The Courage to Be Disliked

The young man admits that he dislikes himself and explains that he would never hold such a view if he had the power to choose. He explains his shortcomings, saying that he is insecure and pessimistic and cannot enjoy other people or the world.

The philosopher offers an example of a girl who asked him for help. She was afraid of blushing and said that once she could stop blushing, she would tell a man that she loved him. The philosopher argues that she wanted to live in the reality in which blushing, not rejection, was the reason why she and her romantic interest could not be together. She manufactured the fear of blushing in order to keep her distance from the man.

The philosopher explains people’s common belief that if one thing happens, their lives will be perfect. He says that his strategy is to help people accept themselves as they are. At that point, regardless of the outcome, they will have the courage to move forward.

The philosopher tells the young man that he dislikes himself because he is afraid of interpersonal strife; being alone and disliking oneself is easier and less painful than potentially being disliked by others. After calling the philosopher diabolical, the man admits that he is afraid of being hurt. The philosopher quotes Adler, who stated, “To get rid of one’s problems, all one can do is live in the universe all alone” (51).

The philosopher explains that loneliness only exists because of the presence of society. He also states, “Only in social contexts does one become an individual” (52). He asserts that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. The youth responds that humans have much bigger problems to worry about, like happiness, freedom, and life’s meaning. The youth is affected by the philosopher’s assertion and searches for a rebuttal to prove that his problems are not so mundane.

The philosopher asks for the youth’s impression of him. The young man responds that he thought the philosopher would be bigger. The philosopher explains that he used to wish that he were taller, but when he confessed this to a friend, the friend complimented his natural gift for making people feel relaxed. He then reframed his height as a positive trait rather than as fuel for a feeling of inferiority. The philosopher explains that all interpretations are subjective, so even if an interpretation is an arbitrary assumption, one gets to choose it. Value is subjective in all things: money, diamonds, and personality traits.

The philosopher explains that as a response to being born a helpless being, all humans engage in the pursuit of superiority. He breaks down the difference between the feeling of inferiority and an inferiority complex. The feeling can be productive, but the complex occurs when someone assumes an outcome of failure no matter what.

The young man argues that maybe they are observing a legitimate cause and effect. Adler says that it is called “apparent cause and effect,” one that you find but is not actually there. As an example, they analyze the false assertion “I am not well educated, so I cannot be successful.”

The healthiest way to compensate for the feeling of inferiority is to grow, but some people instead fall back on the idea that their real self is superior, and if only one thing were different, they would reach that ideal self.

The philosopher goes on to explain the nature of the superiority complex (when a person fabricates feelings of superiority in order to compensate for their true feelings of inferiority). Examples include “giving authority” (67), which is when someone aligns with someone or something powerful in order to lift themselves up alongside it. For example, someone who constantly brags about their accomplishments to others has a superiority complex. Relatedly, many people brag about their own experiences of misfortune in order to present themselves as special. The philosopher argues Adler’s point that a baby is the strongest person in a culture because its weakness demands attention and service.

After reflecting, the youth decides that he still takes issue with the philosopher’s premise.

The philosopher explains that the feeling of superiority is not to beat other people but instead to keep moving forward, improving in comparison to one’s past self. All people are different, but all are equal in their value as humans. The philosopher has retreated into a life in which people do not value winning or losing.

The young man explains that his older brother was perfect and revered, while he himself was ignored; he believes that this aspect of his past has made him the way he is. The philosopher explains that if people engage in competition, they end up seeing everyone as their enemy. Conversely, if they release competition, they can let go of the fear of losing and the need to win. Furthermore, they can celebrate others’ happiness without assuming that it means their defeat. A comrade, then, is someone who will always help others.

The youth thinks about his past; he was ignored as a child and hid in the library without friends. His feelings about the injustice of his life start to come out.

Moving back to the subject of the past’s influence on the present, they begin to talk about anger again. The philosopher draws a distinction between righteous indignation and anger because the former has a basis outside of one’s own desires.

Focusing on personal anger, the philosopher says that arguments are simply power struggles. Yet even if one’s opponent admits defeat, the issue is not over. They plot revenge. For example, the philosopher explains that a child with strict parents rebels not because his parents were strict (Freudian) but because he wants revenge (Adlerian). To prevent the revenge stage, one must refuse to engage in a power struggle in the first place.

The philosopher explains that anger is a tool for communication, just like language. The philosopher warns the young man not to fall into the trap of arguing that he is right and therefore that the other is wrong. By insisting that one is right, one loses the ability to make good decisions, such as admitting fault or stepping away.

Adler’s behavioral objectives of his psychological theory are to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with society. These objectives lead to the conscious beliefs that one is capable; therefore one can see other people as comrades. The philosopher goes on to explain Adler’s notion of life tasks, which he splits into tasks of work, tasks of friendship, and tasks of love. He explains that even work is an interpersonal problem. No work can be done alone, as even the philosopher’s solitary writing requires editors and publishers and book makers. People who decide to isolate themselves indoors, away from society, do not dislike the work itself but the interpersonal risks associated with it.

Moving on to the task of friendship, they agree that making friends outside of work and school is nearly impossible. The philosopher explains that in school, he did not have many friends, but eventually he made one. The philosopher says that the young man will be able to make friends because he will change; therefore, the people around him will change. In the young man’s decision to come speak with him, the philosopher made an irreplaceable friend. The youth says that he doesn’t want to think about this idea right now.

They move on to the task of love, which is split into romantic relationships and family relationships. Adler says that restriction in romantic relationships leads to destruction. Only when people are free with each other can they find love. He explains that romantic relationships can end, while parental relationships cannot. The former is a red string, while the latter is a rigid chain. The philosopher advises not to run away from them, emphasizing Adler’s message that a core objective is to mend with society.

The “life-lie” is Alder’s term for the act of lying to oneself in order to divorce oneself from responsibility. In other words, one blames problems and misfortunes on other people or the environment itself in order to avoid taking responsibility for deciding one’s own lifestyle. He explains that this is not a moral failing but a matter of courage. One must have the courage to take responsibility for one’s own life.

The man brings up the idea of a psychology of courage and again distinguishes Adler from Freud. Freud believes in a psychology of possession in which people inherit their situations with no control, while Adler believes in a psychology of use in which people decide their own fate. The man admits that he is afraid, and that he is not confident enough to overcome his inferiority complex, and that he believes in the life-lie. But still he does not feel capable of change. The philosopher tells him that it is now late, but the next time they meet, they can discuss specific steps and the idea of freedom.