Thinking About What We Feel

We often speak about emotional intelligence as though it were a recent discovery. Its scientific study is relatively recent, but some of the questions beneath it are much older. What contributes to our emotional disturbance? How do we distinguish what happened from what we believe happened? Can we experience disappointment without condemning ourselves, or disagreement without condemning someone else?

Stoic philosophy offers a useful starting point. Its contribution to emotional intelligence is the invitation to examine our judgments, recognize the limits of our influence, and practice responding more deliberately. Albert Ellis brought these ideas directly into Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). Later emotional intelligence models approached related questions through research on emotional perception, understanding, and management. These traditions can inform one another, although they have different histories and purposes.

Epictetus, one of the most influential Stoic philosophers, distinguished between what depends on us and what does not. We cannot guarantee another person’s approval, prevent every disappointment, or determine every outcome. We can, however, work on how we examine a situation and what we do in response. He also argued that our judgments about events contribute to our disturbance (Epictetus, n.d., §§ 1, 5).

Consider the difference between these two statements:

“That person disagreed with me.”

“That person disagreed with me, which means I am inadequate and cannot tolerate being questioned.”

The first describes an event. The second adds a conclusion about the self and a prediction about the ability to cope. Emotional management becomes more possible when we recognize that distinction. We can ask whether the conclusion follows from the evidence, whether it helps us respond, and whether another interpretation is available.

This is where Stoic philosophy becomes particularly relevant to emotional intelligence. Recognizing a feeling is useful, but recognizing the interpretation accompanying that feeling gives us something further to examine. We can become curious about our emotional experience rather than treating our first explanation as a settled fact.

Albert Ellis made this connection explicit. The Albert Ellis Institute identifies Epictetus among the philosophical roots of REBT. Ellis’s contribution was to develop a practical psychological approach in which people learn to examine and revise beliefs that contribute to emotional disturbance (Albert Ellis Institute, n.d.-a).

His ABC framework gives that process a structure. A represents the activating event; B, the beliefs about it; and C, the emotional and behavioral consequences. In Ellis’s account, examining B helps explain why people can respond differently to similar circumstances. His approach also recognized biological and environmental influences, even while emphasizing the person’s capacity to intervene in the process (Ellis, 1973/1994).

For example, someone receives critical feedback at work. The activating event is the feedback. The belief might be, “I must perform perfectly, and criticism proves that I am a failure.” The consequences might include intense anxiety, defensiveness, or avoidance.

A more flexible belief could be: “I would prefer to perform well and receive approval. I can examine this criticism, correct what needs correcting, and tolerate the discomfort.” This does not require the person to enjoy criticism. It creates room to respond without turning a particular performance into a judgment of the whole person.

Ellis extended this approach through unconditional self-acceptance, other-acceptance, and life-acceptance. In REBT, we can evaluate a behavior without assigning a global rating to the person performing it. We can acknowledge that a mistake needs correction without concluding that its maker is entirely bad or inadequate. The same distinction applies to ourselves (Albert Ellis Institute, n.d.-b).

This distinction has considerable value for emotional intelligence. If every mistake becomes a trial of my acceptability, honest self-observation becomes threatening. If I accept myself while examining what I do, I can look more closely, listen more carefully, and change more willingly.

REBT also makes an essential distinction between emotional health and emotional absence. Ellis explained that rational thinking can coexist with sadness, frustration, annoyance, joy, and other feelings. His aim was to help people develop emotional responses that support living and constructive action (Ellis, 1973/1994).

Modern emotional intelligence research brought another perspective to this work. Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer published their foundational framework in 1990. They described abilities involving the appraisal and expression of emotion, its regulation, and its use in motivation, planning, and achievement. Their framework treated emotions as potentially useful sources of information (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

Salovey and Mayer are therefore best described as foundational researchers of the modern scientific model of emotional intelligence. David Caruso subsequently became an important collaborator in developing the ability approach. Their later work examined emotional intelligence as a psychological capacity with principles that could be investigated scientifically (Mayer et al., 2016).

It would be inaccurate, however, to claim that these researchers established Stoicism as the foundation of emotional intelligence. The sources reviewed here do not establish such an endorsement. The connection offered in this essay is an interpretation: Stoic examination of judgment can provide a practical exercise for some of the emotional abilities their research describes.

Daniel Goleman helped bring emotional intelligence to a much wider public. His work connected the subject with education, relationships, and workplace performance. In his own account of his intellectual development, he emphasizes research on emotion and the brain, David McClelland’s work on competencies, and his longstanding study of Asian psychological and meditation traditions (Goleman, n.d.).

Those documented influences matter. We should not assume that Goleman applied Stoicism simply because some of his ideas resemble Stoic practices. His emphasis on managing ourselves and our relationships nevertheless creates a useful point of comparison. Stoic reflection can help us notice an interpretation, pause before acting on it, and consider a response consistent with our intentions. That is a proposed application of Stoicism to emotional intelligence, rather than a claim about Goleman’s historical sources.

A practical combination of these approaches might begin with a familiar moment: someone says something that feels dismissive. Before responding, I can ask:

• What did the person actually say?
• What meaning have I added?
• What am I feeling, and what am I inclined to do?
• Am I demanding agreement, approval, or certainty?
• What response would help me address the situation?

These questions bring emotional observation together with examination of belief. They also leave room to consider the other person’s perspective. Perhaps the remark was dismissive. Perhaps it was unclear, hurried, or misunderstood. Curiosity allows me to investigate before deciding.

This practice does not promise complete command over emotion. Feelings can arise rapidly, and changing a familiar response takes repetition. The useful goal is to increase our capacity to recognize what is happening and participate more deliberately in what happens next.

Stoic philosophy can contribute to emotional intelligence by helping us distinguish an event from our interpretation, a preference from a demand, and a correctable behavior from a condemnation of the person. Ellis translated these concerns into a systematic approach to emotional change. Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, and Goleman contributed different scientific and practical frameworks for understanding emotional abilities.

Together, these perspectives suggest an educational task: learn to observe emotion, examine the beliefs accompanying it, and practice a response that serves the situation. We do not have to make every circumstance agreeable before we can respond thoughtfully. We can begin by becoming curious about what we are telling ourselves.