The Psycholinguistics of Self-Talk in Logic-Based Therapy: Using a Toolbox of Philosophical Antidotes to Overcome Self-Destructive Speech Acts

Abstract

This article discusses the nature of self-talk, characterizing it as a psycholinguistic activity consisting of the performance of speech acts directed to oneself. More specifically, it examines negative speech acts as embedded in behavioral and emotional reasoning, the performance of which creates behavioral and emotional disturbances for the agent, such as anxiety, depression, guilt, and anger. This characterization has important implications for psychotherapy, namely, that helping clients to identify these speech acts and replacing them with ones that have antidotal properties can be therapeutic. According to Logic-Based Therapy (LBT), a popular form of philosophical counseling, cardinal or key self-destructive speech acts can be counteracted by uplifting philosophical speech acts when the latter resonate with clients. This means that philosophical psychotherapies, such as LBT, can potentially have significant therapeutic value. Based on this premise, this article introduces and discusses an AI-generated “Toolbox” of philosophical antidotes created by the Institute for Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation in the United States to help clients find suitable, resonant philosophical antidotes to their self-destructive speech acts.

1. Self-Talk as a Linguistic Performance

Speaking is doing. This is one of the most significant insights to have come out of 20th-century philosophy of language. In J. L. Austin’s landmark book on How to Do Things with Words, a series of lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, Austin wrote, “The phenomenon to be discussed is very widespread and obvious, and it cannot fail to have been already noticed, at least here and there, by others. Yet I have not found attention paid to it specifically” ([1], p. 10). What Austin had in mind was the false assumption that ordinary language is primarily about describing facts out in the world, whereas such describing is only one of many types of speech acts that we can perform.

The case of speaking to oneself is a good example of what Austin was talking about because much of what we do when we speak to ourselves goes beyond describing facts and largely goes unnoticed by us. Thus, in taking a stroll by yourself, feeling a few drops of water on your cheek, your internal voice exclaims, “It’s starting to rain, and I don’t have an umbrella!” In saying this to yourself, you are not merely informing yourself of a fact. Instead, you are inferring from the drops of water you feel on your cheek that there will be torrents of other drops soon to follow. You are predicting that you will be drenched without an umbrella to protect you. You are expressing dismay over the content of these inferences and predictions. You are also (probably) catastrophizing about it: overrating how bad it is for your dry body and freshly laundered clothing to be soaked by the oncoming rain.

In catastrophizing, you are sounding an alarm to get prepared, psychophysically, for the oncoming rain, where the magnitude of this alarm is determined by the measure of your negative rating. The string of symbols you utter or think (locutionary act), in speaking to yourself, which carries sense and reference (“rain”, “umbrella”, “I”, etc.), is the vehicle by which you perform the act of catastrophizing. The anxiety you subsequently feel is thus the perlocutionary effect of your alarmist speech act, that is, what you do through catastrophizing as distinct from in catastrophizing ([1,2], pp. 100–101).

Indeed, it is easy to talk to yourself without realizing what you are doing when you do so. Essentially, talk therapy is about helping clients to identify their self-talk and to reframe it when it creates, sustains, or exacerbates emotional and/or behavioral problems. Some forms of talk therapy are nondirective and person-centered, stressing the therapist–client alliance as the primary vehicle of change. Other approaches, such as cognitive–behavior approaches, utilize various techniques, for example, imagery, role playing, bibliotherapy, and homework assignments. Many practitioners are eclectic and utilize a combination of both.

The view I have developed and regularly apply in my clinical practice belongs to the latter class of approaches. It is called Logic-Based Therapy (LBT), as previously referenced. This approach is based on rational–emotive behavior therapy (REBT), the first form of cognitive–behavior therapy (CBT). It is distinguished from the latter by its use of various forms of logic, including inductive, deductive, and modal varieties, virtue theory, and many different philosophical perspectives that it uses as antidotes to self-destructive speech acts [3,4].

2. LBT’s Cardinal Emotional and Behavioral Fallacies

LBT distinguishes between two interconnected types of practical reasoning: emotional and behavioral [5]. It is within the premises and/or conclusions of these two types of reasoning that self-destructive speech acts, specific to the type of reasoning in question, may be performed.

Emotional reasoning modulates emotions such as depression, anxiety, anger, and guilt. The following is an example:

Necessarily, If I can’t get a job in academia after I spent 4 years getting my doctorate, then I’ll be a total failure.

It’s possible I won’t be able to get such a job after getting my doctorate.

So, it’s possible that I will be a total failure.

In this modal variant of emotional reasoning, the client makes himself anxious by performing the (nonassertive) evaluative speech act of entertaining or speculating about the possibility of being a total failure. Within this act of entertaining or speculating, the client may also be (implicitly) performing the act of self-damning (while entertaining the possibility of not getting a job, the client damns himself and feels like a total failure). In the latter case, the client would experience anxiety about not getting a job in academia. If this were merely entertaining or speculating about the latter (without the act of self-damnation), the client would not be experiencing anxiety.

According to Aristotle [6], the conclusion of practical syllogisms, as distinct from theoretical ones, is an action. He states that, in the theoretical type, the self affirms the conclusion, but, in cases concerned with production, “it must immediately act”. For example, “if everything sweet ought to be tasted; and ’this is sweet’, … the man who can act and is not prevented must at the same time actually act accordingly” (bk.7, ch.3).

LBT agrees with Aristotle that the conclusion of a practical syllogism is an action. However, whereas he was thinking in terms of overt behavioral responses such as tasting a sweet thing, LBT takes the acts in question to be speech acts, particularly ones that rate or judge someone or something, that is, evaluate an emotional object in one way or another. For example, this is the case when the client is entertaining or speculating about the possibility of being a total failure and, within the context of performing this speech act, damns themself.

Now, if the minor premise shifts from possibility to actuality (as when the speaker graduates with a doctorate and has not been able to get such a job), then they may succeed in depressing themselves. This is what I have meant by saying that anxiety is “depression waiting to happen ”[7]. Whereas both depression and anxiety may involve acts of self-damning, anxiety also always includes an act of entertaining or speculating (it is future-oriented). The two emotions are thus logically related based on the modal status of the minor reportative premise. If it has an unactualized if-clause (it is only a possibility), then the emotion is anxiety. However, when the latter if-clause is actualized, the emotion turns into depression.

In contrast to emotional reasoning, behavioral reasoning modulates behavioral changes as in the following reasoning:

If I will be rejected by my inner circle if I don’t do as they do, then I should do as they do.

I will be rejected by my inner circle if I don’t do drugs as they do.

So, I should take the drugs as my inner circle does.

In this reasoning, the client jumps on the bandwagon in the conclusion by telling himself he should do as his inner circle does and take drugs. In using the term “should”, he prescribes such behavior to himself. Thus, as Aristotle would suggest, he will, ceteris paribus, take the drugs when the opportunity arises.

Practical reasoning, as in the above examples, typically has an empirical or quasi-empirical minor premise that performs a reportative speech act such as making a factual claim or prediction, for example, “I will be rejected by my inner circle if I don’t do drugs as they do”. According to LBT, such premises are subject to inductive assessment fallacies such as oversimplifying reality, distorting probabilities, and blind conjecture [5].

However, while LBT helps clients improve their skills at making reasonable inductive inferences, it also emphasizes that this will not help them avoid problematic emotional consequences (for example, depression or anxiety) in situations where the client is not making any questionable factual claims. For example, several years down the road, it may become evident that I will not succeed in getting a job in academia. In such a case, if I am still prone to damning myself if I do not achieve my goals, then I will be setting myself up for experiencing depression or other negative, self-destructive emotions. Hence, LBT stresses the importance of overcoming behavioral and emotional fallacies. Both LBT and REBT have this emphasis in common [4]. In contrast, other CBT approaches tend to stress inductive fallacies such as overgeneralization [8].

Table 1. Major types of fallacious behavioral and emotional speech acts.

Fallacious Speech Act	Type of Reasoning	Description of Speech Act	Example
Demanding Perfection	Emotional Reasoning	Dictating the terms of reality by constructing idealistic generalizations and demanding that they be true.	I must always be in control. I should never do anything wrong.
Catastrophizing	Emotional Reasoning	Exaggerating the badness of something or of its consequences.	If I don’t get a teaching job after all those years of graduate study, then I might as well be dead.
Damning	Emotional Reasoning	Devaluating self, life, others, or the world according to an aspect or part of it (e.g., misguided actions or bad things that happen).	If I fail the exam, then I’ll be such a loser.
Decreeing Reality	Emotional Reasoning	Establishing, by fiat, what is true or acceptable according to one’s own subjectivity.	“It’s true because I said so”. “I love escargot so that’s what’s on the menu!”
Jumping on the Bandwagon	Behavioral Reasoning	Committing oneself to a cause, action, group, etc., based exclusively or almost exclusively on the desire to fit in.	If you are all doing it, then count me in!
Capacity Disavowing	Behavioral Reasoning	Denying one’s capacity to think, feel, act, or exercise willpower in a certain way, contrary to or without sufficient evidence.	I can’t take any risks. I can’t stand it. I can’t help how I feel.
Threatening		Committing to harming the listener, in some way, if they do not comply with a certain demand, order, or expectation.	You better watch your step!

summarizes some major fallacious (self-destructive) behavioral and emotional speech acts that people perform, in speaking to themselves, without paying much attention to what they are doing. These acts may receive little inspection with no attempt to critically assess their rationality. Often, people speak to themselves in these ways and, as a result, drive themselves needlessly into self-destructive cognitive–behavioral states such as anxiety, depression, guilt, and anger.

3. Neuropsychological Background of Self-Destructive Speech Acts

The speech acts described in Table 1, which are embedded in behavioral and emotional reasoning, are performed in the practical reasoning part of the brain, which is a broad area located in the ventromedial region of the prefrontal cortex [3]. The language areas of the brain (Broca and Wernicke areas) are closely connected with this practical reasoning area, which, in turn, facilitate the illocutionary acts of practical reasoning. These speech (illocutionary) acts effectively activate the brain’s limbic system and related brain structures such as the amygdala–hypothalamus axis, the insular cortex, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The limbic process is then responsible for the feelings generated in somatosensory regions such as the insula and ACC, which accompany the emotional body, that is, a body prepared for flight, fight, or freeze [3]. This psychophysiological reactivity thus comprises the perlocutionary act arising from the illocutionary act (fallacious speech act).

Emotional looping between the limbic process and the practical reasoning process tends to increase this psychophysiological reactivity. The speech acts triggering the bodily response (for example, self-damnation) can escalate (“Not only am I a worthless person, but I do not deserve to be alive”). Hence, the interruption of this looping process can sometimes mean the difference between life and death, or other serious type of self-harm.

The first step in LBT is, therefore, to help clients become aware of the problematic speech acts, nestled in their behavioral and emotional reasoning, that generate the above psychophysiological process, instead of simply performing these acts with little awareness of what is going on “under the hood”, so to speak. The second step is to assess the act for what it is: a needless, self-defeating hindrance to wellbeing. The third step is to address it. This is where LBT uses positive counteractive speech acts to override fallacious speech acts.

4. Philosophical Antidotes

Another major insight gleaned from contemporary neuropsychology is the way the brain processes abstract language in comparison to concrete terms. Abstract thinking, defined as thinking in general, less descriptive terms, versus concrete thinking in more detailed, empirical, or event-oriented terms, tends to be more aligned with a positive valence and affect, and to be associated with greater happiness [9,10,11,12,13].

Based on these findings, because philosophical theories tend to use abstract language, thinking in the latter terms, rather than focusing primarily on concrete events and situations, can be hypothesized to promote a positive valence and affect. This would appear to include abstract language used to construct philosophical theories or ideas, for example, growth, potentiality, meaning, transcendence, reality, wisdom, truth, power, peace, love, freedom, and responsibility—to cite just a few examples.

My clinical experience has consistently confirmed the latter hypothesis. Clients who resonate with a philosophical idea during imagery exercises (first imagining something that upsets them and then shifting their focus to the philosophical idea) have invariably reported feeling a sense of relief from the torment they experienced [14].

Combined with other abstract language such as literary metaphors, philosophical language can, in my clinical experience, be particularly uplifting and can have antidotal properties against negative, self-destructive thoughts and emotions. “Feelings come and go like clouds in a windy sky. Conscious breathing is my anchor” (as conveyed by Thich Nhat Hanh) can help counteract the internal self-talk of someone catastrophizing about their situation. This concise and pithy counteractive affirms a Buddhist philosophy of courage according to which you have the power to let go of self-destructive fear by mindfully focusing on your breathing.

I say this act of philosophical affirmation can help a person to let go of their fear; however, it may not work for everyone. Another person may be less disposed toward mindful antidotes and react more favorably to existential speech acts such as “Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose” (as conveyed by Viktor Frankl).

Philosophical counteractives to self-defeating speech acts, such as catastrophizing, damnation, demanding perfection, and capacity disavowing, are intimately bound up with one special type of philosophical language, that of virtue. Thus, the performance of the above Buddhist counteractive by someone who has been catastrophizing about their future can help build courage in the face of fear. Similarly, the performance of the above existential counteractive by someone who finds purpose in overcoming a challenging situation can support emotional self-control in the face of this challenge.

5. A Toolbox of Philosophical Antidotes

The Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation Institute—U.S. [15] has developed a Philosophical Antidote Toolbox, with the assistance of ChatGPT [16]., consisting of thousands of different philosophical antidotes. The latter AI program was first given several books and articles to read about LBT. It was then given detailed instructions for generating the antidotes, including the fallacious speech acts to be counteracted. For example, the above Buddhist antidote was created to counteract catastrophizing, and the above existential antidote to counteract disavowing the capacity to tolerate unwanted circumstances.

Each antidote in the toolbox is subsumed under a matching virtue. For example, the existential speech act is categorized under self-control and the Buddhist speech act under courage. Presently, the system includes antidotes for cultivating the virtues of self-control, courage, authenticity, empathy, metaphysical security, and respect for the self, others, and the world. Each of these virtues is, in turn, matched with a fallacious speech act so that a philosophy that is intended to build a particular virtue is also intended to overcome its matching fallacious speech act.

Table 2. Fallacies, guiding virtues, and their virtue performatives.

Cardinal Fallacy	Guiding Virtue	Virtue Performative	Example	Description of Virtue
Demanding Perfection	Metaphysical Security	Embracing imperfection	“Without imperfection there would be nothing to aim at and life would be boring”.	Accepting, emotionally as well as intellectually, the imperfections in reality, including human fallibility, uncertainty, inability to control everything, inability to know all, and the existence of bad or unwanted things.
Catastrophizing	Courage	Accepting uncertainty	“In living, there are no certainties, only probabilities”.	Confronting the possibilities of bad things happening without under- or overestimating their risk or severity. It means fearing these things to the extent that it is reasonable to fear them and, in turn, acting according to what is reasonable under the circumstances.
Damning	Respect	Accepting the intrinsic worth of self, others, or the world	“I am a child of God”.	Having positive regard for oneself, others, or the world, unconditionally (regardless of the circumstances).
Jumping on the Bandwagon	Authenticity	Committing oneself to being autonomous	“I am a rational self-determining being”.	Autonomously and freely living according to one’s own creative lights as opposed to losing oneself on a bandwagon of social conformity.
Capacity Disavowing	Self-Control	Acknowledging power over one’s own emotions, actions, volitions, or thoughts	“If we could not have power over what we do, think, or feel, we would be robots, devoid of what makes us human”.	Exercising rational control over one’s emotions (temperance), actions (decisiveness), will (tolerance/patience), or thoughts (serenity); avoiding self-stultifying, unrealistic uses of “I can’t”.
Threatening	Empowerment	Recognizing the self-determination of others	“We all have a right to our beliefs”.	Treating others as rational, self-determining agents in contrast to trying to get what you want through power plays, intimidation, and deceit.
Decreeing Reality	Empathy	Affirming the subjectivity of others	“We make worlds, we just don’t discover them”.	Transcending one’s own ego-centered universe by connecting (cognitively, emotionally, and spiritually) with the subjectivity of others.

displays the fallacious speech acts along with their matching virtues, a description of the virtue, and the therapeutic speech act that the virtue performs (virtue performative):

In the virtue performative column of Table 2 are major “uplifting” speech acts performed by antidotes to the corresponding fallacious speech acts. The examples column, in turn, provide illustrations. Such philosophical antidotes perform speech acts that help build matching virtues. This is because virtues have a cognitive dimension linked to the way in which virtuous people speak to themselves.

For example, in speaking Sartre’s philosophy of personal autonomy to oneself—that “Man is condemned to be free”—one commits oneself to being autonomous. In this manner, it can serve as an uplifting antidote to jumping on the bandwagon. Through the utterance (as a perlocutionary effect of it), this pithy affirmative speech act can help an existentialist client to feel a sense of responsibility to shape their own destiny instead of relying on the directives of others or on social standards that may be quashing the individual’s sense of ownership over their own life. An example of the latter would be the housewife who secretly dreams of going to medical school to become a physician.

Of course, Sartre’s philosophy may be repugnant to a theistic housewife who, more appropriately, looks to God for inspiration. Indeed, because each virtue can be approached from several different philosophical perspectives, the philosophical antidotes in the Toolbox have been generated from seven major philosophical perspectives: existential, stoic, humanistic, theistic, mindfulness-based, pragmatic, and ethical (Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation Institute—U.S. [17]. For example, some philosophical antidotes have been created to promote self-control from a stoic perspective and some from a humanistic perspective. In this way, people with different philosophical world views can find antidotes that help build virtues from their individual perspectives and comfort levels.

Below are brief descriptions of each of the philosophical perspectives included in the Toolbox (Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation Institute—U.S. [12]:

• Existential Antidotes
  • These emphasize finding your own meanings, personal responsibility, and freedom to choose, despite the inherent uncertainty and risks in life (e.g., “Every day is a chance to create a new self”—Rollo May).
• Stoic Antidotes
  • These focus on accepting that there are things you cannot control (for example, other people’s attitudes and reactions) and maintaining inner peace through reason and discipline (e.g., “Focus on effort, not outcomes, as the true measure of success_—Marcus Aurelius).
• Pragmatic Antidotes
  • These offer practical solutions through effective, action-oriented strategies (e.g., “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind”—Mahatma Gandhi).
• Ethical Antidotes
  • These focus on the moral significance of how you respond to life situations (e.g., “Cultivate compassion for yourself and others”—Dalai Lama).
• Mindfulness-Based Antidotes
  • These encourage being present in the here-and-now, observing your negative thoughts and feelings instead of judging them, letting them go rather than clinging to them (e.g., “Let go of judgment and embrace the world as it is”—Tara Brach).
• Theistic Antidotes
  • These draw strength from faith in a higher power or divine providence, often tied to religious traditions, including both Eastern and Western ones (e.g., “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase”—Martin Luther King).
• Humanistic Antidotes
  • These stress human dignity, self-empowerment, empathy, and personal growth in the face of life’s challenges (e.g., “The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change”—Carl Rogers).

Additionally, cutting across these seven categories of philosophical perspective, different appeal classifications have been developed and incorporated into detailed instructions to promote broader resonance: humanistic and existential, relational and logical, spiritual and transcendental, heroic and aspirational, mindfulness and introspective, resilience and growth potential, integrity and moral, relational and empathetic, harmony and simplicity, and discipline and mastery (Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation Institute—U.S. [17]. For example, someone taking an existential perspective might come from a spiritual and transcendental perspective such as in the case of Soren Kierkegaard, a theistic existentialist. This would contrast with Jean-Paul Sartre, who might appeal more to a humanistically inclined person than to a more spiritual person.

Hence, the toolbox of philosophical antidotes provides numerous ways to appeal to categories of people coming from seven alternative philosophical perspectives. This can enable them to select antidotes likely to resonate with them the most, based on their personal philosophical profiles (general philosophical outlooks and appeals).

In addition, for each antidote it generates, the program provides an analysis and a language sensitivity element that suggests alternative language to use in lieu of self-defeating language. Finally, it makes suggestions for making constructive behavioral changes toward building the virtues in question (Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation Institute—U.S. [15].

For example, the following entry, derived from Carol Gilligan, has been included as an antidote to the-world-revolves-around-me (WRAM) thinking, thus aimed at building empathy (Logic-Based Therapy and Consultation Institute—U.S. [15]:

• Antidote: “The self is strengthened not by domination but by connection”.
• Source: Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (paraphrased).

• Appeal: Relational and Empathy Appeal: Encourages building relationships rooted in mutual understanding rather than control.
• Analysis: Personal and collective growth arises from connections rather than hierarchical power dynamics.
• Language Sensitivity: Replace “I need to control this situation to feel secure” with “I strengthen myself and others through connection, not control”.
• Actionable Component: Engage in a dialogue today where your goal is to connect, not to persuade.

People often believe that control or domination enhances their well-being and happiness, but the idea here is that selfless connection, paradoxically, builds security about oneself. Hence, a client who was inclined to see things from their own subjective perspective might work towards focusing their attention on the subjectivity of others to connect with it. Thus, the AI program insightfully suggests a shift in language from “I need to control this situation to feel secure” to “I strengthen myself and others through connection, not control”. The actionable component then appropriately suggests engaging in a dialog to connect rather than to control through use of persuasion. Indeed, a characteristic of WRAM thinkers is the use of well poisoning and other forms of intimidation to control what the other person thinks or feels. This antidote, therefore, can be quite useful in helping the client work toward changing such a modus operandi into one of connecting.

The appeal category of relationship building is then appropriate for many WRAM thinkers who find their interpersonal relationships suffering and are looking for guidance about how to identify and address the problem. Indeed, within the relatively brief antidotal entry lies the basis for client constructive change. Philosophical counselors or psychotherapists working with such a client can, accordingly, utilize the Toolbox as part of their therapeutic intervention.

It is important to stress that, for the antidote to be efficacious, it needs to resonate with the client. This means that the client needs to feel comfortable with the antidote. As such, it can be useful when utilizing the Toolbox to encourage the client to browse through the antidotes on their own and select those antidotes that seem to resonate with the client the most. Picking the antidotes for the client can have counterproductive consequences as the client may come to believe that they are expected to think a certain way rather than feeling inclined to do so on their own.

That said, the therapist can assist the client prior to conducting the search by suggesting the categories in which to search. Is the client theistic or more humanistically inclined? Does the client take an Eastern religious perspective? If so, the client might resonate well with a mindfulness-based antidote as well as a theistic one coming from an Eastern perspective. The system is culturally sensitive and an attempt in building it was made to include various cultural perspectives. For example, there are theistic antidotes from Christian, Judaic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist perspectives.

After the client selects an antidote or set of antidotes that resonates with them, the therapist can then help the client apply this philosophy, that is, operationalize it by constructing a behavioral plan. For example, in one case, a humanistically inclined self-damning client, who was experiencing depersonalization as a way of distancing herself from herself, chose an antidote that embraced the relationship that she formed with herself as being the primary and most valuable relationship. Consequently, she received homework assignments to engage in activities that were rewarding to her, and provided the opportunity to embrace herself, such as exercising her extraordinary artistic talents.

In this manner, the Toolbox has considerable potential to help clients work toward overcoming their self-destructive speech acts and perform self-constructive ones instead. Indeed, it appears to be the first of its kind to use artificial intelligence to create a systematic, comprehensive, online, free resource for helping people throughout the world overcome core types of irrational speech acts associated with self-defeating emotions and behavior. The latter speech acts include catastrophizing, damnation of self, others, and the world, can’tstipation of various types (cognitive, volitional, behavioral, and emotional), and demanding perfection of various kinds. In turn, it seeks to build the corresponding virtues to these self-destructive speech acts. The platform is intended to continue to evolve, and to increase the scope of virtues it helps to build.

6. Conclusions

The performance of negative speech acts embedded in behavioral and emotional reasoning can create behavioral and emotional disturbances for the agent, such as anxiety, depression, guilt, and anger. Keying into these self-destructive and self-defeating speech acts is essential to overcoming them. This is because such linguistic activity, on a neurological level, activates stress centers in the brain (the limbic system and related areas), which is phenomenologically experienced as emotional stress of various kinds (anxiety, depression, etc.).

Performing resonant, abstract, philosophical, antidotal speech acts to these irrational modes of speaking, and then applying (acting in line with) them, can help one work toward replacing the unhealthy ways of self-relating with healthy ones. The latter ways of self-relating are virtuous ways such as self-control, courage, authenticity, empathy, metaphysical security, and respect for the self, others, and the world. Such linguistic activity involves the performance of speech acts, such as committing oneself to being autonomous, accepting one’s self-worth, embracing imperfection, and accepting uncertainty, which builds and sustains the affective and behavioral aspects of its related virtues.

Accordingly, introduced here is a Toolbox of different philosophical locutions that can serve as virtue performatives for diverse philosophical and cultural orientations and predilections. Philosophical practitioners and philosophically oriented psychotherapists may find this resource useful for various client populations with whom they work. It may also be useful to individuals who seek self-help in the form of philosophical counsel.