Aristotle and Behavioral Psychology: Living a Meaningful Life
Aristotle and Behavioral Psychology: Living a Meaningful Life
Since the dawn of humanity, the same question has circulated, and each era tries to provide an answer: how to live a life that is worth living?
Science proposes a more or less straight path toward progress: through various types of checks, we arrive at conclusions that are better than those we had before. Philosophy, on the other hand, suggests a rather circular path (or better yet, as Lucas Soares asserts, a kaleidoscopic nature): we know where we start but not where we end up, which is why previous ideas are not discarded but revisited.
We propose to pause at the boundary between science and philosophy. This idea-game (as Roberto Bolaño would say) will hopefully allow us to take a journey from the 4th century BC to the present, or at least to 2015, the year when Hayes and colleagues published the most well-known manual on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (hereafter referred to as ACT). It may be a challenging path because evidence-based therapies often confine themselves to their area of applicability and do not extend much further. Taking theory out of the consulting room and engaging it in dialogue with something else is something we should allow ourselves to do more often.
A map of psychology
Here, we will talk about psychology. It is a science with many branches: educational, forensic, social, etc. We will focus on the field of clinical psychology, the most developed in our country due to its history and tradition. At the same time, within the clinical field, there are many ways to practice psychology, with two being the most famous and acting as the Boca-River rivalry: psychoanalysis and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Nowadays, due to the widespread use of the term, it is preferred to speak of evidence-based practices (or EBP), which serve as an umbrella under which we can categorize different types of therapies: cognitive-behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), etc.
Science proposes a more or less straight path toward progress: through various types of checks, we arrive at conclusions that are better than those we had before. Philosophy, on the other hand, suggests a rather circular path.
Thus, we find ourselves on a path that becomes increasingly narrow (or specific): psychology → clinical psychology → evidence-based practices (EBP) → ACT. This therapy posits six central concepts in its theory, one of which we will focus on in this article: values.
ACT proposes a foundational postulate that is countercultural (at least in the West): discomfort is inherent to life, being alive is to suffer, and the only thing that unites us as human beings is suffering. What do Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, and you, the reader, have in common? They all suffer. For different reasons, in different contexts, but we all suffer. There is no escape from suffering; I can encounter it around any corner. Modernity tells us that suffering is bad and that we must eliminate it; indeed, there is a whole industry dedicated to this. In contrast, ACT suggests that suffering is part of life and that the healthiest thing we can do is accept it, that is, coexist with suffering. The revealing and hopeful part is that it is possible, even with that suffering, to live a life worth living if I am in touch with my values.
Values can be defined as a compass, a vital direction that brings us closer to that life worthy of being lived. They have several characteristics: they are personal, not defined by culture or other people, and they come into play with every decision. And most importantly: I can exercise them at any moment in my life. This radically differentiates values from "goals," as the latter can be accomplished and have an endpoint: graduating as a doctor is a goal, and we can check that off our list. The values we are discussing are more about "being a good professional," something that is never fully achieved because I can always do something more that brings me closer to that; it is, in any case, an asymptotic approximation.
Values, as such, often appear as loose and abstract words: kindness, creativity, or friendship. What matters is not so much the word itself but what concrete actions are taken to be in touch with that word. In other words, how do we move from a concept to an action: what concrete thing did I do today that brought me closer to the value of being a good friend, for example?
ACT suggests that suffering is part of life and that the healthiest thing we can do is accept it, that is, coexist with suffering.
At its core, it is a decision to act based on my values. When faced with a crossroads, I can decide whether to act in accordance with my values or not: if one of my values is to be a good friend and my friends invite me to a party but at the same time I have to study for an exam, I can choose to stay home studying (putting the value on pause) or I can go out partying, following the value of friendship. In that decision, there is psychological health: if I always act inevitably based on values, I will miss out on things, and if the value becomes rigid, it loses its status and becomes a rule: I absolutely have to do X (in the example, be a good friend). In other words, I choose to act based on my values, and it is healthy for me to have that choice.
A modern problem is that I may not know what my values are, and a task of clinical psychology is to explore and seek them out. Another task, half clinical and half personal, is how to connect with what is valuable in this context, how to pause the urgency of daily life to connect with what truly matters in life.
Julián Ferreyra
And what does Aristotle have to do with all this?
The idea of a life worth living can be traced throughout the entire history of humanity. Since we are Westerners, we will take here the philosopher I believe to be the most important of all, Aristotle, specifically his text Ethics. There, he develops the concept of virtue, understanding it as a habit in which the mean is chosen. He differentiates between two types of virtues, ethical/moral and dianoetic/intellectual, each having its particular virtue: prudence and wisdom.
Aristotle adds something fundamental: choice. In Book VI of the Ethics, he argues that every virtue is practiced voluntarily, and each person chooses whether to act in accordance with their virtue or not. Choice, combined with prudence, places virtues on an extremely similar plane to values in ACT: we choose to act repeatedly, consistently, in context and with purpose.
Virtues are a mean between excess and deficiency. The same goes for values. I can act based on my values and end up in excess (the rules we mentioned earlier) or drift away from those values. The metaphor used for values that directly relates to Aristotle's mean is that of watering a plant: if you water it too much, it drowns and dies; if you don't water it, it dries up and dies. It needs just the right amount of water.
For both ACT and Aristotle, there are a great number of values/virtues, and not everyone practices the same ones. The key difference is that for ACT, no value is better than another; they all hold equal importance. In contrast, Aristotle identifies excellent virtues (wisdom and prudence), which leads us to prefer some virtues over others.
Another significant difference is that for Aristotle, these virtues ultimately have a political value. What is best for me is best for the polis. In ACT values, this distinction blurs, but not due to theoretical issues, rather because of the world we currently inhabit.
What happened in between?
It's interesting to consider that between one postulate and another, 2400 years have passed. In addition to thinkers, revolutions, wars, pandemics, and an enormous list of events, we transitioned from one type of government to another: from the Greek polis to the current democracy.
The world has also changed in terms of the quantity and quality of stimuli: we live in a frantic present. Modernity breaks with the idea of virtue, and hypermodernity breaks with the idea of community. To practice a virtue/value, I need time, I need repetition, I need to set aside or pause other tasks, prioritize what is valuable. How can I do this in a world where everything moves at the speed of a scroll?
For Aristotle, moreover, the excellent form of happiness (eudaimonia) is the contemplative life linked to the practice of wisdom. A contemplative life would be excellent, but Aristotle himself states that this can only be achieved intermittently because everyday life interrupts: I pause my contemplation to cook, eat, sleep. How does contemplation fit with the society of fatigue we live in today? To put it plainly, I can't afford to contemplate existence because I have more urgent matters. In a globalized context with a weary contemporary subject, contemplative practice may not even emerge.
The problem lies in the fact that values/virtues are there, but they seem useless if we can't pay attention to them in some way.
Values and the market
Today, the categorical imperative is productivity and performance, which pushes virtues to the background, as many of them seem "useless." What truly rules is the economy, the markets, and financial power. For example, if creativity is valuable to someone, the market will try to co-opt that value to monetize it as a social media manager, interior designer, or whatever economic angle can be found.
Thus, according to the therapeutic model of ACT, acting based on values leads to a life of dignity and worth living. But critics will ask, doesn't this lead us to hyper-individualization? If I choose to act based on my values, do I lose touch with the community? And in a commercialized context, how do I separate my values from consumption? How do I ensure that my values aren't swallowed by capitalist logic? Furthermore, by focusing on personal decision-making, do we risk making everything dependent on the individual? Could we fall into a be-your-own-boss version of psychology?
To practice a virtue, I need time, I need repetition, I need to set aside or pause other tasks, and prioritize what is valuable. How can I do this in a world where everything moves at the speed of a scroll?
Capitalism has an excellent knack for capturing and claiming what it deems valuable. For instance, we can locate ecological care, which has shifted from a personal and even social value to a hollow slogan of "Recycle." Acting based on values involves some discomfort (which is lost in market logic): to practice ecology, I have to make decisions that may feel uncomfortable or lead to discomfort. I have to put in effort. Now, using the new tote bag that says “Reduce/Recycle/Reuse,” what’s uncomfortable about that? The discomfort, in this case, becomes marketing. We move from a value to a performance.
We can propose the following: if I act based on values, if I act based on how I want the world to be, not only will I change, but the world will change too. If I am kinder (from the value and not from elsewhere, like the influencers of kindness), there is more kindness in the world, and since I never know exactly what the reach of my actions is, I might inspire more people to be kind. From this perspective, the value takes on social relevance and allows us to transcend an individualistic view. Although this isn't the end of values, meaning I don't act to see if someone else will act like me, it’s a good way to consider that we can have a broader social impact.
Practicing what is valuable/virtuous today, in this context, is of enormous importance. It means being present, connected with what is happening, without expecting any results or anything in return. Practicing a habit requires time, effort, repetition, and discomfort: it gives back everything that market logic tries to take from us. The problem lies in the world, not in the theory. 2400 years with the same question, and perhaps this is the moment when it’s hardest to answer.
