The Courage to Be Disliked

Beginning their new conversation with a discussion of freedom, the youth brings up the idea of financial freedom and then the idea of “bonds,” or obligations to people. He explains that his parents pressured him in different ways and caused him anxiety. The only thing he chose for himself is his current job—he works as a librarian at a university. When he chose the university that they wanted him to attend, he felt relieved that they might recognize him at last. The philosopher explains that Adlerian psychology advises people not to seek recognition.

Using the example of picking up trash around one’s workplace and stopping when one does not receive recognition, the philosopher argues that there is something wrong with the reward-punishment structure in mainstream education. The young man responds that it is natural to want to be recognized for doing well, but the philosopher counters that this path leads to living other people’s lives rather than one’s own.

The young man replies that this argument erodes the foundation of society, which is built upon mutual recognition. The philosopher asserts that such an approach is unhealthy and nihilistic and poses a rhetorical question, asking the youth if he would still do good deeds if there were no god. The philosopher believes that people who get recognition are not happy; if one assumes the job of making other people happy, one will always be afraid of failure.

In response to the youth’s question of whether he should be selfish, the philosopher begins to explain the concept of the “separation of tasks.” The man is confused, wondering why the philosopher would tell him to act more selfishly.

The philosopher asks what the young man would do if his child refused to study; the youth states that he would drag the child to the library and make him study. The philosopher explains that in Adlerian psychology, one must ask the question, “Whose task is this?” In this case, it is the child’s task because the child will have to face the consequences. And in general, one should not intrude on another’s task.

The young man argues that a child’s study habits are a parent’s responsibility, so it is their task. The philosopher explains that no one can change another person, so it could not be another person’s task. To support his argument, the philosopher recounts the adage that states, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” (125).

The man asks what the philosopher would do if his own child were determined to remain indoors, just like the friend he referenced during their first conversation. The philosopher responds that he would try not to intervene, but he would send a clear message that he is there when the child wants support or help. The philosopher emphasizes that the act of love is believing in another person even if they do not do what you want them to do.

The philosopher suggests that when someone is angry or judgmental or disapproves of his situation, the young man should separate his tasks from theirs. This is his suggestion for the man’s next step. Using a boss/worker relationship to emphasize the point, he suggests that he should never cross into someone else’s task or let someone cross into his. The young man realizes that they are about to talk about freedom.

The youth states that in theory, he agrees; however, in practice, he thinks that the separation of tasks isolates people and ignores human emotions. The philosopher tells the story of the Gordian knot—a knot so famously difficult to unravel that it was said that whoever managed to do so would be the king of Asia. Alexander the Great cut the knot with his sword and said that destiny is something created, not given.

The philosopher argues that interpersonal relationships require a level of distance in order to function. He admits that this idea is antithetical to mainstream social thinking, but the youth still struggles to accept what he sees as a philosophy stripped of humanity.

The youth expresses his desire for approval from others, citing how much more difficult it is to find one’s own path for oneself. They discuss whether it is worth being free without recognition.

The man expresses his fear of being disliked, and they consider what one must have to do in order to avoid being disliked. To accomplish such a goal, it would be necessary to accommodate every person’s feelings at all times. This practice would inevitably lead to lies. The young man still wonders how one can live according to the philosopher’s premise without becoming egocentric or hedonistic. The philosopher asserts that it is more egocentric to intervene in other people’s tasks.

Wanting to be liked is a natural “inclination,” as the German philosopher Immanuel Kant puts it, but following one’s natural desires is not freedom. The philosopher tells the youth that if following one’s desires is like a stone rolling down a hill, then freedom is more like pushing a stone up a hill. Freedom is allowing oneself to be disliked by other people. The cost of freedom is being disliked. The philosopher says that he is free, and that although he does not want to be disliked, he doesn’t mind when someone dislikes him.

Before separating for the night, the philosopher discusses his relationship with his father. He used to think that because his father hit him, they had a bad relationship. Now he has reframed his past, and he has come to believe that he used that event as a reason not to try to repair their relationship. With this new perspective, he gives himself the hope of change. Before they break for the night, the young man asks what happened with the philosopher’s father. The philosopher says that as he cared for his father at the end of the man’s life, his father thanked him. In other words, the philosopher believes that he led his father to water and that his father drank.