The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it  out at FeelingGreat.com!

These two philosophical problems used to seem nonsensical to me, and certainly not relevant to much of anything in my life—or anyone’s! But now the picture has changed a bit!

When I was a student at Amherst College, I majored in the philosophy of science. On this show, I’ve often talked about my hero, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who attempted (successfully in my opinion) to “solve” all the problems of philosophy. He wanted to help those of us who were “afflicted” by an attraction to philosophical problems to see through them and understand precisely how and why they were nonsensical. He hoped to provide a “treatment” for philosophers so we could give up the need to obsess about nonsensical philosophical problems.

Once you see through the these problems, they become kind of like a joke, and you can use jokes to help other people see through them. For example, here’s a kind of lame joke about the question of whether or not the universe is “real.” Wittgenstein said that before we try to answer questions like that, we might want to ask ourselves if these questions even makes sense! And if it a philosophical problem doesn't make sense, it isn’t a real question, so we won’t need to deal with it. In other words, questions that don’t make sense don’t need to be answered because they’re not real questions.

Take the question, "Is the universe real?"

You could ask, “Well, what would it be like if the universe weren't real? What would that look like? How would things be different?” If you can't answer that question, the question might not make sense.

To most of us, philosophical questions wound nonsensical because we are taking words, like “real,” out of the contexts in which it DOES make sense. For example, we can ask : “Is this painting real? Or is it a fake?” That question does make sense. It has an obvious meaning, since many valuable paintings are copied and are fakes, and they try to pass them off as the “real” thing.

But what would a "real" or "fake" universe look like? How would it differ from our universe?

Now let’s think about another example that is mildly humorous. Let’s imagine you’re driving through Iowa in the summer, and you spot a farmer working in his corn field. You’re interested in speaking to him because you are writing a story about your travels in Iowa, and want to talk about the lives of farmers.

So, you pull your car over to the side of the road and shout, “Howdy! What are you doing in the field?”

The farmer seems pleased and grabs a gorgeous stalk of corn and holds it up and proudly shouts, “I’m growing corn, and it is real!”

Well, that’s great that he's happily growing corn, but what does the tag-on, “and it is real” mean? It doesn’t actually mean anything, because farmers don’t grow “unreal corn.” So, in this context, the word has no meaning.

Now, if you were on a movie set, they might actually be using artificial corn as a prop, so now the contrast between real and unreal corn becomes meaningful.

This is a very humble point, but it’s the very heart of what Wittgenstein was trying to make us aware of. Philosophical problems kind of sound meaningful and puzzling, but most of the time, they are simply a kind of nonsensical use of language.

Now, in personal relationships, we might also have a notion of when people are being “real” or fake. And we often act fake because we don’t think we’re good enough just the way we really are. So, for example, you may hide your shyness in social situations because you’re ashamed, and telling yourself that your shyness is incredibly weird and abnormal, and makes you “less than” other people.

One method of helping people overcome shyness is simply to disclose it to others. This TEAM-CBT  technique is called "Self-Disclosure." Instead of hiding your shyness and feeling awkward and ashamed in social situations, you share your feelings openly. Shame depends on hiding, so when you open up, the feelings of shame will often disappear.

For example, in a recent podcast of a dramatic, live therapy session, a man named Chris revealed many troubling things about his teenage years that he’d been hiding for years. When he opened up, he began sobbing intensely, thinking he’d let his father down with his wild behavior when he was a high school student.

His grief, he was incredibly compelling, and his courageous self-disclosure was appealing to most of us who were privileged to witness that session. Showing us his “real” self became his path to enlightenment, joy, and deeply meaningful relationships with himself and with all of us who witnessed that amazing session.

So, although the question, “is the universe real” is silly and nonsensical, the question, “are we being real with each other,” is definitely NOT silly or nonsensical. Being real and vulnerable is an important key to connecting with ourselves as well as other human beings.

How about “Is the universe one?” This philosophical question also seemed nonsensical to me for years, although I was intellectually aware that some Buddhists make claims that the universe IS one and that the failure to “see” this is the basic of all evil. That's because if you see other humans, for example, as being "external" to yourself, you may feel you have the right to abuse and exploit them.

However, for years I thought the idea that the universe is "one" seemed like sheer nonsense. For example, I am sitting in a chair typing, and there is a cup on the desk. People have never call that cup “David,” and no one has ever called me a coffee cup (although lots of people have sad some pretty bad things about me!) So, I concluded that the cup and I are not “one,” and so the whole thing about the universe being one seemed nonsensical and silly.

But when I began to think about it in the context of my work with patients, my thinking suddenly changed. For example, the TEAM interpersonal model I’ve developed was based on research I did early in my career that suggested that Blame was one of the main causes of troubled relationships, and perhaps the most important and powerful cause.

And this is certainly true in my personal life and in my work with individuals with troubled relationships who are unhappy in their marriages or people who are angry with their neighbors, or family members, or anyone. We almost always see ourselves as victims, and the other person as the one who is to blame for the problem. This triggers feelings of frustration, anger, and moral superiority, and can easily and often lead to arguments, mistrust, divorce, hostility, and violence, murder, and even war.

Now, I’m beginning to see that the idea that we are separate from others, who are doing something TO us, does, in fact, lead to hostility, and arguably to evil. And once you “get it,” the same insight applies to our relationships, not just with loved ones, friends, and other people in general, but also our relationships with animals, with the environment, and with the planet earth. If we think of them as “other,” then we may conclude that it is okay to exploit or use them for our own advantage.

In the interpersonal TEAM model, we focus more on circular causality, or interpersonal connectedness and ask the question, how do we actually shape and cause the very behavior in the other person that we complain about so vigorously? I have developed a fast, powerful tool that allows any to pinpoint their own role in a relationship problem very quickly and with reasonable accuracy. It’s called the Relationship Journal (RJ), and we’ve talked about it often on this show.

Essentially, it’s simple to use the RJ, but it can be startling and illuminating but incredibly painful. All you have to do is write down ONE thing another person said to you that you found upsetting, and EXACTLY what you said next. Choose an interaction that did not go well; otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

Then, the RJ will take you through a step by step analysis of your response, and it's implications.

When you discover how you are actually forcing the other person to treat you shabbily, it can hurt. This is one of the four ‘Great Deaths” of the self, and it’s the most painful of all, in my experience. This is the "Great Death" of the angry, blaming "self."

I hate this great death! But if you have the courage to use it and take a look, it can be incredibly illuminating and liberating, and can put you on the path to far more loving relationships.

As an exercise, I will list a number of common complaints that people have about loved ones, friends, or family that they find irritating. Your job will be to show how you could FORCE them to do the exact thing you are complaining about. The other person could be your partner, friend, son or daughter, etc. Your complaint about that person might be that they

• Refuse to talk to me.
• Can’t (or won’t) open up and express their feelings
• Constantly whine and complain, and ignore and resist my good advice.
• Constantly argue, and always have to be right.
• Won’t listen.
• Are relentlessly critical.
• Always have to get their way.
• Doesn’t treat me with respect.

In each case, see if you can figure out how you could FORCE the other person to do that exact thing. We will discuss a couple of these on the show and lustrate solutions to give you a feel for how this works.

Rhonda’s and Matt shared their wise and interesting thoughts on both of these philosophical questions, and how you can understand them in the context of your own lives, and, if you're a shrink, how you can use them in your work with patients.

Thanks for listening today!

Matt, Rhonda, and David