Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy as a Dialogical Practice of Philosophical Counseling

Abstract

This study argues that the clinical framework of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), based on a psychopathology model, fundamentally clashes with the dialogical and non-pathological nature of philosophical counseling, and proposes a new model within an original framework by suggesting that reinterpreting REBT within the context of philosophical counseling is possible. The concepts of "irrational belief," "ABC model," and "expert-therapist" in REBT demonstrate epistemological and ethical incompatibility with the principles of philosophical counseling: “unexamined commitment”, "Socratic dialogue," and "collaborative inquiry." A comparative reading of Ellis's own works reveals that while REBT retains its Stoic origins, it has shifted towards the language of pathology in clinical practice. To overcome this tension, an original framework called "Dialogical Reason Practice" is proposed. This model centers on Socratic questioning instead of ABC, unexamined commitment instead of irrational belief, and philosophical partnership instead of the expert therapist. Thus, RDBT transforms from a symptom management tool into a contemporary practice of the philosophical art of living.