I've shared a lot of nuggets of wisdom from "The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga in the past weeks but I realized I haven't explained the significance of the book's title yet. So what does "courage to be disliked" mean? Freedom.
The Philosopher in the book explains that if you are disliked by someone, it is proof that you are living in freedom, a clear sign that you are living in accordance with your own principles.
Here are the Philosopher's words:
Conducting oneself in such a way as to not be disliked by anyone is an extremely unfree way of living, and is also impossible. There is a cost incurred when one wants to exercise one’s freedom. And the cost of freedom in interpersonal relationships is that one is disliked by other people...
Suppose that I had two choices in front of me—a life in which all people like me, and a life in which there are people who dislike me—and I was told to choose one. I would choose the latter without a second thought. Before being concerned with what others think of me, I want to follow through with my own being. That is to say, I want to live in freedom.
Simply put, if you're doing what you're doing in life to be liked and avoid being disliked, then you're not living in freedom. But if you're able to do things you believe in (no matter what other people think about you) and provided you're able to contribute to others, then you could say that you have the courage to be disliked. You are living your life in total freedom.💙
"The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga tackles about the principles of Adlerian psychology developed by Alfred Adler (1870-1937). The principles are explained via a dialogue between a philosopher and a youth.
One of the most thought-provoking conversations between the philosopher and youth is about the meaning of life. The philosopher shared with the youth that during Adler's time when people asked him about the meaning of life and what are people living for, his answer was “Life in general has no meaning.”
😲😱
Shocking, right?
But wait, before you pre-judge or conclude anything, here is the philosopher's explanation on why in the Adlerian perspective, life is meaningless:
PHILOSOPHER: The world in which we live is constantly beset by all manner of horrendous events, and we exist with the ravages of war and natural disasters all around us. When confronted by the fact of children dying in the turmoil of war, there is no way one can go on about the meaning of life. In other words, there is no meaning in using generalizations to talk about life.
But being confronted by such incomprehensible tragedies without taking any action is tantamount to affirming them. Regardless of the circumstances, we must take some form of action. We must stand up to Kant’s “inclination.” (I quickly googled what is Kant's inclination and it pertains to moral worth.)
YOUTH: Yes!
PHILOSOPHER: Now, suppose one experiences a major natural disaster, and one’s response is to look back at the past in an etiological manner and say, “What could have caused such a thing to happen?” How meaningful would that be? An experience of hardship should be an opportunity to look ahead and think, What can I do from now on?
And Adler, having stated that “life in general has no meaning,” then continues, “Whatever meaning life has must be assigned to it by the individual.”
As an example, the philosopher shared the story of his grandfather who was firebombed during the war. His grandfather's face was severely burned. In every way, he said it was a horrendous and inhumane event. The Philosopher continued -
It would certainly have been within the realm of possibility for him to choose a lifestyle with the perspective of “the world is a horrible place” or “people are my enemies.” However, when my grandfather rode the train on visits to the hospital, there were always other passengers who would give up their seats for him. This is something I heard about through my mother, so I do not know how he actually felt. But this is what I believe: My grandfather chose a lifestyle with the perspective of “People are my comrades, and the world is a wonderful place.” That is exactly what Adler is pointing to when he says whatever meaning life has must be assigned to it by the individual. So life in general has no meaning whatsoever. But you can assign meaning to that life. And you are the only one who can assign meaning to your life.
This is so true coz come to think of it, we have a lot of inspiring stories of people who embraced their conditions and achieved amazing things like -
Stevie Wonder - who was born blind
Helen Keller - who became deaf and blind at age 2
Frida Kahlo - who contracted polio at age 6 and had an accident when she was a teenager and never fully healed
Stephen Hawking - who was diagnosed with ALS at age 21
Beethoven - who became deaf at age 30
President Franklin Roosevelt - who contracted polio and became paralyzed from waist down at age 39
...and a lot of athletes who have physical disabilities and yet still won in competitions, races and bagged world titles. 👏👏👏
The key takeaway from the Philosopher from this conversation is: If "you" can change, the world will change. Or simply put - the world can be changed by only you and no one else will change it for you.
I hope the wisdom from this book will rub off on me. 😅
The book "The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga tries to present the principles of Adlerian psychology developed by Alfred Adler (1870-1937) via a dialogue between a Japanese philosopher and a youth. The youth's main objective is to debunk the teachings of the philosopher.
One topic the youth raised was about having lofty goals in life because he didn't want to accept the philosopher's teaching that you should possess the courage to be normal. But by "normal", the philosopher qualified that it doesn't mean you're "incapable". Being normal may mean you're capable but you don't have to flaunt your superiority, he explained.
But still, the youth could not accept that one makes a deliberate choice to be normal. He doesn't think that great men like Napoleon, or Einstein or Martin Luther King accepted being "normal" and more than likely, he said they carried a torch of a great ideal or objective.
This what transpired in their conversation:
PHILOSOPHER: ....When you speak of lofty goals, I am guessing that you have an image of something like a mountain climber aiming for the top.
YOUTH: Yes, that’s right. People, myself included, aim for the top of the mountain.
PHILOSOPHER: ... But if life were climbing a mountain in order to reach the top, then the greater part of life would end up being “en route.” That is to say, one’s “real life” would begin with one’s trek on the mountainside, and the distance one has traveled up until that point would be a “tentative life” led by a “tentative me” .... Now, suppose you didn’t make it to the mountaintop, what would that mean for your life? With accidents and diseases and the like, people don’t always make it all the way, and mountain climbing itself is fraught with pitfalls and often ends in failure. So one’s life would be interrupted “en route,” with just this “tentative me” leading a “tentative life.” What kind of life would that be? People who think of life as being like climbing a mountain are treating their own existences as lines.... Do not treat it as a line. Think of life as a series of dots. If you look through a magnifying glass at a solid line drawn with chalk, you will discover that what you thought was a line is actually a series of small dots. Seemingly linear existence is actually a series of dots; in other words, life is a series of moments .... It is a series of moments called “now.” We can live only in the here and now. Our lives exist only in moments...
The philosopher further expounded - Think of it this way: Life is a series of moments, which one lives as if one were dancing, right now, around and around each passing instant. And when one happens to survey one’s surroundings, one realizes, I guess I’ve made it this far. Among those who have danced the dance of the violin, there are people who stay the course and become professional musicians. Among those who have danced the dance of the bar examination, there are people who become lawyers. There are people who have danced the dance of writing and become authors. Of course, it also happens that people end up in entirely different places. But none of these lives came to an end “en route.” It is enough if one finds fulfillment in the here and now one is dancing.
The youth then clarified -
YOUTH: It’s enough if one can dance in the now?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. With dance, it is the dancing itself that is the goal, and no one is concerned with arriving somewhere by doing it. Naturally, it may happen that one arrives somewhere as a result of having danced. Since one is dancing, one does not stay in the same place. But there is no destination.
What kind of goal is the act of going on a journey? Suppose you are going on a journey to Egypt. Would you try to arrive at the Great Pyramid of Giza as efficiently and quickly as possible, and then head straight back home by the shortest route? One would not call that a “journey.” You should be on a journey the moment you step outside your home, and all the moments on the way to your destination should be a journey. Of course, there might be circumstances that prevent you from making it to the pyramid, but that does not mean you didn’t go on a journey. This is “energeial life.” If the goal of climbing a mountain were to get to the top, that would be a kinetic act. To take it to the extreme, it wouldn’t matter if you went to the mountaintop in a helicopter, stayed there for five minutes or so, and then headed back in the helicopter again. Of course, if you didn’t make it to the mountaintop, that would mean the mountain-climbing expedition was a failure. However, if the goal is mountain climbing itself, and not just getting to the top, one could say it is energeial. In this case, in the end it doesn’t matter whether one makes it to the mountaintop or not.
Wow, that is super loaded and intense! 🤔💡👊
I like the last line - in the end it doesn’t matter whether one makes it to the mountaintop or not. I don't have any mountaintop to climb in the first place. The book had me at "have the courage to be normal." 😂😂😂
The philosopher further explains why life is not linear. It only becomes linear when one adopts the Freudian etiology viewpoint where one sees life as one big story based on cause and effect. One's life is influenced by where and when one was born, his/her childhood, his/her education, his/her employer. And all of these factors would influence what one is and what he/she becomes.
The philosopher points out that the problem with this mindset is one will try to lead a life that is in line with the story and the person may find himself saying “My life is such-and-such, so I have no choice but to live this way, and it’s not because of me—it’s my past, it’s the environment,” and so on.
Bringing up the past is life-lie, an excuse, the philosopher explains, because one can change based on one’s own volition. The life that lies ahead of us is not a straight line, he says, but a completely blank page. There is no storyline that one is expected to follow coz one can create his/her own story.
Here's where the dialogue gets more interesting. The youth asked -
YOUTH: But I don’t have any dreams or objectives in my life. I don’t know what dance to do. My here and now is nothing but utterly useless moments. (Sounds so familiar! Ahem..ahem..😂😂😂 I do have goals but they are not lofty goals. And I do have dreams but they are not the usual big dreams people publicly share that's why I don't openly share them.😂 )
PHILOSOPHER: Not having objectives or the like is fine. Living earnestly here and now is itself a dance. One must not get too serious. Please do not confuse being earnest with being too serious...
Life is always simple, not something that one needs to get too serious about. If one is living each moment earnestly, there is no need to get too serious. And there is another thing I would like you to keep in mind: When one has adopted an energeial viewpoint, life is always complete.
If your life, or mine, for that matter, were to come to an end here and now, it would not do to refer to either of them as unhappy. The life that ends at the age of twenty and the life that ends at ninety are both complete lives, and lives of happiness.
I especially love the last line - The life that ends at the age of twenty and the life that ends at ninety are both complete lives. Beautifully said! 🙌🙌
To cap it all, the philosopher said, "One lives each complete moment like a dance... one doesn't have to compete with anyone and has no use for destinations. As long as you are dancing, you will get somewhere." 🙌
One principle tackled in "The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga, a book on Adlerian psychology, is the pursuit of superiority.
Usually when you say "superiority", it refers to a tendency or desire to be superior to other people. It also connotes being competitive. The authors likened it to the image of someone ascending a stairway and this someone is pushing people out of the way to get to the top.
Adlerian psychology does not uphold such attitudes. Rather, Alfred Adler advocated that on the same level playing field, there are people who are moving forward, and there are people who are moving forward behind them.
Everyone is walking equally in the same flat place. (Source)
The book further explains -
Though the distance covered and the speed of walking differ, everyone is walking equally in the same flat place. The pursuit of superiority is the mind-set of taking a single step forward on one’s own feet, not the mind-set of competition of the sort that necessitates aiming to be greater than other people.
In short, life is not a competition with other people and there is no need to compare oneself with others. It’s enough to just keep moving in a forward direction, without competing with anyone.
A healthy feeling of inferiority is not something that comes from comparing oneself to others; it comes from one’s comparison with one’s ideal self...
The danger with worldly competition (those preoccupied with winning and losing) is even if you’re not a loser, even if you’re someone who keeps on winning, if you are someone who has placed himself in competition, you will never have a moment’s peace. You don’t want to be a loser. And you always have to keep on winning if you don’t want to be a loser. You can’t trust other people. The reason so many people don’t really feel happy while they’re building up their success in the eyes of society is that they are living in competition....
The book further explains a downside of being competitive with others - You think of interpersonal relationships as competition; you perceive other people’s happiness as “my defeat,” and that is why you can’t celebrate it. However, once one is released from the schema of competition, the need to triumph over someone disappears. One is also released from the fear that says, Maybe I will lose. And one becomes able to celebrate other people’s happiness with all one’s heart. One may become able to contribute actively to other people’s happiness.
I've never been competitive since I was a kid so I don't have problems with any of these. The reason why I think I have never developed any competitive bone in my body is because I have never excelled at anything. 😂 See, there's something good that could come from mediocrity. 🙊 😂
The same Adlerian principle also applies to arguments - such as when one is preoccupied with proving who is right or wrong. When one says he is right, then it means the other party is wrong.
In the book "The Courage to Be Disliked", Adlerian principles are presented via dialogue between a Japanese philosopher and a youth. Here's how the philosopher explains the danger of proving yourself right and the other party wrong to the youth:
At that point, the focus of the discussion shifts from “the rightness of the assertions” to “the state of the interpersonal relationship.” In other words, the conviction that “I am right” leads to the assumption that “this person is wrong,” and finally it becomes a contest and you are thinking, I have to win. It’s a power struggle through and through...
In the first place, the rightness of one’s assertions has nothing to do with winning or losing. If you think you are right, regardless of what other people’s opinions might be, the matter should be closed then and there. However, many people will rush into a power struggle and try to make others submit to them. And that is why they think of “admitting a mistake” as “admitting defeat.”
Such profound lessons. 🤔💡
Simply put, here are the key takeaways:
Everyone is walking equally in the same flat place.
The pursuit of superiority is the mind-set of taking a single step forward on one’s own feet.
It’s enough to just keep moving in a forward direction without competing with anyone.
If you think you are right, regardless of what other people’s opinions might be, the matter should be closed then and there.
One topic tackled on "The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga, a book on Adlerian psychology, is about having a clear delineation of tasks to free yourself from interpersonal friction or frustration if the other party doesn't end up doing what is expected.
The authors explain that "in general, all interpersonal relationship troubles are caused by intruding on other people’s tasks, or having one’s own tasks intruded on. Carrying out the separation of tasks is enough to change one’s interpersonal relationships dramatically."
There are several examples of task intrusions cited in the book including between parents and children (in the perspective of Adlerian psychology) but since I am not a parent, I'd rather not tackle those examples nor express any opinion coz I have zero knowledge and experience on that. 😶
But a more general and relatable example used in the book is in psychology counseling. I guess for us commoners, it's simply when people seek our help or advice.
In Adlerian psychology, the client’s changing or not changing is not considered the task of the counselor. Once a person has received counseling, it is the person's task to decide to change his lifestyle (way of life) or not. The counselor cannot intervene in this task.
A counselor's only task is to give all the assistance one possibly can. But beyond that, one doesn’t intrude.
Intervening in other people’s tasks and taking on other people’s tasks turns one’s life into something heavy and full of hardship. If you are leading a life of worry and suffering—which stems from interpersonal relationships—learn the boundary of “From here on, that is not my task.” And discard other people’s tasks. That is the first step toward lightening the load and making life simpler.
Forcing change while ignoring the person’s intentions will only lead to an intense reaction.
Actually even if you don't force change on a person, it could be really frustrating and emotionally-consuming just to see him/her not help himself/herself especially when a person claims he/she wants to change but doesn't do something different to effect changes in his/her life.
Throughout the book, the authors always quote an old saying to emphasize the point that at the end of the day, only a person has the power to change himself/herself. The proverb goes - “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”
Nice lesson, right? I have to remember the image of the horse so I don't find myself getting frustrated at times. The horse has the sole power to decide whether he wants to drink or not. And sometimes, it might take a long while before the horse realizes he is thirsty. 😅
My latest read is "The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. It tackles about the principles of Adlerian psychology developed by Alfred Adler (1870-1937).
It's the first time I have formally read about Adlerian psychology though some of its principles are similar to the growth mindset which advocates that you can be whatever you want to be regardless of your skill set or background.
The core of Adlerian psychology goes against Freudian psychology which is anchored on causation. (Incidentally, Adler and Freud were colleagues until Adler disengaged from Freud's group around 1911.)
So what is the Adlerian psychology about?
In Adlerian psychology, your past doesn't matter. Your past can't cause your success or failure. Yes, your past experiences (trauma, abuse, horrible calamity, etc.) may have strong influences on you but you determine your own life according to the meaning you 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.
Which I believe is true coz otherwise, people who have had traumatic or difficult lives could never have better lives but there are a lot of amazing success stories of people who triumphed even with their troubled past.
I quickly googled and saw a list in Quora, most of them I didn't know had a difficult childhood:
- Larry Ellison of Oracle who was given up for adoption by his mother and verbally abused by his adopted father
- Charlize Theron who had an alcoholic father and witnessed her mom kill her dad
- The Rock who resorted to theft coz his family was so poor
- Oprah Winfrey who was raped starting at age 9 by different family members
- Woody Harrelson whose father worked as a professional killer
They are just a few among many others. All of them were able to make meaning out of a terrible past.
Here are my favorite excerpts from the book which further expounds that your past should not dictate your future:
In Adlerian psychology, how one sees the world and how one sees oneself is called lifestyle and it's something that you choose for yourself. Your first choice was probably unconscious, combined with external factors you have referred to—that is, race, nationality, culture, and home environment. These certainly had a significant influence on that choice...
Of course, no one can choose his or her own birth. Being born in this country, in this era, and with these parents are things you did not choose. And all these things have a great deal of influence. You’ll probably face disappointment and start looking at other people and feeling, I wish I’d been born in their circumstances. But you can’t let it end there. The issue is not the past, but here, in the present... But what you do with it from here on is your responsibility. Whether you go on choosing the lifestyle you’ve had up till now, or you choose a new lifestyle altogether, it’s entirely up to you...
In Adlerian psychology, “The important thing is not what one is born with but what use one makes of that equipment.” You want to be someone else because you are utterly focused on what you were born with. Instead, you’ve got to focus on what you can make of your equipment...
If you're unhappy now, Adlerian psychology says it's because you yourself chose to be unhappy and not because you were born under an unlucky star or you were born into unhappy circumstances or ended up in an unhappy situation. It’s that you judged “being unhappy” to be good for you. Your unhappiness cannot be blamed on your past or your environment. And it isn’t that you lack competence. You just lack courage...
And here's a very powerful statement from the book:
“No matter what has occurred in your life up to this point, it should have no bearing at all on how you live from now on.” That you, living in the here and now, are the one who determines your own life.
Very insightful, right? 💡
There are several other great principles in the book which I'll try to share one lesson at a time in the coming days/weeks. :)
