Examining Our Philosophical Assumptions Can Bridge the Gap Between CBT and Existential Therapy

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and existential-phenomenological therapy (EPT) are often treated as philosophically opposed, with EPT critics regarding CBT as mechanistic and superficial. This article argues that the apparent divide softens when we examine the philosophical assumptions underpinning practice. While traditional CBT frequently reflects an objectivist stance—where the therapist assumes access to universal truths—both Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and EPT converge on a contextualist philosophy. From this perspective, beliefs and behaviours can only be understood within the personal, historical, and situational contexts of lived experience. A case study illustrates how rigid core beliefs parallel Sartre’s account of “bad faith,” and how opening to contextualism fosters flexibility and possibility. The discussion also highlights the ethical use of therapeutic techniques: Socratic questioning under objectivism risks becoming covert persuasion, raising the question of when “unknowing” becomes pretended. Ultimately, the paper contends that ACT and EPT are united by contextualism and their commitment to opening clients to uncertainty and the possibilities of the future.