Response to the below discussion post with below discussion topic.
Discussion post: Existential theory is different from all of the other theories so far. The first two theories originated from medical professionals and this one appears to have roots in philosophy, Existential philosophy specifically. This theory really leans into self-improvement as way of thinking when addressing change. It does not seem to account for nature or nurture so much as it accounts with the current thoughts an individual has about themselves and the future. I think Existential theory is a great approach as a supplement to another theoretical orientation but by itself is much to esoteric to be applied practically in a therapy setting. I think the focus on the inevitability of death and isolation in particular could be damaging inflection points for individuals struggling with depression and with history of suicidal ideations. The lack of focus of symptom relief could be problematic for individuals who have issues with psychosis as true therapeutic engagement could be difficult while still experiencing those symptoms. However, by contrast I think the dimensions of the human condition are probably very helpful tools in couple’s therapy and substance abuse settings. As a dual major I think faith and love as dimensions of the human condition in spiritual and pastoral counseling settings. Existentialism as a way of thinking could definitely help client work on themselves “self actualization”, but there definitely has to be a more grounded theory as a basis to go along with it in therapy because its orientation is too philosophical on its own.
Discussion topic: Post your comments on existential theory here. What aspects of the theory did you like/dislike? What makes existential different from all other theories we’ve discussed so far?
Textbook:Corey, G. (2017). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (10th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole. ISBN: 13-978-1-305-26372-7
