Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Rational-emotive therapy (RET) claims to be "humanistic" and derived from the philosophy of the ancient Stoics. The philosophical assumptions evident in Albert Ellis's writings, however, reveal a truer basis of RET to be the philosophy of logical positivism RET cannot be both humanistic and positivistic, for the former affirms and the latter denies the spiritual possibilities of the human being Quotations from principle writers show the Stoics to be grounded in spiritual dimensions which Ellis explicitly rejects. Analysis suggests RET to be philosophically naive and confused. The tone and content of Ellis's writings reveal the evangelical faith of the true believer, which is detrimental in a human services profession.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arbuckle, D.S. Counseling; philosophy, theory and practice. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1965.

Aurelius, M. The meditations of Marcus Aurelius. In The Harvard classics Vol. II. New York : P. F. Collier & Son, 1909 .

Blake, W. Complete writings. London: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Callahan, R.J. Overcoming religious faith: A case history. Rational Living , 1967, 2(1), 16-21.

Ellis, A. Rational-emotive therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1973. (a)

Ellis, A. Humanistic psychotherapy: The rational-emotive approach. New York: Julian Press, 1973. (b)

Ellis, A. , & Harper, R.A. A new guide to rational living. Hollywood, Calif. : Wilshire Book Company, 1973.

Epictetus. The golden sayings of Epictetus. In The Harvard classics. Vol. II. New York: P. F. Collier & Son , 1937.

The Spiritual Poverty of Rational-Emotive Therapy

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References