Epicureanism & CBT: The Method of Multiple Explanations

The purpose of this article is to recognize another antecedent for CBT in the ancient Greek philosophy of Epicureanism. Below we will explore the considerable ground between one aspect of Epicureanism and CBT.

Founded by the philosopher Epicurus in Athens a short time before the founding of Stoicism, Epicureanism features a novel scientific method called the method of multiple explanations. Below I will review how I believe that not only can this method be seen as a precursor to modern CBT, but can also be a useful tool to use today alongside CBT for addressing cognitive distortions.

The method of multiple explanations, explained

A number of surviving Epicurean texts preserve the method of multiple explanations.

Epicurus himself describes it as follows:

[F]or our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble. Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another, which harmonizes just as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth.

Epicurus, Letter to Pythocles, 87

Epicurus states that when we perceive something for which we cannot readily identify a certain cause, then we ought to refrain from concluding that any one possible cause is true, and instead accept that there are a number of possible causes that may be true. It is natural to form probable theories about one or more of these possible causes, but we must stop short of developing a firm belief in the correctness of any given explanation when other explanations cannot be ruled out.

In the same letter he describes how irrational belief develops when we do not adhere to this method:

Now falsehood and error always lie in the addition of opinion with regard to what is waiting to be confirmed or not contradicted, and then is not confirmed or is contradicted.

Epicurus, Letter to Pythocles, 50

When we are presented with more than one possible cause for something and we cannot determine with certainty which explanation may be correct, but nevertheless adopt an opinion that one explanation is correct, then if we have guessed wrong we will have developed an irrational belief or false opinion (a CBT therapist would say we’ve developed a cognitive distortion).

For Epicurus, “mere opinion” is no small thing. It is the cause of the greatest disturbances in our spirit.

For it is not continuous drinking and reveling, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit.

Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus, 132

To put it all together, Epicurus believes that when we jump to a conclusion about a specific cause and effect without recognizing other possible explanations, then we very often end up with false beliefs which go on to disrupt our well-being. Epicurus is essentially laying out the theory of modern CBT: cognitive distortions lead to maladaptive behaviors and emotional distress. (It is interesting to note that in the above passage, Epicurus recognizes unhealthy behaviors [e.g. continuous drinking] in addition to errors of thought as being the chief disruptors of a pleasant life, bringing him even more in line with the modern cognitive-behavioral therapist. See: the CBT triangle.)

In the next section, we will look closely at how the Epicurean method of multiple explanations can prevent us from developing some of the most prevalent cognitive distortions.

Resolving cognitive distortions with the method of multiple explanations

The Epicureans primarily employed the method of multiple explanations in the realm of physics to resolve fear-inducing superstitions about celestial phenomena. However, we will see that it can be a powerful tool for preventing the development of cognitive distortions in all areas of life, including everyday situations. I will review a few examples of these below.

Jumping to conclusions

Jumping to conclusions is the mistake of making a negative interpretation when there is little or no evidence to support the interpretation.

The way in which we make this error is very similar to the process in which we form false opinions as described by Epicurus above. The primary difference is that when we jump to conclusions, we have no evidence, but when we form false opinions as per Epicurus, we may have some evidence but are ignoring evidence that may also point to other conclusions.

Example

Allison jumps to the conclusion that her mother is angry at her because her mother didn’t call her at the time they normally talk on the phone. As a result, Allison feels angry.

The evidence Allison has to support her belief is simply that her mother didn’t call at the expected time. Her conclusion is that her mother must be angry with her. She can employ the method of multiple explanations by asking what other explanations may be supported by the evidence (I recommend coming up with at least two alternative explanations). Let’s say she comes up with the following:

Alternative explanations

Alternative explanation #1: her mother has fallen asleep (it’s late).

Alternative explanation #2: her mother has gotten busy with a household task and lost track of time.

As it turns out, the evidence (her mother not calling) supports each conclusion. Therefore, she cannot throw out any of these explanations and must consider each one to be possible while simultaneously refraining from endorsing any particular explanation as true.

Engaging her rational mind in this way is a form of cognitive reframing which can help her to reduce the intensity of the unwanted — and potentially unwarranted — anger. In other words, by refraining from endorsing a firm belief in any of these explanations, she will prevent herself from jumping to conclusions.

Emotional reasoning

Emotional reasoning occurs when we let our emotions lead the way in our interpretation of events, while our reasoning develops in such a way as to bolster the emotion.

The problem with emotional reasoning is that we employ reasoning exclusively within the footprint of the (often reactionary) emotion we are experiencing. Therefore, we miss the opportunity to consider alternative interpretations of events that may evoke different (and less distressing) emotions. The method of multiple explanations can help us to see past the wall that is the emotion of the moment by not only reminding us to consider alternative perspectives, but by preventing us from dismissing these alternative perspectives without sufficient cause.

Example

Felix feels sad because he was turned down when he asked someone on a date. Therefore, he concludes that he is unlikeable, which intensifies his feeling of sadness.

The emotion (sadness) causes Felix to develop a belief that supports the emotion (he is unlikeable).

Alternative explanations

Alternate explanation #1: Felix may not have known that the person he asked out on a date was already dating someone else. There are many other people who would have said yes.

Alternate explanation #2: Felix was unfamiliar with the social norms involved with asking someone out on a date. When he takes the time to learn these norms and practice these skills, he can expect better results.

If Felix keeps an open mind that any of these three explanations are possible, he will prevent the self-defeating belief that he is unlikeable, which his emotional reasoning was leading him to.

Blaming

Blaming occurs when we wrongly assign responsibility to someone for a given outcome. We can either incorrectly blame ourselves for an outcome we did not cause, or incorrectly blame another or others for outcomes they did not cause. Again, the error occurs when we develop an opinion about a given interpretation at the expense of others. The method of multiple explanations, when employed, can prevent us from making such a mistake.

Example

Sam has blamed himself for his parents’ divorce since he was a child, which has caused him to self-loathe throughout his life.

Sam has wrongly assigned blame to himself for the fate of his parents’ relationship, which has caused him to carry unnecessary feelings of self-loathing.

Alternative explanations

Alternative explanation #1: Sam’s parents divorced as a result of a breach of trust by one of his parents, and Sam is not even aware of this event.

Alternative explanation #2: Some of Sam’s developmentally normal behaviors when he was young caused his parents to feel stress and frustration, and they took out their frustrations on each other in unhealthy ways rather than managing them with healthy and appropriate coping skills. Their failure to respond appropriately to the normal stresses of parenthood resulted in the deterioration of their relationship.

If Sam can acknowledge that the above alternative explanations are also plausible and that he cannot rule them out, then he will prevent himself from endorsing the self-blaming explanation and therefore undercut the self-loathing he has been feeling as a result of this cognitive distortion.

In review

At this point, I think the pattern is established! We could run through additional examples of cognitive distortions such as overgeneralization, mental filtering, and all or nothing thinking, but for the purposes of our present discussion the result would look similar. We develop cognitive distortions exactly the way Epicurus understood over two thousand years ago — by developing an attachment to a false explanation for some event at the expense of other explanations that have as much (or more) evidence to support them.

Our greatest means to prevent and resolve cognitive distortions is to explore whether there is evidence to support our thoughts and beliefs and to remind ourselves to consider alternative explanations that may also have compelling evidence in support. The method of multiple explanations is an effective tool for accomplishing both.

The method of multiple outcomes

We’ve explored how the method of multiple explanations can help us to prevent the development of cognitive distortions in the present and in our interpretation of the past, but I think there’s also great opportunity for it to be beneficial for us when we make predictions about the future. I like to think of this as the method of multiple outcomes, as we look forward into a hazy future.

Worst-Case/Best-Case

An exercise I often use when working with clients is what I call Worst-Case/Best-Case. Here, the cognitive distortion we seek to resolve is worst-case scenario thinking, or over-exaggerating the likelihood of a bad outcome. In this exercise, we identify a worst-case scenario, followed by a best-case scenario, and then a mean between the two extremes — a middle-case scenario.

Usually, the client has already identified a worst-case scenario — this is the prediction that is promoting the anxiety they would like to resolve.

A worst-case scenario

Here’s an example:

Jake has a fear of flying. In particular, he fears that if he flies on an airplane, the plane will experience engine failure and crash, resulting in his death.

This is about as ‘worst-case’ as an outcome can get!

There are statistics we could point to which suggest that this outcome for any given flight is extremely unlikely, though it would be wrong to say that the outcome is entirely impossible: airplanes do on rare occasion experience engine failure, and Jake cannot be completely certain that if he were to take a ride on an airplane, it would not meet this fate. So, it would be wrong and invalidating to Jake for us to throw out this possibility entirely.

However, it is not the only possible outcome, nor a probable one. A simple way to evoke a range of possible outcomes is to think about a best-case scenario to contrast with the worst-case scenario.

A best-case scenario

Here’s an example: Jake boards the plane and while awaiting take-off he receives notice that through a lottery selection he has been bumped up to first class. He takes his seat in the first-class and finds that he is now sitting next to his favorite indie rocker, and he’s a huge music fan. The plane takes off and over the course of the flight he and the rocker have an incredible chat and become fast friends. Not only that, but Jake works in marketing, and the indie rocker wants to promote his next album and likes Jake’s ideas! At the end of the plane ride, they exchange numbers. A few months later, Jake and his new friend have successfully launched his friend’s new album and Jake has backstage passes for life!

Wow, what a great outcome! Is it a likely? No! It is incredibly unlikely. However, just like with the worst-case scenario, we can’t say with complete certainty that this best-case scenario will not occur, either. Therefore, the worst-case and best-case scenarios are both possible outcomes that we cannot rule out entirely, but which are exceedingly unlikely.

A middle-case scenario

Now, what is a middle-case scenario? Perhaps it looks something like this: Jake boards the plane, which experiences a 15-minute delay on the runway before it gets going. In flight, Jake listens to a podcast about music, but gets bored and instead tries to take a nap. Due to a bit of turbulence, he can’t sleep, so instead he finds another podcast to listen to until landing. He gets off the plane slightly irritable after another 30-minute delay on the runway.

How mundane!

Of course, there are infinite variations of this middle-case scenario in which the flight proceeds without incident. But I think we can all agree that this middle-case scenario sounds much more plausible than either of the extreme outcomes.

While the method of multiple outcomes dictates that we can’t rule out any of the three possible outcomes we have explored, we can endorse one as being much more probable than the other two. By doing so, we will help Jake to resolve the anxiety he has been experiencing about an upcoming flight.

The Epicurean Diogenes of Oenoanda makes this point with more clarity.

If one is investigating things that are not directly perceptible, and if one sees that several explanations are possible, it is reckless to make a dogmatic pronouncement concerning any single one […] It is correct, however, to say that, while all explanations are possible, this one is more plausible than that.

Diogenese of Oenoanda, Fragment 13, Tsouna trans.

By exploring a variety of possible outcomes, and then making a determination about the probability of each, Jake can resolve the anxiety he has been feeling about his upcoming flight.

In conclusion

In this article we’ve reviewed how to apply the Epicurean method of multiple explanations to every day situations, and how doing so can prevent some of the most common cognitive distortions which are themselves contributing factors to anxiety, depression, and other mental health disorders.

We have then explored how we can apply the method of multiple explanations to future-oriented thinking by making sure to identify multiple possible outcomes for any given event. When we acknowledge that we can identify multiple possible outcomes, then we too acknowledge that we cannot fully endorse any particular outcome with certainty. Therefore, we can prevent the development of intense, uncomfortable emotions such as anxiety and fear that occur when we fall prey to worst-case scenario thinking.

References

Baily, Cyril (1926). Epicurus: The Extant Remains. England: Oxford University Press.