When you get an external impression of some pleasure, guard yourself, as with impressions in general, against being carried away by it; nay, let the matter wait upon your leisure, and give yourself a little delay. Next think of the two periods of time, first, that in which you will enjoy your pleasure, and second, that in which, after the enjoyment is over, you will later repent and revile your own self; and set over against these two periods of time how much joy and self-satisfaction you will get if you refrain. However, if you feel that a suitable occasion has arisen to do the deed, be careful not to allow its enticement, and sweetness, and attractiveness to overcome you; but set over against all this the thought, how much better is the consciousness of having won a victory over it.

Commentary

This is an important psychological strategy in Stoicism. In response to troubling impressions generally, strong emotions and desires, we should postpone our response until our feelings have naturally abated.

Read more

Check out my recent conversation about Socrates on the We can be Weirdos podcast hosted by Dan Schreiber.

Listen on Apple

Modern behaviour therapists often teach clients to dismantle their troubling experiences into smaller chunks and practice acceptance, or emotional coping, with one aspect at a time rather than being overwhelmed by the whole thing. It’s a bit like the folk-wisdom advice to tackle problems “one step at a time”. In this article, I’m going to describe the modern evidence-based approach and then show how it resembles some psychological advice found in ancient Stoicism. Arguably, the Stoics were, once again, two thousand years ahead of their time in this regard.

The Tin-Can Monster

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is one of the leading forms of modern evidence-based psychotherapy. It’s technically a behaviour therapy, although usually classed as a form of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). Stephen Hayes, the main pioneer of the approach, describes an exercise he calls “Taking Apart the Problem” or the “Tin-Can Monster” metaphor in his self-help book, Get Out of Your Mind & Into Your Life The New Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (originally published in 2005; see the new 20th Anniversary Edition, 2025)), co-authored with Spencer Smith.

Facing our problems is like facing a thirty-foot monster composed of tin cans, wire, and string. In this seemingly overwhelming form, the monster is very difficult to face. If we disassemble him, however, into all the separate cans, wires, and string that he’s made of, each of these pieces is easier to deal with one at a time. — Hayes and Smith, 2025, p. 140

They ask: ”What stands between you and being fully willing to have these pieces of the tin-can monster be what they are, without allowing them to play a destructive role in your life?” As we’ll see, this is strikingly similar to a Stoic contemplation practice described by Marcus Aurelius who tells himself to break his worries down into smaller chunks and ask of each one in turn: “What is there in this which is intolerable and unbearable?”

It could be the content of worries that we break down in this way, problems we face, memories that trouble us, or sensations we experience. For example, in the clinical textbook Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change (2012) by Hayes, Strosahl, and Wilson, we find the attitude of acceptance in the “Tin-Can Monster” exercise described to clients as follows:

“OK. So, continue to look for things your body does, but this time just look very dispassionately at all the little things that may happen in your body, and we will just touch each and move on. So, with each reaction just acknowledge it, like you would tip your hat to a person on the street. Sort of pat each on the head, and then look for the next one. And each time see if you can welcome that bodily sensation without struggling with it or trying to make it go away. In a sense, see if you can welcome it, like you would welcome a visitor to your home.” — Hayes, Strosahl, and Wilson, 2012, p. 287

We can describe this attitude in a number of ways. It’s a form of emotional acceptance, and an attitude of flexibility and curiosity. It can also be understood as a way of viewing our troubling experiences as more natural or normal, or at least not as threats. We might compare that another form of acceptance found in ancient Stoicism, which consists in learning to view unpleasant experiences as “dispreferred indifferents”, rather than as intrinsically harmful.

Early Stoic Psychotherapy

At the start of the 20th century, the Swiss psychiatrist Paul Dubois founded a form of rational psychotherapy, which for a while rivaled Freudian psychoanalysis. Dubois was directly inspired by Socrates and the Stoics, and used to prescribe reading Seneca’s letters to his patients.

In Psychic Treatment of Nervous Disorders, Dubois explains the Stoic attitude of acceptance through the following remarkable anecdote:

A young man into whom I tried to instil a few principles of stoicism towards ailments stopped me at the first words, saying, “I understand, doctor; let me show you.” And taking a pencil he drew a large black spot on a piece of paper. “This,” said he, “is the disease, in its most general sense, the physical trouble – rheumatism, toothache, what you will – moral trouble, sadness, discouragement, melancholy. If I acknowledge it by fixing my attention upon it, I already trace a circle to the periphery of the black spot, and it has become larger. If I affirm it with acerbity the spot is increased by a new circle. There I am, busied with my pain, hunting for means to get rid of it, and the spot only becomes larger. If I preoccupy myself with it, if I fear the consequences, if I see the future gloomily, I have doubled or trebled the original spot.” And, showing me the central point of the circle, the trouble reduced to its simplest expression, he said with a smile, “Should I not have done better to leave it as it was?”

“One exaggerates, imagines, anticipates affliction,” wrote Seneca. For a long time, I have told my discouraged patients and have repeated to myself, “Do not let us build a second story to our sorrow by being sorry for our sorrow.” — Dubois, 1909, pp. 235-236

Dubois had many followers, including Charles Baudouin, who described the methods of “pitiless analysis” through which Stoicism exposes the ultimate worthlessness of external (“indifferent”) things, despite their being valued, or feared, by the majority of people. In his self-help book, The Inner Discipline, Baudouin describes the Stoic strategy of patiently and objectively analyzing troubling events into their constituent parts as if from the detached, perspective of natural philosophy.

The principle that underlies the [Stoic] method may be described as depreciation by analysis. When we decompose into its constituent parts the object which has been of so much concern to us, we shall realise that it is a matter of no moment (much as a child which has pulled a toy to pieces is disillusioned, and says, “Is that all it is?” — Baudouin & Lestchinsky, 1924, p. 48

They explain:

But this is the aim of the Stoic discipline. The Stoics wish to persuade us in such a case […] that the unattainable object of desire is not worth the trouble, after all; or that something which hurts or vexes us is really not worth bothering about. We must learn to feel, as well as to say, “‘ No matter!” or “’Tis a thing of no consequence.”’ — Baudouin & Lestchinsky, 1924, p. 48

They illustrate this with a barrage of quotations from the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

Such arguments embody a tactic of persuasion akin to that characteristic of one of the modern methods of psychotherapeutics. The aim is to keep before the mind the considerations tending to convince us that the objects we so ardently desire [or fear] are worthless. The Stoical method of depreciation is undoubtedly effective—perhaps too effective. — Baudouin & Lestchinsky, 1924, p. 48

So here we have a modern rational psychotherapist, nearly a century before Acceptance and Commitment Therapy was created, describing a technique similar to ACT’s “Taking Apart the Problem”, which he calls “Depreciation by Analysis”, and attributing it to the Stoics, specifically Marcus Aurelius.

Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius led a dance troupe as a young man. According to the Historia Augusta, Marcus was inducted into the College of the Salii, or Dancing Priests, when he was eight years old, and eventually went on to become its leader. The Salii were an archaic Roman religious order who chanted obscure phrases to the music of flutes and drums and performed athletic dances, while wielding ancient shields and spears. It was an impressive theatrical spectacle, probably carried out by torchlight, and dedicated to Mars, the god of war.

Marcus refers several times to dancing and music in the Meditations. In one striking passage, he turns his attention to the power that music and dance have to transport us into a different emotional state, almost like we’re entranced. However, when we analyze the performance into its individual sounds and movements, the spell is often broken.

You’ll think little of the delights of song or dance or if you divide the melody up into its individual notes and ask yourself, in the case of each note, whether you’d be carried away by it—something you’d be reluctant to admit. The same goes for dance too, if by an equivalent process you break it down into its separate movements or postures, and do the same for pancratium [the combat sport] as well. In general, then, with the exception of virtue and virtuous action, remember to go straight to the component parts of everything; dividing things up like this will encourage you to think little of them. Then apply this procedure to your whole life as well. — Meditations, 11.2, Waterfield

Like taking apart the Tin-Can Monster, and finding only bits of old junk, when we break down a moving theatrical performance, it loses its power to evoke our emotions. Perhaps Marcus was thinking of his time in the College of the Salii, and how during rehearsals, studying the individual phrases to be chanted and practising his dance moves, the whole thing may have seemed quite mundane. The final performance, though, before a full audience, would have been an electrifying experience.

This phenomenon might temporarily diminish our enjoyment of a work of art. However, it could be very useful when applied to our worries. Indeed, we can think of worrying or morbid rumination as a form of self-hypnosis, or a deeply troubling story that we tell ourselves. Breaking our problems down into their elements, and facing one small aspect at a time, allows us to question whether the experience is truly unbearable, or as catastrophic as it seemed when we were carried away by worrying.

Do not disturb yourself by thinking of the whole of your life. Do not let your thoughts at once embrace all the various troubles which you may expect to befall you. But on every occasion ask yourself, “What is there in this which is intolerable and past bearing?” For you will be ashamed to confess it. In the next place remember that neither the future nor the past pains you, but only the present. But this is reduced to a very little, if you only circumscribe it, and chide your mind if it is unable to hold out against even this. — Meditations, 8.36, Long

As we’ve seen, essentially the same technique is found in modern psychotherapy. Whether we call it “Taking Apart the Problem”, as they do in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, or “Depreciation by Analysis”, Baudouin’s term, the similarities with what Marcus Aurelius was doing are obvious enough. Indeed, throughout the Meditations, this is a recurring theme. When we strip things down, analyze their constituents, and take things one step at a time, what initially seemed totally overwhelming can become more bearable.

Check out my recent conversation with Niall for the Weekend University podcast.

More sayings from the same passage in Epictetus’ Handbook. I’ll comment on each in turn.

If someone brings you word that So-and-so is speaking ill of you, do not defend yourself against what has been said, but answer, “Yes, indeed, for he did not know the rest of the faults that attach to me; if he had, these would not have been the only ones he mentioned.”

Commentary 1

This seems like an example of humour, although making a serious point. We shouldn’t be concerned about people criticizing us. We should remind ourselves that we have many other flaws. Marcus Aurelius lists a similar strategy for coping with anger: reminding himself that he is imperfect himself and has many flaws and perhaps given the opportunity would make the same mistakes as the person he’s angry with. It’s also an example of the Stoics practicing Socratic irony, or intellectual humility, by emphasizing their own fallibility and imperfection.

Read more

In this article, I’m going to explain why I think the concept of “intolerance” is so useful in understanding and overcoming anger.

One of the fundamental dilemmas of human life, with which the Stoics among others wrestled, is what I call “squaring the circle of concern.” How do we care enough about the world to live ethically, and avoid indifference, but not so much that we drive ourselves crazy? Where is the via media, the middle way, between apathy and neuroticism? The sweet spot, for example, is to be able to disapprove of injustice, without getting depressed or enraged about it.

In this article, I’ll draw on some ideas from Stoic philosophy and Albert Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT). Ellis proposed that most of our emotional problems are rooted in rigid and absolute demands, such as “must”, “have to”, “got to”, and “need to” statements. These sorts of attitudes are usually front and centre in anger, where we may, for instance, become enraged because we feel that “People MUST respect me” — when that inevitably does not happen, frustration and anger follow. REBT challenges these attitudes.

Ellis identified several other types of irrational beliefs that play a role in anger and other emotions. These are awfulizing, or exaggerating how bad something is, self-downing or other-downing, judging yourself or another person to be worthless and rotten through and through, and what Ellis called Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT). LFT originally referred to the belief that it is completely unbearable when our desires, or rigid demands, are not met — the attitude that ensuing feelings of frustration simply cannot be endured. This can be expressed in a variety of ways. When you catch yourself saying that something is “intolerable”, “unbearable”, that it’s “too much”, “overwhelming”, or that you “can’t stand it”, that’s Low Frustration Tolerance. Ellis also liked to call it I-can’t-stand-it-itis.

Over time that concept became slightly broader in scope. Sometimes it’s referred to more generally as Low Discomfort Tolerance. It is related to a family of other concepts that have become increasingly important in modern clinical psychology, such as intolerance of uncertainty, intolerance of anxiety, and so on. I therefore tend to think quite broadly in terms of attitudes of intolerance that maintain emotional problems. You may be intolerant of internal thoughts or feelings, or external people or events. If I firmly believe that I cannot stand something, I will probably also feel that I absolutely must avoid or get rid of it.

Not all beliefs are created equal. Different types of beliefs function differently, in relation to our emotions, and respond to different forms of cognitive disputation in therapy. For that reason, over time, I’ve come to place more emphasis on challenging Low Frustration Tolerance and other attitudes of intolerance. Where these beliefs are hidden, it’s worth seeking them out, as there are potential benefits to attacking the emotional problem from this angle, especially in the case of anger.

Tolerance and Emotional Coping

Let me give some examples. Stress and emotions such as anxiety and anger have, since the 1960s, often been interpreted in terms of dual-factor models of cognitive appraisal, based on the work of a pioneering researcher called Richard Lazarus. Lazarus distinguished between:

• Primary appraisal of threat, the perception that some event has or is about to harm you or your interests

• Secondary appraisal of coping, the sense of your own capacity to deal with the threat, which is further divided into problem-oriented (“How do I fix this?”) and emotion-oriented (“How do I learn to live with this?”) styles of coping

Of course, similar ideas already existed, and Ellis, who developed his approach prior to this research, back in the 1950s, can be viewed as talking about exaggerated threat appraisal as “awfulizing” and negative appraisal of (emotional) coping as Low Frustration Tolerance.

Exaggerated threat appraisal tends to get all of the attention. However, strengthening coping appraisal has many benefits. If I challenge how “awful” some event is, the new attitude will tend to be limited to similar situations. However, when I improve my confidence and flexibility in terms of coping, the change in attitude often generalizes much more, creating improved emotional resilience in a broader sense. If I can cope with this, I can cope with anything! Or at least, I can cope with a bunch of other problems in life. That’s arguably because the threat appraisal usually applies to a specific type of situation, whereas the coping appraisal is about me — it changes my attitude toward myself, my self-image, and I bring that to every future situation.

Building High Frustration Tolerance is the royal road to emotional resilience. You can think of tolerance or acceptance, and related concepts, as forms of emotion-oriented coping. If tolerance is a general strategy for coping we can perhaps break it down into specific tactics, at a more granular level, such as refraining from avoidance or any struggle against our feelings. We may also learn to tolerate discomfort or unpleasant experiences by finding a new perspective on them, perhaps viewing them not as threats but rather as opportunities for personal growth. You may find that physical techniques help you to accept unpleasant feelings, such as breathing deeply through the discomfort. In fact, there are many other ways in which you can help yourself to cultivate greater tolerance or acceptance but, at least in my view, the most important, and most elegant, solution is to change your underlying attitude to one of greater confidence in your willingness and ability to cope. You already have numerous skills and resources, more than you assume, which will help you to endure the things you previously avoided, without getting enraged about them.

Developing more tolerance and acceptance can also contribute to a sense of fulfilment, insofar as it can be directly linked to character strengths and core values. Ask yourself what sort of people you admire and what sort of person you want to be? What sort of character do you value? Do you want to be a wise human being? Someone who exhibits temperance? A good husband or wife, a good parent, a good boss? How does greater tolerance of discomfort or situations and people you dislike potentially shape your character — what virtues does it exemplify?

Again, with all this talk of acceptance, tolerance, bearing things, and accepting things, you may worry that it’s going to turn you into a doormat. That’s the most common objection people have. However, try to distinguish emotional acceptance from moral acceptance. You can accept the reality and even the inevitability that people will sometimes do unjust things, and cope emotionally, without resigning yourself to passivity or inertia.

In fact, the great paradox of acceptance is that it is often only by learning to tolerate the experience that we can actually change the outcome. If you want to fight injustice, in other words, you would be much better to accept that people are fallible, and stop complaining about it and upsetting yourself excessively. Instead, face the facts, disapprove of it without getting worked up about it, and start figuring out what you can actually do to make the world a better place. Think of “This must not happen!” and “I can’t stand it!” as crossing the line from desire into a form of denial — but you will need to adopt a more realistic attitude if you want to solve problems.

Common Irrational Beliefs in Anger

You can often infer intolerant beliefs from other beliefs, such as rigid demands. If you feel that you “must” have something, it arguably implies that you can’t stand not getting it. Here are some common rigid demands that characterize anger with examples of corresponding intolerant beliefs.

• “People must respect me.” > “I can’t stand the idea that someone has disrespected me.”

• “People must do what I want.” > “I can’t stand it when someone doesn’t do what I want.”

• “People must agree with my opinions.” > “I can’t stand it when people disagree with me.”

• “I must vent my feelings to gain relief.” > “I can’t stand experiencing these feelings without expressing them.”

• “I must suppress my feelings and avoid the ideas that upset me.” > “I can’t stand experiencing these feelings or the ideas that upset me.”

• “I must ruminate about my feelings and dwell on the things that upset me.” > “I can’t stand having these feelings without ruminating about them, and leaving problems unresolved.”

• “I must retaliate against the people who upset me.” > “I can’t stand the idea of letting someone who offended me get away with it and go unpunished.”

Disputing Your Intolerance

Settle on one rigid or extreme belief that expresses your intolerance, and begin challenging it systematically. Here are some questions that may help you:

• Define “intolerable”? Do you really mean that it’s impossible to endure or just very difficult and unpleasant to endure?

• Where is the evidence that you literally can’t stand this?

• Haven’t you already managed to endure similar, or even worse, things in the past?

• How does it logically follow, just because you really don’t like it, that you’re completely incapable of tolerating it?

• Do other people, such as wise and rational individuals, believe that similar experiences are intolerable?

• Is it potentially just a self-fulfilling prophecy: whether you believe you “can” or “cannot” tolerate this, either way, won’t you prove yourself right?

• When you say you “can’t stand” this, are you just exaggerating how bad it is?

• Could you be underestimating your ability to cope?

• Is it really all-or-nothing? How intolerable is it on a scale from 0-100%? Why is it not 100% intolerable?

• Would it be tolerable in another context, such as in a different time or place? How can it be inherently intolerable if sometimes it’s tolerable and sometimes it isn’t?

• Does how intolerable it seems not depend on how you choose to cope with it?

• What resources, character strengths, or skills, do you have that would potentially allow you to endure this?

• Where does telling yourself it’s intolerable get you in the long-run?

• What would you potentially gain by tolerating it?

• How is intolerance for this consistent with your core values and the type of person you want to be in life?

As you practice disputing your rigid beliefs, you will naturally begin to formulate more rational and flexible ways of thinking, which exemplify greater tolerance of discomfort, and the events and people who were triggering your anger.

Some Rational Alternatives

Here are some examples of more adaptive beliefs:

• “I don’t like it when people disrespect me but I can endure it and I will survive.”

• “I prefer it when people do what I want but if they don’t, I can live with that.”

• “I like it when people agree with me but if they don’t, I can handle that.”

• “I can accept unpleasant feelings, and endure the discomfort, without having to vent them.”

• “I don’t like these thoughts and feelings but I can experience them without having to try to get rid of them.”

• “I can tolerate having these feelings without ruminating about them.”

• “I don’t like it when people upset me but I can handle accepting the feelings and letting things go, without the need to retaliate.”

Find rational alternatives to the specific forms of intolerance that were contributing to your anger. Practice repeating them as coping statements every day, until they become second nature. Carry out regular “exposure based” behavioural experiments by facing your triggers and rehearsing rational and tolerant ways of thinking, like those above, until you actually begin to feel less angry. For instance, if the news makes you angry, sit down very deliberately at a specified time each day and watch the most annoying broadcasters you can find. (This is easy if you’re an American because the major news channels often seem deliberately designed to rage farm!) Make yourself listen to politicians you “can’t stand” giving speeches. As you do so, just remember, your goal isn’t to rehearse the irrational and extreme thinking we talked about earlier, your old habits, but to rehearse the new flexible way of thinking, and create new habits.

Your goal is neither apathy nor outrage but rational concern and healthy disapproval — the middle way. “I really don’t like what this politician is doing, but I can stand it without getting angry”, “I really strongly object to the injustices around the world, but I can tolerate learning about them without getting highly upset”, and so on. If you want to think about this in terms of modern affective neuroscience, you are training repeatedly yourself, in response to your anger triggers, to get into the habit of shifting dominance from your limbic system, the primitive emotional FEAR system, to your prefrontal cortex, and a rational problem-solving mode of functioning.

Unconditional Acceptance

Later in his career, Ellis increasingly focused on the ideal of unconditional acceptance. He distinguished between self-acceptance, other-acceptance, and life-acceptance. Sometimes, especially if you’ve already made progress on changing your attitudes, and developing high frustration tolerance, in specific situations, it can be helpful to focus on the more general goal of developing an attitude of unconditional acceptance toward yourself and other people. Again, that doesn’t mean doing nothing to prevent unethical or unjust behaviour. On the contrary, it means accepting reality at an emotional level, abandoning denial, and being prepared to make realistic changes.

I sometimes approach this by asking: “What prevents you from just accepting yourself and other people, unconditionally, warts and all?” For example, try disputing these beliefs:

• “I cannot accept myself unconditionally, as an imperfect and fallible human being.”

• “I cannot accept other people unconditionally, as imperfect and fallible human beings.”

Where’s the evidence for those “I can’t” beliefs? Objectively speaking, how true is this in reality 0-100%? Why don’t you believe it 100%? Where do they get you in the long-run? What might you potentially gain by adopting an attitude of unconditional acceptance?

Once you’ve become more skilled and confident at disputing any intolerance of your own or other people’s imperfections, in general, you can practice replacing it with an attitude of rational acceptance. For example:

• “I don’t like it when I make mistakes, or exhibit flaws, but I can nevertheless accept myself unconditionally as an imperfect and fallible human being.”

• “I don’t like it when other people make mistakes, or exhibit flaws, but I can nevertheless accept them unconditionally as imperfect and fallible human beings.”

Often you’ll find that you benefit from going back and forth, occasionally, between rehearsing more specific attitudes toward certain feelings or external triggers, and more general attitudes of unconditional acceptance. It’s not easy. It takes patience and effort. But in this way you’ll transform a lot of anger and frustration into healthy concern, and a mindset more capable of problem-solving.

In this article, I’m going to describe in plain language how I advise people to cope with anxiety, anger, sadness, and other troubling emotions.

Most of the coaching that I currently do draws on the Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) of Albert Ellis, as well as elements of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and other modern evidence-based therapies. However, I use a version of Aaron T. Beck’s AWARE acronym, from Cognitive Therapy, to summarize my advice about coping with certain emotions, as I find that can make the steps easier to remember.

1. A = Accept your Feelings

2. W = Watch your Thoughts

3. A = Act in Accord with your Values

4. R = Repeat Rational Statements

5. E = Exercise Between Episodes

I suggest that, to get started, you give yourself “self-instructions”, as if coaching yourself verbally, in your mind, through various changes in attitude, attention, and behaviour. For example: “Slow down, pause, notice your anger”, etc. Over time, however, you’ll be able to abbreviate these instructions, and finally abandon most of them. Self-talk works best as a temporary stepping-stone until, through practice, you’ve completely internalized your own guidance and the coping skills it describes have become second nature. In particular, you will probably find that in a stressful situation it can overload your brain if you try to give yourself too many verbal instructions at once.

So begin, very simply, by coaching yourself through the acceptance part below. Next, perhaps after several days, shift the emphasis to watching your thoughts. Once you’ve made some more progress, begin repeating a rational coping statement. That’s the most systematic way to proceed but you can also pick the instructions you find most helpful and just focus on those for a while. Remember, consistency is the goal rather than perfection. You will gain both skill and confidence with practice.

Five Ways to be AWARE

A = Accept your Feelings

Most people blur the distinction between their initial automatic feelings and the layers of feelings that they create in response. We very often get second-order distress by making ourselves upset about getting upset. You may get anxious about your anxiety, sadness, or anger; sad about your sadness, anxiety, or anger; angry about your anger, anxiety, or sadness, and so on, piling pain on top of pain. Second order distress not only adds another layer to our initial suffering, it often prevents the original feelings from running their course naturally, and fading over time — getting upset with yourself in this way, in other words, can lock your painful emotions in place and perpetuate them indefinitely.

So look out for the earliest signs of anxiety or other emotions and accept the initial surge of feeling without adding to it. Peel back the label “ANXIETY”, “SADNESS”, “ANGER”, or whatever you call it, and look long and hard at the raw sensations underneath — perhaps your heart is beating faster than normal, or some tension in your muscles. Often these are sensations you experience in other contexts — such as during exercise or when overjoyed — without any suffering at all. View these raw sensations as natural and harmless, therefore, and allow them to come and go freely. The struggle just makes you tense up — but you’re battling against yourself. By accepting your feelings and letting go of any struggle against them, ironically, you’ll find they become less of a problem. Your brain will be able to process them naturally and move on in its own time. Feelings seldom remain the same — they’re transient and dynamic. Your initial surge of emotion will usually abate naturally, if you stop fighting to control or avoid it. So grasp the nettle and consciously decide to sit with your painful feelings for longer than normal.

Many people report that it helps to consciously tell themselves to slow down, pause, and wait for their feelings to run their course. You can literally tell yourself: “Stop”, “Wait”, “Slow down”, “Just a minute” — to buy yourself time. Sometimes this is called: Stop and Think. It only takes a few moments to shift the balance back in your favour. At first, you may also find it helpful to say to yourself: “I notice anger”, “I feel anxiety”, “This is sadness emerging”, etc. This is called “affect labelling” — just naming the feeling without evaluation — and many people find it surprisingly helpful.

If you have enough mental bandwidth, and want to go further, you could try saying “Right now, I am aware of tensing my shoulders” or “Right now, I am aware of my heart beating a little faster”, saying these words slowly to ground your attention for longer than normal in your bodily sensations at a more granular level. Doing this helps to shift your brain’s activity away from being dominated by emotional circuits, such as what neuroscientists call the FEAR, RAGE, or GRIEF systems, and toward executive control, and the prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain designed for rational problem-solving.

Some people find it helps to take a deep breath, and to let go of some tension — just introducing more of a pause, without trying too hard to relax. Over time, you will probably find you can slow down, pause, shift your awareness onto your feelings, accept them completely, and so on, without having to give yourself explicit verbal instructions. If you’re really feeling overwhelmed, just focus on this initial stage, and come back to the rest of the AWARE acronym later. You will find, however, that as you get better and more consistent at shifting your attention onto your feelings and accepting them for longer than normal, it becomes much easier for you to observe your own thoughts impartially.

W = Watch your Thoughts

Accepting your feelings is very important but it’s also necessary to detach from unhelpful thoughts and attitudes. The first step is to notice what they are. You may be very conscious of certain words or sentences flashing through your mind — we call these negative automatic thoughts. In many cases, though, you’ll have to infer what your underlying thoughts are in the situation. That’s often obvious from your feelings and actions. For instance, you may be acting as if you believe the situation is extremely bad or dangerous or as if you’re harshly blaming yourself or someone else. You will often notice that the more intense your feelings are, the more rigid and extreme your thinking tends to become. The first step in becoming aware of your thoughts, if they are not already consciously verbalized, is to put them into words. During an episode of strong emotion, you’ll typically have limited time and mental bandwidth available, so don’t overthink this, but do try to articulate what it feels as if you’re thinking.

Observe your thought in real-time, as they happen, almost as if you’re observing someone else’s thoughts. You can help yourself do this by slowing them down or repeating them in a sing-song voice or a different accent. When you’re ready, or if it seems helpful, you can do this instead of giving yourself instructions to accept your feelings. Moreover, if you have the time, you can say to yourself “Right now, I am having the thought ‘________’”, and then name the thought. View it as if you’re placing it inside scare quotes or as if you’re writing it down on a piece of paper, in your mind. The key to accepting upsetting thoughts without buying into them, is to shift perspective in this way, as if you’re looking at them from a different angle, with a sense of curiosity and detachment. Similarly, instead of thinking “This is awful” some people prefer to slow down, pause, and tell themselves “I am currently evaluating this as awful”, in order to take more ownership over their thinking.

A = Act in Accord with your Values

At first, the best advice is usually to do nothing, except wait, in most situations where you experience unhealthy emotions. The biggest step is abandoning unhealthy coping strategies such as avoidance, seeking reassurance from others, rumination or worrying, venting, and so on. Don’t do anything that’s going to cause more problems, in other words. Just buy yourself time, while you focus on accepting your feelings and watching your thoughts with detachment. If there’s a real problem, and it isn’t absolutely urgent, you will often find it’s better to defer trying to think of a solution until later when your feelings have naturally abated, and you’re able to think more calmly and rationally — as in “worry postponement”. Likewise, if you’re getting upset with another person, it’s often best to take a “time out” until you’ve regained your composure, before deciding what to say to them. Even the most “assertive” words can come across as aggressive if said through gritted teeth, while emotions are still heated.

Ultimately, though, it’s useful to consider acting in a way that’s in accord with your core character-based values (aka “virtues”) rather than driven by how you feel. For many people, one of the most fundamental changes comes simply by realizing that just because you feel like doing something, it doesn’t mean you have to actually do it. When you feel anxious, you may have a powerful urge to flee the situation, for instance. If you value resilience, though, acting in accord with that may mean staying in the situation for longer. When people practice sitting with a feeling without doing what it seems to be demanding — like having an itch without scratching it — therapists call that “urge surfing”.

Here are some things you’re usually best to quit doing:

• Avoiding unpleasant situations, procrastinating or putting them off, in a way that creates more problems than it solves.

• Ruminating about the past trying to “understand what it means” or “learn something” in order to “fix” your problems

• Worrying about the future and circular “What if this happens” / “How will I cope?” thinking.

• Venting, complaining, arguing, or going on about your problems too much to other people.

• Over-preparing for tasks, in a way that’s unhelpful and driven by anxiety.

• Compulsive reassurance-seeking, which doesn’t solve your problems and makes you feel temporarily better but keeps your distress alive for longer.

• Self-flagellation, self-criticism, beating yourself up, or giving yourself a hard time, in a way that’s meant to motivate self-improvement but actually does the opposite in the long-run.

• Distraction, diversion, using drugs or alcohol, or pornography, in ways that temporarily relieve distress but don’t ultimately help you learn how to cope with your feelings or solve real problems.

Facing your fears and linking your actions to your core values has many psychological benefits, although it can take a little effort to adopt this perspective at first. It can also be helpful to think about the longer-term consequences of your actions. If you have the mental bandwidth available, you could ask yourself: “How will this work out for me?”, “Will I regret this later?” or “What would someone I admire do in this situation?” Notice that you don’t always have to be able to answer these questions. Simply asking them involves shifting your attention in a way that will tend to change the balance of your emotions, buy you more time, and allow you to bring your rational mode of thinking back to the fore.

R = Repeat Rational Statements

When your emotions are strong, focus on acceptance and observation. Over time, by practising the steps above, you will probably find that you are able to catch emotions earlier, improve your self-awareness, sit with your feelings, notice your thoughts, and introduce more of a pause between stimulus and response. When your emotions have settled, you’ll be in a much better position to dispute unhelpful ways of thinking and challenge your underlying irrational beliefs.

When you’re ready, therefore, you may want to begin repeating a rational coping statement, derived from disputation exercises you’ve been doing between experiencing episodes of strong emotion (see below). Keep accepting your feelings and observing your negative thoughts and attitudes but, by this stage, you may find it easier to drop the self-instructions we mentioned above. Just focus on adopting the rational beliefs that are most relevant to your situation. For example:

• “I really prefer it when people do what I want, but I don’t NEED them to do so.”

• “This may be highly inconvenient but it’s not AWFUL.”

• “I can accept myself as fallible; if I sometimes make mistakes, it doesn’t mean I’m a FAILURE.”

• “This may be difficult and unpleasant but it’s not UNBEARABLE; I can cope”, and so on.

Repeat your self-statement about three times, as if you really believe it at an emotional level, and try to think, feel, and act as if that’s the type of person you are now becoming in these sorts of situations, and in life generally.

E = Exercise between Episodes

You can describe the steps above as reactive coping strategies, meaning that they’re designed to be quick and simple, for use when your emotions have already been triggered, and you may not have much time or mental capacity available. In addition to that, though, you should exercise before and after bouts of anxiety, and other troubling emotions. For example, I tend to encourage clients to challenge beliefs derived from the Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) model of Albert Ellis, such as the following:

• “Life MUST turn out how I want, otherwise it’s AWFUL.”

• “People MUST approve of me, otherwise I’m WORTHLESS.”

• “People MUST do what I want, otherwise they’re IDIOTS.”

• “I MUST always succeed at what I do, otherwise I’m a FAILURE.”

• “I MUST never feel anxious or upset otherwise it’s UNBEARABLE”, and so on.

Between times, when your emotions are not fully activated, you will have much more mental bandwidth available, which means you can actively dispute the underlying beliefs that cause your emotions, much more systematically and vigorously. For example, you may work on challenging your underlying beliefs in therapy or coaching sessions, or do so between sessions by completing a worksheet.

It’s a good idea to replace beliefs about unpleasant feelings being unbearable, which Ellis called “Low Frustration Tolerance” or “I-can’t-stand-it-itis”, with an attitude such as “I don’t like these feelings, but I can stand them.” That rational, flexible attitude toward will help you do the first A of AWARE by accepting your initial feelings. Certain ways of disputing the evidence for irrational beliefs can help you with the W of AWARE or watching thoughts in a detached manner, e.g., if asking “Where is this written in stone?” leads you to realize that your rigid rules, the SHOULDs and MUSTs, are subjective opinions not objective facts — they only exist in your head. Likewise, disputing beliefs about coping such as “I MUST seek reassurance whenever I feel upset” can help you with the second A and abandoning unhealthy emotion-driven behaviour.

You get back what you put into cognitive disputation. Challenging beliefs in writing can often make the ideas more memorable, precisely because it takes slightly more patience and effort. Keep challenging your core irrational beliefs from different angles — I can assure you there are lots of reasons why it’s irrational to rigidly demand things SHOULD be different that you don’t control, or that have already happened anyway. Persuade yourself that these are not facts but just subjective rules you’re imposing on yourself, or labels you’re attaching to people or events — it’s just a bunch of words you’re telling yourself at the end of the day. Changing your evaluative beliefs will, however, change your emotions to a greater extent than most people tend to assume.

Conclusion

Here’s a concrete example, for someone attempting to overcome anger in response to the perception that someone has insulted them.

• A: Accepts the initial sensations and uncomfortable feelings, in this case feelings of emotional hurt that precede the anger, and sits with them for longer than normal, without responding. Initially, coaches himself through the process of coping with his feelings by instructing himself to “Slow down, pause”, etc. Practices affective labelling by telling himself: “I notice anger”, “Right now, I am clenching my jaw slightly”, etc. (Over time these self-instructions are faded, but the acceptance and self-awareness skills are maintained.)

• W: Watches his thoughts from a detached perspective, e.g., notices thoughts such as “What a jerk!”, and “Why would anyone do that?” flashing through his mind. Also, notices that his unspoken attitude is “People MUST treat me with respect”, which he verbalizes to himself. Practices adopting a detached perspective by telling himself: “Right now, I am having the thought ‘What a jerk!’”, etc. (Again, this self-talk can be faded over time, as long as the skill of detachment remains.)

• A: Acts in accord with his values, not acting out the anger. At first, he does nothing, but waits, rather than yelling or getting into an argument. He takes a time-out and excuses himself from the situation until he has regained his composure enough to respond rationally and assertively, in accord with the value he places on being wise and courageous.

• R: During subsequent episodes, in addition to the preceding strategies, he begins repeating rational statements to himself, based on the disputation exercises he has been doing between sessions. For example, he tells himself, three times, “I don’t like it when people seem to disrespect me but I can handle it” or “I strongly prefer it when people treat me with respect but I don’t absolutely need them to do so; I can deal with it.” These rational coping statements replace the previous self-instructions. He repeats them as if he believes them 100% and tries to act accordingly.

• E: Between episodes of anger he systematically challenges his irrational beliefs by disputing them in written exercises and in coaching sessions. He identifies irrational beliefs such as “People MUST respect me otherwise it’s AWFUL”, asking himself how this attitude can be realistic, rational, or helpful. He identifies rational alternative beliefs which can be turned into the brief rational coping statements above, for use during future episodes of anger.

Coping wisely with strong emotions, especially by using the skills above, will tend to weaken the underlying beliefs that predispose you to experience them. Likewise, challenging those beliefs between episodes, will tend to make it much easier for you to cope during episodes. In other words, there’s a reciprocal, or circular, relationship between proactive and reactive coping. By changing what you do between and during episodes of anxiety, sadness, or anger, you can create new habits and break the vicious cycle of unhealthy emotions.

Check out my latest appearance on the Modern Wisdom podcast with Chris Williamson.

This (modified) excerpt from How to Think Like Socrates, relates some of the events that occurred following the surrender of Athens at the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War.

Get the Book

Theramenes, after meeting with the Spartans, returned with the news that Athens would be spared if the Long Walls and fortifications of Piraeus were leveled and all but twelve of their ships given up. The Athenians, the terms read, must have “the same friends and enemies” as the Spartans, and be led by them in war, on land or sea. Finally, all exiles must be recalled, including aristocrats sympathetic to Sparta, who would form an oligarchic government. The Assembly was forced to accept. The Spartans proclaimed they had set all of Greece free from Athenian tyranny. While flute girls played in celebration, the defeated citizens of Athens were forced to tear down their precious defenses with their own hands.

The Athenian Assembly met, surrounded by soldiers, and appointed thirty Oligarchs to revise the constitution, modelling it on that of Sparta. The leaders were to be Critias, the former student of Socrates and friend of Alcibiades; Charicles, a radical who had led prosecutions over the scandal of the herms; and Theramenes, the moderate who had served as a general under Alcibiades and had been the first to call for his return from exile following the Sicilian Expedition. The Spartans left this junta to govern Athens on their behalf— they would later become infamous as the “Thirty Tyrants.”

Critias soon became intoxicated by his newfound power and, still bitter over his recent exile, he claimed his revenge. The Oligarchs’ first step was to appoint their own magistrates. In a move that earned praise from most of the citizens, they began prosecuting the paid informers used by Cleon and other demagogues. Before long, however, the Oligarchs also recruited three hundred lash- bearers to enforce their decrees. The citizens, too afraid to complain, watched powerless as the Thirty took the opportunity to settle old scores, putting to death anyone who had testified against them during the democracy, commencing with the most vulnerable citizens. Next, they asked Sparta to provide a garrison of soldiers, who acted as their bodyguards and emboldened Critias and the other Oligarchs to start arresting more prominent citizens, including not only their personal enemies but those whose wealth or reputation they saw as a threat to their regime.

When Theramenes saw his colleagues exploiting their power to seek revenge, he tried to counsel moderation. “What sense is there,” he asked Critias, “in putting to death those men who supported the democracy but never harmed the aristocrats?” “Both you and I,” he said, “did things in the past to curry favor with the people.” That was how politics worked, after all, under the democracy— everyone, at times, had acted like a demagogue. Critias sighed. “You are being naive, my friend, if you think that just because there are thirty of us, we don’t have to watch our backs as carefully as a tyrant does, who rules alone. We have no choice but to rid ourselves of those most likely to oppose our rule.”

To prevent any attempts at resistance, Critias decreed the exiled Democrat leaders to be outlaws— any man could take their lives with impunity. Alcibiades, though once his friend, had been the first to be killed. Next on the list was Thrasybulus, the Democrat general, now exiled to Thebes, who had fought alongside Alcibiades and Theramenes. When news reached Thrasybulus of his friend Alcibiades’s assassination and the worsening situation at Athens, he acted decisively. Braving the winter cold, he led a squadron of seventy handpicked men up the slopes of Mount Parnes, where they were able to take the Athenian fortress of Phyle by surprise. The rebels now controlled one of the most secure strongholds in the region, atop a steep rock overlooking the road between Thebes and Athens.

The Thirty responded by tightening their grip. More than fifteen hundred people, in all, would be summoned to a public building in the Agora called the Stoa Poikile and put to death for alleged crimes against the regime. Theramenes urged restraint. “The oligarchy will not survive,” he warned, “if we continue like this. We must share power with more citizens, otherwise the people will mistake us for tyrants.”

“Our actions appear ridiculous to me because we are doing two inconsistent things,” he said, “by organizing a government based on force, and the rule of the strong, while keeping it so small as to be weaker than its subjects.” This made Critias’s lip curl; it brought back the pain of having similar contradictions pointed out by Socrates. Afraid that Theramenes might create an opposition faction, he ordered the three thousand hoplites most loyal to the oligarchy to parade under arms in the Agora, as a show of strength. All other residents of Athens were disarmed and their weapons locked in the Parthenon temple on the Acropolis. Now the Thirty were free to do as they pleased. Critias passed a law allowing anyone not on his list of loyalists to be summarily executed. The Oligarchs exploited this not only to silence opposition but also to enrich themselves by seizing the property of victims.

The Thirty now marched against Thrasybulus, with their private army of three thousand hoplites. Unable to take the fortress of Phyle by storm, they prepared for a siege. The gods smiled on the rebels, however, when an unexpectedly heavy snowfall forced the Thirty to return to Athens. This gave Thrasybulus the time he needed to plan a full armed rebellion.

My latest book, How to Think Like Socrates, has now been rated by over a hundred listeners on Audible, where it has 4.8 stars, and has been getting great reviews. You can listen to a sample from one of the chapters there.

Get the Audiobook

I wrote this book primarily to be listened to, in audiobook format. I narrated it myself at d’Aragon Studio in Montreal, where a team of four of us worked on the production. My friend, the classicist Lalya Lloyd coached me in the pronunciation of over 250 ancient Greek words and phrases!

We wanted to make this book a bit more dramatic than How to Think Like Socrates. It retells the story of Socrates, who fought in three major battles of the Peloponnesian War, survived the Plague of Athens, and lived through the political drama as the fledgling Athenian democracy collapsed into civil war and eventually the dictatorship of the Thirty Tyrants. Selections from the Socratic dialogues of Plato and Xenophon are woven into the story, revealing the Socratic Method, and the philosophy of Socrates, in the form of dialogues, which I integrate with principles from modern psychology and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT).

You can also download this free PDF guide to the book, using the link below.

What experts said…

• “One of the best books ever written on the power and practicality of philosophy for a good and successful life! Wisdom isn’t a rulebook but a mindset. It develops from a life of honest and courageous inquiry. Donald J. Robertson masterfully and vividly takes us back to the Athens of Socrates and recreates the setting as well as the powerful ideas that one place, time, and person launched into the world forever. It’s an introduction to philosophy as a way of life that’s as gripping as any novel, and is as novel as a philosophy book can be. Highly recommended!” —Tom Morris, author of If Aristotle Ran General Motors, The Oasis Within, and Plato’s Lemonade Stand, coauthor of Stoicism for Dummies

• “Robertson creates a wonderful semi-fictionalized Socrates to introduce modern readers to the birth of philosophy in Athens. We experience first-hand the method Socrates made famous—of subjecting our deepest beliefs to a cross-examination that jolts and stings like an electric ray. In our modern world that swirls with half-truths and disinformation, we need nothing less to awaken us from our illusions.” —Nancy Sherman, author of Stoic Wisdom: Ancient Lessons for Modern Resilience

• “An intriguing and original book, engagingly written and highly accessible. It is innovative both in linking the Socratic dialogues, especially those of Plato, with their historical context and in highlighting the significance of Socratic philosophical enquiry for modern readers. The connection made between Socratic method and CBT psychotherapeutic guidance is particularly suggestive.” —Chris Gill, Professor Emeritus of Ancient Thought, Exeter University, and author of Learning to Live Naturally: Stoic Ethics and its Modern Significance

• “A fresh and original introduction to the figure of Socrates, blending philosophy, history, and psychotherapy. Robertson invites readers to take up the Socratic method of self-examination and to embrace a life guided by rational reflection.” —John Sellars, reader in philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London and author of The Pocket Stoic

• “Don Robertson is your trusty and insightful guide to the life, times, and thought of the most important philosopher in the western tradition.” —Massimo Pigliucci, author of How to Be a Stoic

• “Robertson draws incisive links between modern psychotherapy and ancient philosophy, bringing Socratic dialogues to life through colorful narration and detail. It’s a creative look at the enduring relevance of an ancient thinker.” —Publishers Weekly