The Courage To Be Disliked E-Book

Ichiro Kishimi

• Herausgeber: Allen & Unwin
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Courage To series
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Seitenzahl: 328

Beschreibung

THE 10 MILLION COPY BESTSELLER Stop people-pleasing and achieve true happiness. Millions have already benefited from the wisdom dispensed in The Courage to Be Disliked, its simple yet profound advice showing us how to harness our inner power to become the person we would like to be. A philosopher and a student have a discussion. Their conversation reveals a profoundly liberating way of thinking: by developing the courage to change, set healthy boundaries and resist the impulse to please others, it is possible to find genuine and lasting happiness. Your life is not something that someone gives you, but something you choose yourself, and you are the one who decides how you live.

Leseprobe

Ichiro Kishimi was born in Kyoto, where he still lives, in 1956. He has aspired to become a philosopher since his days in high school. Since 1989, while specialising in Classical Western philosophy with a focus on Platonic philosophy, he has researched Adlerian psychology; he writes and lectures on the subject and provides counselling for youths in psychiatric clinics as a certified counsellor and consultant for the Japanese Society of Adlerian Psychology. He is the translator, into Japanese, of selected writings by Alfred Adler—Kojin Shinrigaku Kogi (The Science of Living) and Hito wa Naze Shinkeisho ni Naru no ka (Problems of Neurosis)—and he is the author of Adora Shinrigaku Nyumon (Introduction to Adlerian Psychology), in addition to numerous other books.

Fumitake Koga, an award-winning professional writer and author, was born in 1973. He has released numerous bestselling works of business-related and general non-fiction. He encountered Adlerian psychology in his late twenties and was deeply affected by its conventional wisdom defying ideas. Thereafter, Koga made numerous visits to Ichiro Kishimi in Kyoto, gleaned from him the essence of Adlerian psychology and took down the notes for the classical ‘dialogue format’ method of Greek philosophy that is used in this book.

First published in Japan as Kirawareru Yuki by Diamond Inc., Tokyo, in 2013

First published in Australia and New Zealand by Allen & Unwin in 2017

First published in Great Britain by Allen & Unwin in 2018

This English edition published by arrangement with Diamond Inc. in care of Tuttle-Mori Agency Inc., Tokyo, through Chandler Crawford Agency, Massachusetts, USA.

Copyright © Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga 2013

Copyright © Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga in this translated edition 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Allen & Unwin

c/o Atlantic Books

Ormond House

26-27 Boswell Street

London, WC1N 3JZ

Phone: [phone]

Email:[email protected]

Web:www.allenandunwin.com/uk

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

Hardback ISBN 978 1 76063 072 0

Ebook ISBN 978 1 76063 826 9

Internal design by Bookhouse

Set by Bookhouse, Sydney

AUTHORS’ NOTE

Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and Alfred Adler are all giants in the world of psychology. This book is a distillation of Adler’s philosophical and psychological ideas and teachings, taking the form of a narrative dialogue between a philosopher and a young man.

Adlerian psychology enjoys a broad base of support in Europe and the USA, and presents simple and straightforward answers to the philosophical question: how can one be happy? Adlerian psychology might hold the key. Reading this book could change your life. Now, let us accompany the young man and venture beyond the ‘door’.

CONTENTS

Introduction

THE FIRST NIGHT

Deny trauma

The unknown ‘third giant’

Why people can change

Trauma does not exist

People fabricate anger

How to live without being controlled by the past

Socrates and Adler

Are you okay just as you are?

Unhappiness is something you choose for yourself

People always choose not to change

Your life is decided here and now

THE SECOND NIGHT

All problems are interpersonal relationship problems

Why you dislike yourself

All problems are interpersonal relationship problems

Feelings of inferiority are subjective assumptions

An inferiority complex is an excuse

Braggarts have feelings of inferiority

Life is not a competition

You’re the only one worrying about your appearance

From power struggle to revenge

Admitting fault is not defeat

Overcoming the tasks that face you in life

Red string and rigid chains

Don’t fall for the ‘life-lie’

From the psychology of possession to the psychology of practice

THE THIRD NIGHT

Discard other people’s tasks

Deny the desire for recognition

Do not live to satisfy the expectations of others

How to separate tasks

Discard other people’s tasks

How to rid yourself of interpersonal relationship problems

Cut the Gordian knot

Desire for recognition makes you unfree

What real freedom is

You hold the cards to interpersonal relationships

THE FOURTH NIGHT

Where the centre of the world is

Individual psychology and holism

The goal of interpersonal relationships is a feeling of community

Why am I only interested in myself ?

You are not the centre of the world

Listen to the voice of a larger community

Do not rebuke or praise

The encouragement approach

How to feel you have value

Exist in the present

People cannot make proper use of self

THE FIFTH NIGHT

To live in earnest in the here and now

Excessive self-consciousness stifles the self

Not self-affirmation—self-acceptance

The difference between trust and confidence

The essence of work is a contribution to the common good

Young people walk ahead of adults

Workaholism is a life-lie

You can be happy now

Two paths travelled by those wanting to be ‘special beings’

The courage to be normal

Life is a series of moments

Live like you’re dancing

Shine a light on the here and now

The greatest life-lie

Give meaning to seemingly meaningless life

Afterword

On the outskirts of the thousand-year-old city lived a philosopher who taught that the world was simple and that happiness was within the reach of every man, instantly. A young man who was dissatisfied with life went to visit this philosopher to get to the heart of the matter. This youth found the world a chaotic mass of contradictions and, in his anxious eyes, any notion of happiness was completely absurd.

INTRODUCTION

YOUTH: I want to ask you once again; you do believe that the world is, in all ways, a simple place?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, this world is astonishingly simple and life itself is, too.

YOUTH: So, is this your idealistic argument or is it a workable theory? What I mean is, are you saying that any issues you or I face in life are simple too?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course.

YOUTH: Alright then, but let me explain why I have come to visit you today. Firstly, I want to debate this with you until I am satisfied, and then, if possible, I want to get you to retract this theory.

PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha.

YOUTH: Because I have heard all about your reputation. The word is that there is an eccentric philosopher living here whose teachings and arguments are hard to ignore, namely, that people can change, that the world is simple and that everyone can be happy. That is the sort of thing I have heard, but I find that view totally unacceptable, so I wanted to confirm things for myself. If I find anything you say completely off, I will point it out and then correct you . . . But will you find that annoying?

PHILOSOPHER: No, I would welcome the opportunity. I have been hoping to hear from a young person just like you and to learn as much as possible from what you can tell me.

YOUTH: Thanks. I do not intend to dismiss you out of hand. I will take your views into consideration and then look at the possibilities that present themselves. ‘The world is simple and life is simple too’—if there is anything in this thesis that might contain truth, it would be life from a child’s point of view. Children do not have any obvious duties, like paying taxes or going to work. They are protected by their parents and society, and can spend days free from care. They can imagine a future that goes on forever and do whatever they want. They don’t have to see grim reality—they are blindfolded. So, to them the world must have a simple form. However, as a child matures to adulthood the world reveals its true nature. Very shortly, the child will know how things really are and what he is really allowed to do. His opinion will alter and all he will see is impossibility. His romantic view will end and be replaced by cruel realism.

PHILOSOPHER: I see. That is an interesting view.

YOUTH: That’s not all. Once grown up, the child will get entangled in all kinds of complicated relationships with people and have all kinds of responsibilities thrust upon him. That is how life will be, both at work and at home, and in any role he assumes in public life. It goes without saying that he will become aware of the various issues in society that he couldn’t understand as a child, including discrimination, war and inequality, and he will not be able to ignore them. Am I wrong?

PHILOSOPHER: It sounds fine to me. Please continue.

YOUTH: Well, if we were still living at a time when religion held sway, salvation might be an option, because the teachings of the divine were everything to us. All we had to do was obey them and consequently have little to think about. But religion has lost its power and now there is no real belief in God. With nothing to rely on, everyone is filled with anxiety and doubt. Everyone is living for themselves. That is how society is today, so please tell me—given these realities and in the light of what I have said—can you still say the world is simple?

PHILOSOPHER: There is no change in what I say. The world is simple and life is simple too.

YOUTH: How? Anyone can see that it’s a chaotic mass of contradictions.

PHILOSOPHER: That is not because the world is complicated. It’s because you are making the world complicated.

YOUTH: I am?

PHILOSOPHER: None of us live in an objective world, but instead in a subjective world that we ourselves have given meaning to. The world you see is different from the one I see, and it’s impossible to share your world with anyone else.

YOUTH: How can that be? You and I are living in the same country, in the same time, and we are seeing the same things—aren’t we?

PHILOSOPHER: You look rather young to me, but have you ever drunk well water that has just been drawn?

YOUTH: Well water? Um, it was a long time ago, but there was a well at my grandmother’s house in the countryside. I remember enjoying the fresh, cold water drawn from that well on a hot summer’s day.

PHILOSOPHER: You may know this, but well water stays at pretty much the same temperature all year round, at about 18 degrees. That is an objective number—it stays the same to everyone who measures it. But when you drink the water in the summer it seems cool and when you drink the same water in the winter it seems warm. Even though it’s the same water, at the same 18 degrees according to the thermometer, the way it seems depends on whether it’s summer or winter.

YOUTH: So, it’s an illusion caused by the change in the environment.

PHILOSOPHER: No, it’s not an illusion. You see, to you, in that moment, the coolness or warmth of the well water is an undeniable fact. That’s what it means to live in your subjective world. There is no escape from your own subjectivity. At present, the world seems complicated and mysterious to you, but if you change, the world will appear more simple. The issue is not about how the world is, but about how you are.

YOUTH: How I am?

PHILOSOPHER: Right . . . It’s as if you see the world through dark glasses, so naturally everything seems dark. But if that is the case, instead of lamenting about the world’s darkness, you could just remove the glasses. Perhaps the world will appear terribly bright to you then and you will involuntarily shut your eyes. Maybe you’ll want the glasses back on, but can you even take them off in the first place? Can you look directly at the world? Do you have the courage?

YOUTH: Courage?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it’s a matter of courage.

YOUTH: Well alright. There are tons of objections I would like to raise, but I get the feeling it would be better to go into them later. I would like to confirm that you are saying ‘people can change’, right?

PHILOSOPHER: Of course people can change. They can also find happiness.

YOUTH: Everyone, without exception?

PHILOSOPHER: No exceptions whatsoever.

YOUTH: Ha-ha! Now you’re talking big! This is getting interesting. I’m going to start arguing with you immediately.

PHILOSOPHER: I am not going to run away or hide anything. Let’s take our time debating this. So, your position is ‘people cannot change?’

YOUTH: That’s right, they can’t change. Actually, I am suffering myself because of not being able to change.

PHILOSOPHER: And at the same time, you wish you could.

YOUTH: Of course. If I could change, if I could start life all over again, I would gladly fall to my knees before you. But it could turn out that you’ll be down on your knees before me.

PHILOSOPHER: You remind me of myself during my own student days, when I was a hot-blooded young man searching for the truth, traipsing about, calling on philosophers . . .

YOUTH: Yes. I am searching for the truth. The truth about life.

PHILOSOPHER: I have never felt the need to take in disciples and have never done so. However, since becoming a student of Greek philosophy and then coming into contact with another philosophy, I have been waiting for a long time for a visit from a young person like you.

YOUTH: Another philosophy? What would that be?

PHILOSOPHER: My study is just over there. Go into it. It’s going to be a long night. I will go and make some hot coffee.

The young man entered the study and sat slouched in a chair. Why was he so determined to reject the philosopher’s theories? His reasons were abundantly clear. He lacked self-confidence and, ever since childhood, this had been compounded by deep-seated feelings of inferiority with regard to his personal and academic backgrounds, as well as his physical appearance. Perhaps, as a result, he tended to be excessively self-conscious when people looked at him. Mostly, he seemed incapable of truly appreciating other people’s happiness, and was constantly pitying himself. To him, the philosopher’s claims were nothing more than the stuff of fantasy.

THE UNKNOWN ‘THIRD GIANT’

YOUTH: A moment ago, you used the words ‘another philosophy’, but I’ve heard that your specialty is in Greek philosophy.

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, Greek philosophy has been central to my life ever since I was a teenager. The great intellectual figures: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. I am translating a work by Plato at the moment, and I expect to spend the rest of my life studying classical Greek thought.

YOUTH: Well, then what is this ‘other philosophy’?

PHILOSOPHER: It is a completely new school of psychology that was established by the Austrian psychiatrist, Alfred Adler, at the beginning of the twentieth century. In this country, it is generally referred to as Adlerian psychology.

YOUTH: Huh. I never would have imagined that a specialist in Greek philosophy would be interested in psychology.

PHILOSOPHER: I’m not very familiar with paths taken by other schools of psychology. However, I think it is fair to say that Adlerian psychology is clearly in line with Greek philosophy, and that it is a proper field of study.

YOUTH: I have a passing knowledge of the psychology of Freud and Jung. A fascinating field.

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, Freud and Jung are both renowned. Even here. Adler was one of the original core members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, which was led by Freud. His ideas were counter to Freud’s, and he split from the group and proposed an ‘individual psychology’ based on his own original theories.

YOUTH: Individual psychology? Another odd term. So, Adler was a disciple of Freud’s?

PHILOSOPHER: No, he was not. That misconception is common; we must dispel it. For one thing, Adler and Freud were relatively close in age, and the relationship they formed as researchers was founded upon equal footing. In this respect, Adler was very different from Jung, who revered Freud as a father figure. Though psychology primarily tends to be associated with Freud and Jung, Adler is recognised throughout the rest of the world, along with Freud and Jung, as one of the three giants in this field.

YOUTH: I see. I should have studied it more.

PHILOSOPHER: I suppose it’s only natural you haven’t heard of Adler. As he himself said, ‘There might come a time when one will not remember my name; people might even have forgotten that our school ever existed.’ Then he went on to say that it didn’t matter. The implication being that if his school were forgotten, it would be because his ideas had outgrown the bounds of a single area of scholarship, and become commonplace, and a feeling shared by everyone. For example, Dale Carnegie, who wrote the international bestsellers How to Win Friends and Influence People and How to Stop Worrying and Start Living, referred to Adler as ‘a great psychologist who devoted his life to researching humans and their latent abilities’. The influence of Adler’s thinking is clearly present throughout his writings. And in Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, much of the content closely resembles Adler’s ideas. In other words, rather than being a strict area of scholarship, Adlerian psychology is accepted as a realisation; a culmination of truths and of human understanding. Yet Adler’s ideas are said to have been a hundred years ahead of their time, and even today we have not managed to fully comprehend them. That is how truly ground breaking they were.

YOUTH: So, your theories are developed not from Greek philosophy initially, but from the viewpoint of Adlerian psychology?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s right.

YOUTH: Okay. There’s one more thing I’d like to ask about your basic stance. Are you a philosopher? Or are you a psychologist?

PHILOSOPHER: I am a philosopher; a person who lives philosophy. And, for me, Adlerian psychology is a form of thought that is in line with Greek philosophy, and that is philosophy.

YOUTH: All right then. Let’s get started.

WHY PEOPLE CAN CHANGE

YOUTH: First, let’s plan the points of discussion. You say people can change. Then you take it a step farther, saying that everyone can find happiness.

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, everyone, without exception.

YOUTH: Let’s save the discussion about happiness for later and address change first. Everyone wishes they could change. I know I do, and I’m sure anyone you might stop and ask on the street would agree. But why does everyone feel they want to change? There’s only one answer: because they cannot change. If it were easy for people to change, they wouldn’t spend so much time wishing they could. No matter how much they wish it, people cannot change. And that’s why there are always so many people getting taken in by new religions and dubious self-help seminars, and any preaching on how everyone can change. Am I wrong?

PHILOSOPHER: Well, in response, I’d ask why you are so adamant that people can’t change.

YOUTH: Here’s why. I have a friend, a guy, who has shut himself in his room for several years. He wishes he could go out, and even thinks he’d like to have a job, if possible. So, he wants to change the way he is. I say this as his friend, but I assure you he is a very serious person who could be of great use to society. Except that he’s afraid to leave his room. If he takes even a single step outside, he suffers palpitations and his arms and legs shake. It’s a kind of neurosis or panic, I suppose. He wants to change, but he can’t.

PHILOSOPHER: What do you think the reason is that he can’t go out?

YOUTH: I’m not really sure. It could be because of his relationship with his parents, or because he was bullied at school or work. He might have experienced a kind of trauma from something like that. But then, it could be the opposite—maybe he was too pampered as a child and can’t face reality. I just don’t know, and I can’t pry into his past or his family situation.

PHILOSOPHER: So, you are saying there were incidents in your friend’s past that became the cause of trauma, or something similar, and as a result he can’t go out anymore?

YOUTH: Of course. Before an effect, there’s a cause. There is nothing mysterious about that.

PHILOSOPHER: Then perhaps the cause of his not being able to go out anymore lies in the home environment during his childhood. He was abused by his parents and reached adulthood without ever feeling love. That’s why he’s afraid of interacting with people and why he can’t go out. It’s feasible, isn’t it?

YOUTH: Yes, it’s entirely feasible. I’d imagine that would be really challenging.

PHILOSOPHER: And then you say, ‘Before an effect, there’s a cause.’ Or, in other words, who I am now (the effect) is determined by occurrences in the past (the causes). Do I understand correctly?

YOUTH: You do.

PHILOSOPHER: So, if the here and now of everyone in the world is due to their past incidents, according to you, wouldn’t things turn out very strangely? Don’t you see? Everyone who has grown up abused by his or her parents would have to suffer the same effects as your friend and become a recluse, or the whole idea just doesn’t hold water. That is, if the past actually determines the present, and the causes control the effects.

YOUTH: What, exactly, are you getting at?

PHILOSOPHER: If we focus only on past causes and try to explain things solely through cause and effect, we end up with ‘determinism’. Because what this says is that our present and our future have already been decided by past occurrences, and are unalterable. Am I wrong?

YOUTH: So, you’re saying that the past doesn’t matter?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that is the standpoint of Adlerian psychology.

YOUTH: I see. The points of conflict seem a bit clearer. But look, if we go by your version, wouldn’t that ultimately mean that there’s no reason my friend can’t go out anymore? Because you’re saying that past incidents don’t matter. I’m sorry, but that’s completely out of the question. There has to be some reason behind his seclusion. There has to be, or there’d be no explanation!

PHILOSOPHER: Indeed, there would be no explanation. So, in Adlerian psychology, we do not think about past ‘causes’, but rather about present ‘goals’.

YOUTH: Present goals?

PHILOSOPHER: Your friend is insecure, so he can’t go out. Think about it the other way around. He doesn’t want to go out, so he’s creating a state of anxiety.

YOUTH: Huh?

PHILOSOPHER: Think about it this way. Your friend had the goal of not going out beforehand, and he’s been manufacturing a state of anxiety and fear as a means to achieve that goal. In Adlerian psychology, this is called ‘teleology’.

YOUTH: You’re joking! My friend has imagined his anxiety and fear? So, would you go so far as saying that my friend is just pretending to be sick?

PHILOSOPHER: He is not pretending to be sick. The anxiety and fear your friend is feeling are real. On occasion, he might also suffer from migraines and violent stomach cramps. However, these too are symptoms that he has created in order to achieve the goal of not going out.

YOUTH: That’s not true! No way! That’s too depressing!

PHILOSOPHER: No. This is the difference between ‘aetiology’ (the study of causation) and teleology (the study of the purpose of a given phenomenon, rather than its cause). Everything you have been telling me is based in aetiology. As long as we stay in aetiology, we will not take a single step forward.

TRAUMA DOES NOT EXIST

YOUTH: If you are going to state things so forcibly, I’d like a thorough explanation. To begin with, what is the difference you refer to between aetiology and teleology?

PHILOSOPHER: Supposing you’ve got a cold with a high fever, and you’ve gone to see the doctor. Then, suppose the doctor says the reason for your sickness is that yesterday, when you went out, you weren’t dressed well enough, and that’s why you’ve caught a cold. Now, would you be satisfied with that?

YOUTH: Of course I wouldn’t. It wouldn’t matter to me what the reason was—the way I was dressed or because it was raining, or whatever. It’s the symptoms, the fact that I’m suffering with a high fever now that would matter to me. If he’s a doctor, I’d need him to treat me by prescribing medicine, giving shots or taking whatever specialised measures are necessary.

PHILOSOPHER: Yet those who take an aetiological stance, including most counsellors and psychiatrists, would argue that what you were suffering from stemmed from such-and-such cause in the past, and would then end up just consoling you by saying, ‘So you see, it’s not your fault.’ The argument concerning so-called traumas is typical of aetiology.

YOUTH: Wait a minute! Are you denying the existence of trauma altogether?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I am. Adamantly.

YOUTH: What! Aren’t you, or I guess I should say Adler, an authority on psychology?

PHILOSOPHER: In Adlerian psychology, trauma is definitively denied. This was a very new and revolutionary point. Certainly, the Freudian view of trauma is fascinating. Freud’s idea is that a person’s psychic wounds (traumas) cause his or her present unhappiness. When you treat a person’s life as a vast narrative, there is an easily understandable causality and sense of dramatic development that creates strong impressions and is extremely attractive. But Adler, in denial of the trauma argument, states the following: ‘No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences—the so-called trauma—but instead we make out of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining.’

YOUTH: So, we make of them whatever suits our purposes?

PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Focus on the point Adler is making here when he refers to the self being determined not by our experiences themselves, but by the meaning we give them. He is not saying that the experience of a horrible calamity or abuse during childhood or other such incidents have no influence on forming a personality; their influences are strong. But the important thing is that nothing is actually determined by those influences. We determine our own lives according to the meaning we give to those past experiences. Your life is not something that someone gives you, but something you choose yourself, and you are the one who decides how you live.

YOUTH: Okay, so you’re saying that my friend has shut himself in his room because he actually chooses to live this way? This is serious. Believe me, it is not what he wants. If anything, it’s something he was forced to choose because of circumstances. He had no choice other than to become who he is now.

PHILOSOPHER: No. Even supposing that your friend actually thinks I can’t fit into society because I was abused by my parents, it’s still because it is his goal to think that way.

YOUTH: What sort of goal is that?

PHILOSOPHER: The immediate thing would probably be the goal of ‘not going out’. He is creating anxiety and fear as his reasons to stay inside.

YOUTH: But why doesn’t he want to go out? That’s where the problem resides.

PHILOSOPHER: Well, think of it from the parents’ view. How would you feel if your child were shut up in a room?

YOUTH: I’d be worried, of course. I’d want to help him return to society; I’d want him to be well, and I’d wonder if I’d raised him improperly. I’m sure I would be seriously concerned, and try in every way imaginable to help him back to a normal existence.

PHILOSOPHER:That is where the problem is.

YOUTH: Where?

PHILOSOPHER: If I stay in my room all the time, without ever going out, my parents will worry. I can get all of my parents’ attention focused on me. They’ll be extremely careful around me, and always handle me with kid gloves. On the other hand, if I take even one step out of the house, I’ll just become part of a faceless mass who no one pays attention to. I’ll be surrounded by people I don’t know, and just end up average, or less than average. And no one will take special care of me any longer … Such stories about reclusive people are not uncommon.

YOUTH: In that case, following your line of reasoning, my friend has accomplished his goal, and is satisfied with his current situation?

PHILOSOPHER: I doubt he’s satisfied, and I’m sure he’s not happy either. But there is no doubt that he is also taking action in line with his goal. This is not something that is unique to your friend. Every one of us is living in line with some goal. That is what teleology tells us.

YOUTH: No way. I reject that as completely unacceptable. Look, my friend is—

PHILOSOPHER: Listen, this discussion won’t go anywhere if we just keep talking about your friend. It will turn into a trial in absentia, and that would be hopeless. Let’s use another example.

YOUTH: Well, how about this one? It’s my own story about something I experienced only yesterday.

PHILOSOPHER: Oh? I’m all ears.

PEOPLE FABRICATE ANGER

YOUTH: Yesterday afternoon, I was reading a book in a coffee shop when a waiter passed by and spilled coffee on my jacket. I’d just bought it and it’s my nicest piece of clothing. I couldn’t help it; I just blew my top. I yelled at him at the top of my lungs. I’m not normally the type of person who speaks loudly in public places. But yesterday, the shop was ringing with the sound of my shouting because I flew into a rage and forgot what I was doing. So, how about that? Is there any room for a goal to be involved here? No matter how you look at it, isn’t this behaviour that originates from a cause?

PHILOSOPHER: So, you were stimulated by the emotion of anger, and ended up shouting. Though you are normally mild-mannered, you couldn’t resist being angry. It was an unavoidable occurrence, and you couldn’t do anything about it. Is that what you are saying?

YOUTH: Yes, because it happened so suddenly. The words just came out of my mouth before I had time to think.

PHILOSOPHER: Then just suppose you happened to have had a knife on you yesterday, and when you blew up you just got carried away and stabbed him. Would you still be able to justify that by saying, ‘It was an unavoidable occurrence, and I couldn’t do anything about it’?

YOUTH: That … Come on, that’s an extreme argument!

PHILOSOPHER: It is not an extreme argument. If we proceed with your reasoning, any offence committed in anger can be blamed on anger, and will no longer be the responsibility of the person because, essentially, you are saying that people cannot control their emotions.

YOUTH: Well, how do you explain my anger then?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s easy. You did not fly into a rage and then start shouting. It is solely that you got angry so that you could shout. In other words, in order to fulfil the goal of shouting, you created the emotion of anger.

YOUTH: What do you mean?

PHILOSOPHER: The goal of shouting came before anything else. That is to say, by shouting, you wanted to make the waiter submit to you and listen to what you had to say. As a means to do that, you fabricated the emotion of anger.

YOUTH: I fabricated it? You’ve got to be joking!

PHILOSOPHER: Then why did you raise your voice?

YOUTH: As I said before, I blew my top. I was deeply frustrated.

PHILOSOPHER: No. You could have explained matters without raising your voice, and the waiter would most likely have given you a sincere apology, wiped your jacket with a clean cloth, and taken other appropriate measures. He might have even arranged for it to be dry-cleaned. And somewhere in your mind, you were anticipating that he might do these things but, even so, you shouted. The procedure of explaining things in normal words felt like too much trouble, and you tried to get out of that and make this unresisting person submit to you. The tool you used to do this was the emotion of anger.

YOUTH: No way. You can’t fool me. I manufactured anger in order to make him submit to me? I swear to you, there wasn’t even a second to think of such a thing. I didn’t think it over and then get angry. Anger is a more impulsive emotion.

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right, anger is an instantaneous emotion. Now listen, I have a story. One day, a mother and daughter were quarrelling loudly. Then, suddenly, the telephone rang. ‘Hello?’ The mother picked up the receiver hurriedly, her voice still thick with anger. The caller was her daughter’s homeroom teacher. As soon as the mother realised who was phoning, the tone of her voice changed and she became very polite. Then, for the next five minutes or so, she carried on a conversation in her best telephone voice. Once she hung up, in a moment, her expression changed again and she went straight back to yelling at her daughter.

YOUTH: Well, that’s not a particularly unusual story.

PHILOSOPHER: Don’t you see? In a word, anger is a tool that can be taken out as needed. It can be put away the moment the phone rings, and pulled out again after one hangs up. The mother isn’t yelling in anger she cannot control. She is simply using the anger to overpower her daughter with a loud voice, and thereby assert her opinions.

YOUTH: So, anger is a means to achieve a goal?

PHILOSOPHER: That is what teleology says.

YOUTH: Ah, I see now. Under that gentle-looking mask you wear, you’re terribly nihilistic! Whether we’re talking about anger or my reclusive friend, all your insights are stuffed with feelings of distrust for human beings!

HOW TO LIVE WITHOUT BEING CONTROLLED BY THE PAST

PHILOSOPHER: How am I being nihilistic?

YOUTH: Think about it. Simply put, you deny human emotion. You say that emotions are nothing more than tools; that they’re just the means for achieving goals. But listen. If you deny emotion, you’re upholding a view that tries to deny our humanity, too. Because it’s our emotions, and the fact that we are swayed by all sorts of feelings that make us human. If emotions are denied, humans will be nothing more than poor excuses for machines. If that isn’t nihilism, then what is?

PHILOSOPHER: I am not denying that emotion exists. Everyone has emotions. That goes without saying. But if you are going to tell me that people are beings who can’t resist emotion, I’d argue against that. Adlerian psychology is a form of thought, a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to nihilism. We are not controlled by emotion. In this sense, while it shows that ‘people are not controlled by emotion’, additionally it shows that ‘we are not controlled by the past’.

YOUTH: So, people are not controlled either by emotion or the past?

PHILOSOPHER: Okay, for example, suppose there is someone whose parents had divorced in his past. Isn’t this something objective, the same as the well water that is always eighteen degrees? But then, does that divorce feel cold or does it feel warm? So, this is a ‘now’ thing, a subjective thing. Regardless of what may have happened in the past, it is the meaning that is attributed to it that determines the way someone’s present will be.

YOUTH: The question isn’t ‘what happened?’, but ‘how was it resolved?’

PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. We can’t go back to the past in a time machine. We can’t turn back the hands of time. If you end up staying in aetiology, you will be bound by the past and never be able to find happiness.

YOUTH: That’s right! We can’t change the past, and that’s precisely why life is so hard.

PHILOSOPHER: Life isn’t just hard. If the past determined everything and couldn’t be changed, we who are living today would no longer be able to take effective steps forward in our lives. What would happen as a result? We would end up with the kind of nihilism and pessimism that loses hope in the world and gives up on life. The Freudian aetiology that is typified by the trauma argument is determinism in a different form, and is the road to nihilism. Are you going to accept values like that?

YOUTH: I don’t want to accept them, but the past is so powerful.

PHILOSOPHER: Think of the possibilities. If one assumes that people are beings who can change, a set of values based on aetiology becomes untenable, and one is compelled to take the position of teleology as a matter of course.

YOUTH: So, you are saying that one should always take the ‘people can change’ premise?

PHILOSOPHER: Of course. And, please understand, it is Freudian aetiology that denies our free will, and treats humans like machines.

The young man paused and glanced around the philosopher’s study. Floor-to-ceiling bookshelves filled the walls, and on a small wooden desk lay a fountain pen and what appeared to be a partially written manuscript. ‘People are not driven by past causes, but move toward goals that they themselves set’—that was the philosopher’s claim. The teleology he espoused was an idea that overturned at the root the causality of respectable psychology, and the young man found that impossible to accept. So, from which standpoint should he start to argue it? The youth took a deep breath.

SOCRATES AND ADLER

YOUTH: All right. Let me tell you about another friend of mine, a man named Y. He’s the kind of person who has always had a bright personality and talks easily to anyone. He’s like a sunflower—everyone loves him, and people smile whenever he’s around. In contrast, I am someone who has never had an easy time socially, and who’s kind of warped in various ways. Now, you are claiming that people can change through Adler’s teleology?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. You, I and everyone can change.

YOUTH: Then, do you think I could become someone like Y? From the bottom of my heart, I really wish I could be like him.

PHILOSOPHER: At this point, I’d have to say that’s totally out of the question.

YOUTH: Aha! Now you’re showing your true colours! So, are you going to retract your theory?

PHILOSOPHER: No, I am not. Unfortunately, you have almost no understanding of Adlerian psychology yet. The first step to change is knowing.

YOUTH: So, if I can understand just something about Adlerian psychology, can I become a person like Y?

PHILOSOPHER: Why are you rushing for answers? You should arrive at answers on your own, and not rely upon what you get from someone else. Answers from others are nothing more than stopgap measures; they’re of no value. Take Socrates, who left not one book actually written by himself. He spent his days having public debates with the citizens of Athens, especially the young, and it was his disciple, Plato, who put his philosophy into writing for future generations. Adler, too, showed little interest in literary activities, preferring to engage in personal dialogue at cafés in Vienna, and hold small discussion groups. He was definitely not an armchair intellectual.

YOUTH: So, Socrates and Adler both conveyed their ideas by dialogue?

PHILOSOPHER: