"What Can Be Changed, What Must Be Accepted?"
(Hossein Kaji)

A short commentary on A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by William B. Irvine

Psychotherapy, for me, embodies the science and art of effecting even subtle changes in a person's mental, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. It's crucial for patients to discern what can be altered and what must be accepted. Remarkably, the Stoics' principle of distinguishing between changeable and unchangeable matters resonates deeply with this perspective. Epictetus, a renowned Stoic philosopher, was perhaps the first to emphasize this crucial distinction.

In therapeutic settings, this division is invaluable, especially when addressing mental disorders like depression and various anxieties. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), for instance, often differentiates between negative feelings tied to the present and those linked to the future. The emphasis lies on resolving current issues, recognizing that not all problems are solvable, and some must be accepted.

The nature of acceptance itself is a broad subject. Nonetheless, this Stoic division proves beneficial in therapy. It's unwise to expend mental energy on unsolvable issues. What can we change, then? We can likely influence our thoughts, feelings, needs, behaviors, and circumstances. For instance, if I aim for career advancement, I can take steps and provide resources towards this end, but outcomes may still be influenced by external factors. Similarly, pursuing a meaningful project, like writing a book, comes with uncertainties. Yet, perhaps we recognize our limitations more than the classical Stoics did, suggesting a need to adapt Stoic philosophies for contemporary application.

William Irvine's work expands upon this Stoic dichotomy by introducing a third category: matters we can influence to some extent (pp. 85-101). These encompass our goals and values, contrasting with uncontrollable elements like natural laws or governmental policies. Irvine's analogy of a tennis match encapsulates the idea of focusing on playing one's best rather than fixating on victory or defeat. This approach, termed "internalizing goals and purposes," advocates prioritizing actions over outcomes. The more we fixate on results, the less peace we find, given that success often hinges on factors beyond our control.

However, I find Irvine's tripartite division somewhat redundant. The first category seems nonexistent, as we lack complete control even over our goals and values. Thus, our focus should either be on matters we can influence or on those we must accept, disregarding outcomes that are partially beyond our control.

The pivotal issue lies in discerning what we can change and what we cannot—a point Irvine's book doesn't sufficiently address. While Irvine assumes adequate capability in this regard, my experience suggests otherwise. Many clients struggle with changing immutable aspects of their circumstances while resigning themselves to situations they could alter. For instance, employees in toxic work environments must decide whether to seek a new job or attempt to transform the existing environment. Such decisions demand introspection and situational evaluation to determine changeable versus unchangeable factors, a nuance missing in Irvine's work.

Reflecting on this, a client once asked me about the essence of wisdom. I responded by emphasizing the importance of discerning changeable from unchangeable elements in any situation: effecting change where possible and accepting the rest. This process, undoubtedly, demands considerable effort and commitment.

Reference:
Irvine, W. B. (2009). A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Oxford University Press.