you both have a taste for this kind of conversation, the next step would be to explore what things we can call "beautiful" and by what criteria, and what beauty is in the first place. (It is also possible that you find his question irrelevant, give no answer, and move on to the next topic: By the way, has the dollar gone up again?)

The philosophical and more technical backstage of such a conversation (the philosophical negative of this conversation) is that philosophers try to bring out the presuppositions of our beliefs, thoughts, and judgments: what other thoughts and beliefs do we have that lead us to consider a shot beautiful? The next step is to see how correct or acceptable those beliefs prior to this belief are: what things have we taken for granted in our basic beliefs and judgments, and how correct are those things assumed to be certain and self-evident?

At least one of the meanings of examining life is this: asking questions that others do not ask. Asking difficult but pertinent questions about important subjects, questions that we do not even know how to answer.

Asking such questions requires intellectual daring and courage. When everyone repeats the same opinion, belief, and claim, it takes a great deal of courage, and additionally, creativity, for someone, like Socrates, to question the certainties and see life from another perspective. If we return to the initial question of this note, the examined life is a life accompanied by reflection and contemplation on important subjects.

These few lines served as an introduction to presenting a new therapeutic school whose founders, by posing fundamental questions about living well, have created a therapeutic revolution and have tried, by examining a very important aspect of our lives, to help us choose a life that is worth living.

P.S.: In Persian, the more famous form of that sentence is: The untested life is not worth living (translation of unexamined life), but in Persian, "testing life" in this context has no clear meaning. On the other hand, the primary meaning of the word examination is investigation, exploration, and question and answer.

Some time ago, I became acquainted with a school at the intersection of philosophy, psychotherapy, and mystical traditions, which, alongside many discoveries and insights, also held the wonder for me of showing that the diverse and seemingly unrelated content of the "Living Well" channel is connected by a single thread: the therapeutic philosophy of "Acceptance and Commitment" (abbreviated as ACT). For this reason, I thought that a greater familiarity with this school should also be interesting and perhaps useful for those who follow the content of this channel.

In the previous post, I wrote that one of the tasks of philosophy (and not its only task!) is to question established presuppositions and beliefs that we consider certain and indisputable. Since the subject of our channel is "Living Well," let us start with our established and common beliefs about the good life. One of the very common and deeply rooted beliefs is the notions we have about happiness and pain and suffering and their relationship with the good life. In most contemporary definitions of happiness and the desirable life, an important component is joy and pleasure. (Even one of the definitions of the project of "spirituality" in our country has been that its ultimate goal is to reach happiness, peace, and hope)

اعتقاد همگانی این است که ما باید از درد و رنج دوری کنیم و شاد باشیم. از قصه‌های کودکی ما بگیرید، که آخر همه‌شان این طور تمام می‌شد که «و پس از آن سالهای سال به خوبی و خوشی در کنار یکدیگر زندگی کردند»، تا جوانی و میانسالی و پیری‌مان که دائما و در مناسبتهای مختلف عید و تولد و عروسی و و و برای همدیگر آرزوی شادی می‌کنیم.

امروزه با تبلیغاتی که از زمین و زمان دربارۀ شادمانی می‌بارد، اگر کسی جرأت کند که این باور مسلّم و بدیهی را به زیر سؤال ببرد، کاری سقراطی کرده است. پرسیدن چنین سوالی اگر در زمانۀ سقراط دشوار بود امروز دشواری‌اش به مراتب بیشتر است. زیرا این پیشفرض حتی بر ذهن روانشناسان و رواندرمانگران نیز مسلط بوده است که ما را از شر افکار و احساسات منفی رها کنند. کتابهای خودیاری دائما به گوشمان می‌خوانند که باید شاد بود و ما چگونه شاد بودن را به شما خواهیم آموخت (یکی از این راه‌حلها مثبت‌اندیشی است، مثبت فکر کنید، شاد خواهید شد! شادی در 21 روز!)

که این‌طور! هر طور شده باید از دست رنج و ترس و خشم و اضطراب و حسرت و حسادت و دیگر احساسات منفی خلاص شویم. این مطلب آن‌قدر بدیهی است که فقط آدمهای آنرمال ممکن است در آن تردید کنند. وضع طبیعی ما شادی است و همه باید شاد باشیم و اگر غیر از این بود ایرادی هست. این گونه است که ما از طرف جامعه، از طرف جمعِ بی‌چهره هل داده می‌شویم که در ماراتن شادی شرکت کنیم.

اما آیا واقعا چنین چیزی ممکن است؟ آمارها که چیز دیگری می‌گوید: از هر پنج نفر یک نفر خلق‌وخوی افسرده دارد. از هر ده نفر یک نفر دچار افسردگی بالینی است. سی درصد از بزرگسالان از یکی از اختلالات روان‌شناختی رنج می‌برند. آمار اعتیاد به الکل و مواد مخدر هم گفتن ندارد(شادی الکل و افیون که نقد است و نیاز به 21 روز هم ندارد!). پس بی‌جهت نیست که قفسۀ کتابهای خودیاری در کتابفروشی‌ها مدام پرتر و سنگین‌تر می‌شود و زیر بار این همه محنت کمر خم می‌کند! بی‌جهت نیست که مطب روانپزشکان هر روز شلوغ‌تر و حق ویزیت‌ها هر روز گران‌تر می‌شود.

حالا معلوم می‌شود که چرا مدام برای یکدیگر آرزوی شادی می‌کنیم: چون پی برده‌ایم که شادی چقدر دیر می‌آید و زیاد نمی‌پاید و زود هم میرود. چرا شاد بودن این قدر دشوار است؟ نکند اساسا ما برای شادی ساخته نشده‌ایم. متاسفانه جواب این سؤال مثبت است. شادی «وضع طبیعی» ما نیست.

از قرار معلوم، ماراتن شادی برای ما ثمری جز اندوه نداشته است. هر چه بیشتر در پی شادی باشیم، رنج و ترس و اضطراب بیشتری نصیبمان خواهد شد. این چیزی است که راس هریس، یکی از قوی‌ترین شارحان مکتب اکت(ACT)، نام آن را «تلۀ شادکامی» (The Happiness Trap) گذاشته است. اما چرا این‌ طور است؟ و چگونه می‌توان از دام شادکامی رها شد؟

اگر شادکامی را به معنای نداشتن درد و رنج و دیگر احوال و احساسات منفی در نظر بگیریم، شادکامی برای ما امری طبیعی نیست. بلکه وضع طبیعی ما از سر گذراندن انواع احساسات و تجربه‌های ذهنیِ منفی اعم از ترس و خشم و رنج و نارضایتی و نگرانی است.(خصوصا در غروب جمعه‌ها!)

امروزه در اوایل قرن بیست و یکم، انسانها (دست‌کم در بسیاری از کشورها) در جهات متعددی به پیشرفت و آسایش رسیده‌اند: پزشکی، بهداشت، مسکن‌، غذا، آموزش، تکنولوژی، تفریح و..

همانطور که راس هریس می‌گوید، زندگی طبقۀ متوسط امروزی بسیار بهتر و مرفه‌تر از زندگی‌ای است که در گذشته‌ای نه چندان دور خانواده‌های سلطنتی تجربه می‌کردند. اما به رغم اینها، احساس بدبختی و ناکامی همچنان بر سر انسان سایه‌گستر است.چرا همچنان ناشادیم؟ اگر شادی برای ما طبیعی نیست، سببش چیست؟

جوابی که در فلسفۀ اکت می‌دهند این است: چون ذهن ما این گونه تکامل پیدا کرده است. بر اساس فلسفۀ اکت، فرایند تکامل ما انسانها جوری بوده است که ذهنِ ما را ناشاد بار آورده است. غم و دیگر احوال منفی (مانند ترس و خشم و نگرانی) در فرایند تکامل ذره ذره در وجود ما تزریق شده است. (نظامهای فلسفی و الهیاتی مختلف ممکن است تبیین‌های دیگری از منشا این ناشاد بودن بنیادین داشته باشند)

If we go back hundreds of thousands of years, early humans, in order to survive, had to be careful not to be eaten by predatory animals, not to die from the cold, to be able to procure food for themselves and their children, and to have shelter. In such conditions, the human mind constantly had to watch out for potential dangers. And the interesting point of the matter is that modern humans, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, still must watch out for dangers. If being cast out of the tribe meant the danger of death from starvation or cold for early humans, today the mind is still anxious lest others reject it or deprive it of nurturance. We may no longer worry about becoming prey to a wolf, but other threats in society are not few: losing one's job, lacking housing and shelter, being deprived of the company of other humans, being left alone, falling ill and having no one to care for us, and so on.

On this basis, our mind constantly reminds us of what we lack, constantly points out dangers: what if this happens, what if that happens? This is the tragic nature of the mind and the tragic nature of life. Accordingly, according to the analysis that the ACT school has of the human condition, all kinds of negative feelings cannot be eliminated. Nor can they be controlled. The more we try to control the mind, the more it will slip out of our control.

Well, so far, that was all bad news! So what can be done? Does acceptance in the title "Acceptance and Commitment" mean that we must endure suffering and other negative feelings and not utter a sound? Should we listen to that saying of Rumi: "In the clutches of a bloodthirsty male lion, what remedy is there but submission and contentment"?

ACT's proposal is not this, but rather establishing a different relationship with the negative feelings and negative messages that the mind sends. A relationship that does not concern itself with the identity of negative feelings but tries to strip them of their negative function. In a word, we must embrace suffering. Suffering is natural. What is normal and standard is pain and suffering, and what is abnormal, rare, brief, and fleeting is happiness. We should listen to that other saying of Rumi: "When you see sorrow, embrace it with love, look toward Damascus from the peak of Rabwah." But how?

What has been said so far has mostly been the negative teachings of Acceptance & Commitment Therapy. In future posts, we will become acquainted with the positive teachings and the philosophical pillars of ACT. Here, it is only necessary to say that the goal of this therapy is neither the avoidance of suffering nor the attainment of happiness (though happiness may be a byproduct of this therapy); the goal is to achieve psychological flexibility.

As I wrote at the beginning of the second note, the atmosphere of the "Good Living" channel up to this point was unconsciously and intuitively in the space of the "Acceptance and Commitment" idea, but from now on, we will become acquainted with the teachings of this school and its therapeutic techniques more consciously and explicitly.

Audiences whose interest or curiosity has been piqued by this brief and hurried report and introduction of mine can begin an exciting journey with the well-written book "The Happiness Trap" (written by Russ Harris, translated by Ali Sahebi and Mehdi Eskandari), but those who are still hesitant to step onto this path can wait for a greater familiarity with this school and its teachings (on this same channel).

.

---

.

A Philosophical Introduction to a Therapeutic School

Author: Babak Abbasi, Faculty Member, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University

.

---

.