ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

In this essay, I critically assess Elliot Cohen's Logic-Based Therapy which he developed under the deep influence of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. Cohen holds that his LBT is different from REBT in the way that the former adopts reasoning instead of causation and that it stresses the agents' responsibility according to the change from causation to epistemological justification. The first difference of causation/ reasoning has two problems: first, it underestimates philosophical characteristics of inferential elements used in many approaches in REBT. Second, it scales down the extension of philosophy into logic. The second difference is related to two problems with regard to Cohen's interpretation of Aristotle's practical syllogism: first, the concept of "willpower" introduced by him is not Aristotelian. Second, his interpretation of two premises into rule and report is not groundless. So I conclude that the two differential factors of LBT from REBT suggested by Cohen cannot be justified. Cohen seems to supplement for the development of LBT as an approach of philosophical counseling.

키워드