The Courage to be Happy E-Book

Ichiro Kishimi

• Herausgeber: Allen & Unwin
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Courage To series
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Seitenzahl: 288

Beschreibung

THE SEQUEL TO THE 10 MILLION COPY BESTSELLER, THE COURAGE TO BE DISLIKED. Embrace the psychology of courage. Find true contentment. As with The Courage To Be Disliked, we follow a conversation between a philosopher and a student. The philosopher believes the key to a life of happiness and fulfilment lies in changing the way we think. Patiently, he explains to the young man the 'psychology of courage', taking him through how to build stronger relationships based on self-acceptance and respect, and demonstrating the profound changes it will bring to the way we live our lives. True happiness is within your reach.

Leseprobe

Also by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga

The Courage To Be Disliked

First published in Japan as Shiawese Ni Naru Yuki by Diamond Inc.,

Tokyo, in 2016

First published in Australia and New Zealand by Allen & Unwin in 2019

First published in the United Kingdom by Allen & Unwin in 2019

This English-language 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 2016

Copyright © Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga in this translated edition 2019

The moral right of Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.

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.

Every effort has been made to trace or contact all copyright holders. The publishers will be pleased to make good any omissions or rectify any mistakes brought to their attention at the earliest opportunity.

Allen & Unwin

c/o Atlantic Books

Ormond House

26–27 Boswell Street

London WC1N 3JZ

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.allenandunwin.com/uk

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

Hardback ISBN 978 1 91163 021 0

E-Book ISBN 978 1 76087 025 6

Printed in

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

AUTHORS’ NOTE

Though he stands beside Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung as one of the most important figures in the world of psychology, Alfred Adler was for many years a forgotten giant. Using the traditional format found in Greek philosophy of a dialogue between a young man and a philosopher, this book provides an introduction to Adler’s thought, which is said to be one hundred years ahead of its time.

The characters appearing in the book are a philosopher engaged in the study of Greek philosophy alongside Adlerian psychology and a youth who is pessimistic about his life. In the previous work, The Courage to be Disliked, the youth questioned the philosopher on the true meaning of his assertion, based on Adler’s ideas, that ‘People can change. And not only that, they can find happiness.’ The philosopher offered the following statements in response:

‘There is no such thing as an internal problem. All problems are interpersonal relationship problems.’ ‘One must not be afraid of being disliked. Freedom is being disliked by other people.’ ‘It isn’t that you lack competence. You just lack “courage”.’ ‘Neither the past nor the future exist. There is only “here and now”.’

The youth rebelled against this stream of radical statements again and again. On encountering Adler’s idea of ‘community feeling’, however, he came to accept the philosopher’s words and resolved to change himself.

The setting of this volume is three years later. The youth, who has become a teacher with the intention of putting Adler’s ideas into practice, calls on the philosopher once more. Adlerian psychology is nothing but a bunch of empty theories. You are trying to tempt and corrupt young people with Adler’s ideas. I’ve got to break away from such dangerous ideas. So says the youth.

In what way should we walk the path to happiness revealed in the preceding volume? Is Adler’s thought, which sounds like pure idealism, really a practicable philosophy? And what is the biggest choice in life that Adler arrived at?

This is the conclusion of a two-part work exploring the essence of Alfred Adler and his psychology of courage. Please ascertain for yourself, together with the youth who doubted and revolted against Adler, the true shape of the courage we need.

CONTENTS

Authors’ note

Preamble

PART I

That Bad Person and Poor Me

Is Adlerian psychology a religion?

The objective of education is self-reliance

Respect is seeing a person as he is

Have concern for other people’s concerns

If we had the same kind of heart and life

Courage is contagious, and respect is contagious, too

The real reason why one ‘can’t change’

Your ‘now’ decides the past

‘That bad person’ and ‘poor me’

There’s no magic in Adlerian psychology

PART II

Why Negate Reward and Punishment?

The classroom is a democratic nation

Do not rebuke and do not praise

What is the goal of problem behaviour?

Hate me! Abandon me!

If there is punishment, does the crime go away?

Violence in the name of communication

Getting angry and rebuking are synonymous

One can choose one’s own life

PART III

From the Principle of Competition to the Principle of Cooperation

Negate praise-based development

Reward gives rise to competition

The disease of the community

Life begins from incompleteness

The courage to be myself

That problem behaviour is directed at you

Why a person wants to become a saviour

Education is friendship, not work

PART IV

Give, and It Shall Be Given Unto You

All joy is interpersonal relationship joy

Do you ‘trust’? Do you ‘have confidence’?

Why work becomes a life task

All professions are honourable

The important thing is what use one makes of that equipment

How many close friends do you have?

First, believe

People never understand each other

Life is made up of trials of ‘nothing days’

Give, and it shall be given unto you

PART V

Choose a Life You Love

Love is not something one falls into

From an ‘art of being loved’ towards an ‘art of loving’

Love is a task accomplished by two people

Switch the subject of life

Self-reliance is breaking away from ‘me’

To whom is that love directed?

How can one get one’s parents’ love?

People are afraid of loving

There is no destined one

Love is a decision

Re-choose your lifestyle

Keeping it simple

To the friends who will make a new era

Afterword

It should have been a morelighthearted and friendly visit. ‘I hopeyou will not mind if, at some point,I visit you here again. Yes, as anirreplaceable friend. And I won’t besaying anything more about takingapart your arguments.’ Indeed, theyouth had blurted out such words onhis departure that day. Now, however,three years had gone by and he hadarrived at this man’s study withcompletely different intentions. Theyouth was trembling with the gravityof what he was about to confess, andhe felt at a loss as to where to begin.

PREAMBLE

PHILOSOPHER: Well, can you tell me what is going on?

YOUTH: You’re asking why I have come to visit this study again? Well, unfortunately, I’m not here just to hang out and renew an old friendship. I’m sure you are busy, and my situation, too, is that I have little time for such things. So, naturally, there is a pressing issue that has brought me here again.

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course, it would seem so.

YOUTH: I have thought things over. I have worried and obsessed over it all more than is necessary and thought it all completely through. In doing so, I arrived at a very serious resolution and decided to come here to convey it to you. I know you have much to do, so please give me your time for just this one evening. Because this will probably be my final visit.

PHILOSOPHER: What happened?

YOUTH: Haven’t you figured it out? It’s the problem I’ve been suffering over for so long: ‘Do I give up on Adler or not?’

PHILOSOPHER: Ah. I see.

YOUTH: I’ll get right to the point: Adler’s ideas are quackery. Utter quackery. Actually, I have to go further and say that they are dangerous, even harmful ideas. While you yourself are certainly free to choose what you wish to adhere to, if possible I’d like to get you to be quiet about it for once and for all. I’ve resolved to make this my final visit tonight as I’ve said, in the knowledge that I had to give up on Adler completely, in your presence and with this feeling in my heart.

PHILOSOPHER: So, was there some event that triggered this?

YOUTH: I will talk this through calmly and in an orderly fashion. First, do you recall that final day three years ago, when I last saw you?

PHILOSOPHER: Of course I do. It was a winter’s day, with glistening white snow all around.

YOUTH: Yes, it was. The night sky was a beautiful blue, and there was a full moon. Under the influence of Adler’s ideas, that day I took a great step forward. I quit my job at the university library and found a teaching position at my old middle school. I thought I’d like to put into practice a kind of education that was based on Adler’s ideas and bring it to as many children as possible.

PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t that a wonderful decision?

YOUTH: Sure. I was burning with idealism then. I simply couldn’t keep such wonderful, world-changing ideas all to myself. I had to get more people to understand them. But whom? I could arrive at only one conclusion. The adults, who are no longer pure and unsoiled, aren’t the ones who need to know about Adler. It’s by bringing his thoughts to the children who will build a new generation that his ideas will continue to evolve. That was the mission I had been assigned. The fire inside me was burning so bright, I might well have burned myself.

PHILOSOPHER: I see. You can speak of this only in the past tense?

YOUTH: That’s right; it’s totally history now. But please don’t misunderstand me. I haven’t lost hope in my students. And neither have I lost hope or given up with regard to education itself. It’s just that I have lost hope in Adler—which is to say, I have lost hope in you.

PHILOSOPHER: Why is that?

YOUTH: Well, that’s something for you to contemplate and ask yourself! Adler’s ideas have no use in actual society and are nothing more than abstract, empty theories. Especially that education principle that states, ‘One must not praise, and one must not rebuke.’ And just so you know, I’ve followed it faithfully. I didn’t praise, and I didn’t rebuke anyone, either. I didn’t give praise for perfect scores on tests or for a thorough job cleaning up. I didn’t rebuke anyone for forgetting to do their homework or for being noisy in class. What do you think happened as a result of this?

PHILOSOPHER: You got an unruly classroom?

YOUTH: Completely. But when I think back on it all now, that was only natural. It was my fault for getting taken in by such cheap quackery.

PHILOSOPHER: So, what did you do about it?

YOUTH: Needless to say, for the students who were doing bad things, I chose the path of stern rebuke. I know you’re probably going to make light of that and tell me it was a foolish solution. But look, I’m not a person who busies himself with philosophy and gets lost in daydreams. I am an educator who lives, and who handles real, on-the-ground situations, and looks after students’ lives and destinies. Because the reality right in front of us never waits—it’s moving constantly from moment to moment. You can’t just sit back and do nothing!

PHILOSOPHER: How effective is it?

YOUTH: Naturally, if I rebuke them any further, it doesn’t do any good. Because they disparage me now—I’m just a softy to them. Honestly, there are even times when I envy the teachers of ages past, when physical punishment was permitted and even standard.

PHILOSOPHER: It’s not an easy situation.

YOUTH: True. Just so there isn’t any misunderstanding, I should add that I am not letting my emotions take over or getting angry. I’m only rebuking, in a rational manner, as a last resort for the purposes of education. I guess you could say I’m prescribing an antibiotic medicine called ‘reprimand’.

PHILOSOPHER: And then you felt you wanted to give up on Adler?

YOUTH: Well, I mentioned that just to give you a clear example. Adler’s ideas are certainly wonderful. They shake up your value system and make you feel like the cloudy skies over your head are clearing up; like your life has changed. They would seem to be beyond reproach, a universal truth even. But the fact of the matter is that the only place they hold water is right here, in this study. Once you throw open the door and dive into the actual world, Adler’s ideas are just too naïve. The arguments they put forward are quite impractical and nothing but empty idealism. You’ve just been fabricating a world that suits your purposes here in this room and losing yourself in daydreams. You don’t know a thing about the real world and the swarming masses of people who live in it!

PHILOSOPHER: I see . . . And then?

YOUTH: An education in which one neither praises nor rebukes? An education that espouses autonomy and leaves students to fend for themselves? That’s nothing other than a renunciation of one’s professional duties as an educator. From now on, I am going to face the children in a way that is very different from Adler’s. I don’t care if it is ‘right’ or not. Because I have no other choice. I will praise, and I will rebuke. And naturally, I will have to mete out harsh punishment as well.

PHILOSOPHER: Just to confirm, you’re not going to quit working as an educator, are you?

YOUTH: Of course not. I will never give up on the path of being an educator. Because it is the path I have chosen. It is not an occupation, but a way of living.

PHILOSOPHER: It is most reassuring to hear that.

YOUTH: So, you think this is just somebody else’s problem? If I’m going to continue as an educator, I’ve got to give up on Adler right here and now! If I don’t, I’ll be renouncing my responsibilities as an educator and abandoning my students. This is the proverbial blade to your throat. Well, what’s your response?

* * *

PHILOSOPHER: First, allow me to make a correction. You used the word ‘truth’ earlier. But I am not presenting Adler as an absolute, immutable truth. One might say that what I am doing is giving a prescription for eyeglass lenses. I believe there are many people whose fields of vision have been broadened as a result of these lenses. On the other hand, there are probably those who say their vision has become even cloudier than before. I do not consider trying to force these lenses of Adler on such people.

YOUTH: Oh, so you run away from them?

PHILOSOPHER: No. Let’s look at it this way. No other form of thought is as easy to get wrong and as hard to get right as Adlerian psychology. The majority of those who say, ‘I know Adler’ misunderstand his teachings. They do not possess the courage to approach a true understanding, and they do not try to look directly at the landscape that spreads out beyond this way of thought.

YOUTH: People misunderstand Adler?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. If someone comes into contact with Adler’s ideas and is immediately moved very deeply and says, ‘Life is easier now,’ that person is grossly misunderstanding Adler. Because when one truly understands what Adler is demanding of us, one is likely to be shocked by its severity.

YOUTH: So, you are saying that I, too, misunderstand Adler?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, from everything you have been telling me, it would seem so. You are certainly not alone in this, however. There are many Adlerians (practitioners of Adlerian psychology) who misunderstand him at the outset and then climb the stairway of understanding. It would seem that you haven’t actually found the stairway that you should climb yet. I didn’t find it right away either, when I was young.

YOUTH: Huh. You had a period when you were lost, too?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I did.

YOUTH: Then, I want you to teach me. Where is this stairway to understanding, or whatever it is? What do you mean by ‘stairway’ anyway? Where did you find it?

PHILOSOPHER: I was fortunate. Because I was a househusband in the midst of raising a young child when I came to know Adler.

YOUTH: What do you mean?

PHILOSOPHER: Through my child, I learned Adler, and, together with my child, I was able to practise and thus deepen my understanding and obtain positive proof of Adler.

YOUTH: So, that’s what I’m asking you to tell me! What did you learn? And what is this positive proof you obtained?

PHILOSOPHER: In a word, it was ‘love’.

YOUTH: What did you say?

PHILOSOPHER: You don’t really need me to say it again, do you?

YOUTH: Ha-ha, what a laugh! Love, the thing that there’s no need to speak of? You’re saying that if I want to know the real Adler, I have to know about love?

PHILOSOPHER: You who can laugh at this word do not yet understand it. The love Adler speaks of is the harshest and most courage-testing task of all.

YOUTH: Oh, please! You’re just going to recite some preachy talk about neighbourly love. I don’t want to hear it.

PHILOSOPHER: Just now you stated that you have reached a dead-end in education and have a feeling of distrust for Adler. And then you are eager to tell me that you are denouncing Adler, and that you don’t want me to talk about him anymore, either. Why are you so upset? I suppose you felt that Adler’s ideas were something like magic. As if you could just wave a wand and, without further ado, all your wishes would be granted. If that is the case, you should give up on Adler. You should give up the mistaken images of Adler that you have embraced and know the real Adler.

YOUTH: No, you’re wrong! In the first place, I have never expected Adler to be magical or anything like that. And second, as I think you yourself once said, ‘Any person can be happy from this moment onward.’

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I certainly did say that.

YOUTH: But aren’t such words a perfect example of magic? You’re warning people, ‘Don’t be fooled by that counterfeit money,’ while pushing other counterfeit money. It’s a classic swindler’s trick!

PHILOSOPHER: Any person can be happy from this moment onward. This is an undeniable fact, not magic or anything of the sort. You, and everyone else, can take steps towards happiness. But happiness is not something one can enjoy by staying where one is. One has to keep walking along the path one has embarked on. It is necessary to be clear on this point.

You took the first step. You took a big step. Now, however, not only have you lost courage and let your feet come to a halt, you are trying to turn back. Do you know why?

YOUTH: You’re saying I don’t have patience.

PHILOSOPHER: No. You have not yet made the biggest choice in life. That’s all.

YOUTH: The biggest choice in life! What do I have to choose?

PHILOSOPHER: I said it earlier. It is ‘love’.

YOUTH: Hah! You expect me to get that? Please don’t try to escape into abstraction!

PHILOSOPHER: I am serious. The issues you are now experiencing all stem from the single word ‘love’. The issues you have with education, and also the issue of which life you should lead.

YOUTH: All right. This seems like something worth refuting. Now, before we get into a fully-fledged discussion, there is one thing I’d like to say. There is no doubt in my mind that you are a modern-day Socrates. However, it is not his thought that I am referring to, but his crime.

PHILOSOPHER: His crime?

YOUTH: Look, apparently Socrates was sentenced to death on the suspicion of having tempted and corrupted the youth of the ancient Greek city-state of Athens, right? He restrained his disciples, who were appealing to him to escape from prison, and then drank a poison tea and took leave of this world. It’s interesting, isn’t it? If you ask me, you who espouse the ideas of Adler here in this ancient capital are guilty of exactly the same crime. In other words, you are tempting and corrupting naïve youth with deceitful words!

PHILOSOPHER: You are saying that you were taken in and corrupted by Adler?

YOUTH: That is precisely why I resolved to visit once more to part ways with you. I don’t want to create any more victims. Philosophically speaking, I must snuff the life out of you.

PHILOSOPHER: Well, then, it’s going to be a long night.

YOUTH: But let’s settle this tonight, before daybreak. There is no need for me to keep calling on you after this. Will I climb the stairway of understanding? Or will I tear down that stairway of yours and abandon Adler, once and for all? It’ll be one or the other; there’s no in-between.

PHILOSOPHER: All right. This may be our last dialogue . . . No, it seems we will have to make it our last, no matter what.

PART I

That Bad Person and Poor Me

Little had changed in the philosopher’sstudy since the youth’s visit therethree years before. A partiallywritten manuscript lay in a loosebundle on the well-used desk. Ontop of it, perhaps to prevent papersfrom being blown about by the wind,lay an old-fashioned fountain penornamented with gold inlay. It all feltfamiliar to the youth; it was almost asif he were in his own room. He noticedseveral books he owned, including onehe had just read a week earlier. Gazingwistfully at the bookshelf, which tookup an entire wall, the youth let out agreat sigh. I mustn’t get too comfortablehere. I’ve got to keep moving forward.

IS ADLERIAN PSYCHOLOGY A RELIGION?

YOUTH: Before coming to the decision to visit you once more today, that is to say, before making the firm resolution to abandon Adler, I went through a great deal of distress. It troubled me more than you can imagine. That’s how attractive Adler’s ideas were to me. But the fact is that at the same time as I was attracted to them, I was harbouring doubts all along. And those doubts concern the name ‘Adlerian psychology’ itself.

PHILOSOPHER: Hmm. What do you mean?

YOUTH: As the name ‘Adlerian psychology’ indicates, Adler’s ideas are regarded as psychology. And, as far as I am aware, psychology is essentially a science. When it comes to the opinions put forth by Adler, however, there are aspects that strike me as decidedly unscientific. Of course, as this is an area of study that deals with the psyche, it might not be completely expressible in mathematical form. That I understand perfectly well. But the problem, you see, is that Adler talks about people in terms of ‘ideals’. He’s offering up the same kind of cloying sermons that Christians do when they preach about neighbourly love. Which brings me to my first question: do you think of Adlerian psychology as a ‘science’?

PHILOSOPHER: If you are speaking of a strict definition of science, that is to say, a science that has falsifiability, then no, it is not. Adler declared his psychology to be a ‘science’, but when he began talking about his concept of ‘social feeling’, many of his colleagues parted ways with him. Their judgement was much like yours: ‘That sort of thing isn’t science.’

YOUTH: Right. That’s a natural response for anyone who is interested in psychology as a science.

PHILOSOPHER: This is an ongoing area of debate, but Freud’s psychoanalysis, Jung’s analytical psychology and Adler’s individual psychology all have aspects that come into conflict with such a definition of science in that they do not have falsifiability. This is a fact.

YOUTH: Okay, I see. I’ve brought my notebook with me today. I’m going to get this down in writing. That strictly speaking . . . it is not science! Now to my next question: three years ago, you referred to Adler’s ideas as ‘another philosophy’, did you not?

PHILOSOPHER: You are correct, I did. I think of Adlerian psychology as a way of thinking that follows in the same vein as Greek philosophy and is itself a philosophy. I think the same way about Adler himself. Before regarding him as a psychologist, I see him as a philosopher. He is a philosopher who put his expertise to practical use in clinical settings. This is my perception.

YOUTH: All right. So, here’s my main point. I thought hard about Adler’s ideas, and I really put them into practice. I wasn’t sceptical about them. Rather, it was as if those ideas filled me with a feverish passion, and I believed in them with all my heart. The thing is, whenever I have tried to practise Adler’s ideas in an educational setting, the opposition has been overwhelming. I have been opposed not only by the students, but by the other teachers around me. But if you think about it, that makes sense. Because I was presenting an approach to education based on a value system that is completely different from theirs and attempting to put it into practice there for the first time. And then, I happened to recall a certain group of people, and I superimposed their circumstances onto mine. Do you know who I am talking about?

PHILOSOPHER: Well, no, I don’t. Who could it be?

YOUTH: The Catholic missionaries who forayed into the heathen lands during the Age of Discovery.

PHILOSOPHER: Ah.

YOUTH: Africa, Asia and the Americas. Those Catholic missionaries journeyed into strange lands where the languages, cultures and even gods were different, and they went around espousing the teachings they believed in. Just like me, who took my post to espouse the ideas of Adler. The missionaries, too, though they often succeeded in propagating their faith, also experienced oppression and were sometimes even executed by barbaric methods. One would think it common sense that such people would simply be turned away. But if so, how on earth could these missionaries have succeeded in preaching a new ‘god’ to the inhabitants of the places they visited, and making them give up their native beliefs? It must have been work of considerable difficulty. Craving to know more, I ran to the library.

PHILOSOPHER: But that’s . . .

YOUTH: Hey, I’m not finished, okay? So, while I was poring over various writings on the missionaries of the Age of Discovery, another interesting thought occurred to me: when it comes down to it, isn’t Adler’s philosophy a religion?

PHILOSOPHER: Interesting . . .

YOUTH: Because it’s true, isn’t it? The ideals Adler talks about are not science. And to the extent that they are not science, in the end it is just a question of one’s level of faith, of either believing or not believing. So, again, it is just about one’s feeling. It is true that from our point of view, people who don’t know Adler may seem like savage primitives who believe in false gods. We feel that we must teach them the real ‘truth’ and save them, as quickly as possible. However, it may be that from their vantage point, we are the ones who are primitive worshippers of wicked gods. Maybe we are the ones who need to be saved. Am I wrong?

PHILOSOPHER: No, you are quite right.

YOUTH: Then, tell me: What is the difference between the philosophy of Adler and religion?

PHILOSOPHER: The difference between religion and philosophy; this is an important theme. If you just rule out the existence of ‘god’ and think about it then the discussion will be easier to understand.

YOUTH: Ah. What do you mean?

PHILOSOPHER: With religion, philosophy and science, too, the point of departure is the same. Where do we come from? Where are we? And how should we live? Religion, philosophy and science all start from these questions. In ancient Greece, there was no division between philosophy and science, and the Latin root of the word ‘science’ is scientia, which simply means ‘knowledge’.

YOUTH: Fine, that’s how science was back then. But I am asking about philosophy and religion. What is the difference between them?

PHILOSOPHER: It would probably be better to clarify their points of commonality first. Unlike science, which limits itself to objective fact-finding, philosophy and religion also deal with human ideas of ‘truth’, ‘good’ and ‘beauty’. This is an extremely important point.

YOUTH: I know. It is philosophy and religion that delve into the human psyche. But where, then, are the boundary lines and points of difference between the two? Is it just that single question of whether god exists?

PHILOSOPHER: No. The most important point of difference is the presence or absence of ‘story’. Religion explains the world by means of stories. You could say that gods are the protagonists of the grand stories that religions use to explain the world. By contrast, philosophy rejects stories. It tries to explain the world by means of abstract concepts that have no protagonists.

YOUTH: Philosophy rejects stories?

PHILOSOPHER: Or, think of it this way: in our search for truth, we are walking on a long pole that extends into the darkness. Doubting our common sense and engaging in continual self-questioning, we just continue to walk on that pole without any idea of how far it may go. And then, from out of the darkness one hears a voice inside saying, ‘Nothing further lies ahead. Here is truth.’

YOUTH: Huh . . .

PHILOSOPHER: So, some people stop listening to their internal voice and stop walking. They jump down from the pole. Do they find truth there? I don’t know. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But stopping in one’s steps and jumping off the pole midway is what I call religion. With philosophy, one keeps walking without end. It doesn’t matter if gods are there or not.

YOUTH: Then, this walking-without-end philosophy doesn’t have any answers?

PHILOSOPHER: In the original Greek, philosophia has the meaning ‘love of wisdom’. In other words, philosophy is the ‘study of the love of wisdom’, and philosophers are ‘lovers of wisdom’. Conversely, one could say that if a person were to become a complete ‘wise man’ who knows all there is to know, that person would no longer be a lover of wisdom (philosopher). In the words of Kant, the giant of modern philosophy, ‘We cannot learn philosophy. We can only learn to philosophise.’

YOUTH: To philosophise?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Philosophy is more of a living attitude than a field of study. Religion may convey all under the name of god. It may convey an all-knowing, almighty god and the teachings handed down by that god. This is a way of thinking that conflicts fundamentally with philosophy.

And with someone who purports to know everything, or someone who has stopped in their path of knowing and thinking, regardless of their belief in the existence or nonexistence of god, or even the presence or absence of their faith, they are venturing into religion. That is my view on the matter.

YOUTH: In other words, you still don’t know the answers?

PHILOSOPHER: No, I do not. The instant we feel that we know about a subject, we want to seek beyond it. I will always think about myself, other people and the world. Therefore, I will ‘not know’ without end.

YOUTH: Heh-heh. That answer is philosophical, too.

PHILOSOPHER: Socrates, in his dialogues with the self-described wise men known as the Sophists, arrived at the following conclusion: I (Socrates) know that ‘my knowledge is not complete’. I know my own ignorance. The Sophists, on the other hand, those would-be wise men, intend to understand everything and know nothing of their own ignorance. In this respect—my knowledge of my own ignorance—I am more of a wise man than they are. This is the context of Socrates’ famous statement, ‘I know that I know nothing.’

YOUTH: Then, what can you, who have no answers and are ignorant, impart to me?

PHILOSOPHER: I will not impart. Let’s think and walk together.

YOUTH: Ah, to the end of the pole? Without jumping off?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Keep inquiring and keep walking, without limit.

YOUTH: You’re so confident, even though you say that sophistry won’t hold water. All right. I’m going to shake you down off that pole!

THE OBJECTIVE OF EDUCATION IS SELF-RELIANCE

PHILOSOPHER: Well, where should we begin?

YOUTH: The problem that requires my urgent attention right now is education, after all. So, I’ll expose Adler’s contradictions with a focus on education. Because there are all manner of aspects of Adler’s ideas that, at their roots, are incompatible with education.

PHILOSOPHER: I see. That sounds interesting.

YOUTH: In Adlerian psychology, there is a way of thinking called ‘separation of tasks’, right? All sorts of things and events in life are regarded from the viewpoint of ‘Whose task is this?’ and divided into ‘one’s own tasks’ and ‘other people’s tasks’. Say, for example, that my boss doesn’t like me. Naturally, it doesn’t feel good. It would be normal to make some effort to be liked and approved of by him somehow.

But Adler judges that to be wrong. What kind of judgement do other people (in this case, my boss) pass on my speech and conduct, and on me as a person? That is the boss’s task (other people’s tasks) and is not something I can control. No matter how much I try to be liked by him, my boss might just continue to dislike me.

On this point, Adler says, ‘You are not living to satisfy other people’s expectations.’ And further, ‘Other people are not living to satisfy your expectations.’ Don’t be afraid of other people looking at you, don’t pay attention to other people’s judgement and don’t seek recognition from other people. Just choose the path that is best for you and that you believe in. Furthermore, you must not intervene in other people’s tasks, and you must not allow others to intervene in your tasks, either. To those who are new to Adlerian psychology, this is a concept that has a great impact.

PHILOSOPHER: