"The Courage to Be Disliked: A Philosophy Lesson from Adler, the 'Father of Self-Help'" Reading Notes

"The Courage to Be Disliked: The Philosophy of Adler, the 'Father of Self-Help'" Reading Notes#

Author: Ichiro Kishimi, Fumitake Koga
Reading Time: 3 hours

These are the notes and excerpts I recorded while reading "The Courage to Be Disliked: The Philosophy of Adler, the 'Father of Self-Help'" on WeChat Reading.

Recommendation Preface II: The Shackles and Liberation of Self#

In Adler's view, the ideal interpersonal relationship is probably "I love you, but it has nothing to do with you." He believes that everyone's issues are separate and unique. How I love you is my issue, while whether you accept my love is your issue.

Introduction#

However, as one grows older, the world gradually reveals its true nature. People have to accept realities like "I am just like this," and everything that was once "possible" on the road of life turns into "impossible." The season of happy romanticism quickly fades, and the era of harsh realism will eventually arrive.

Night One: Whose Fault is Our Misery?#

The young man has lacked confidence since childhood, harboring a strong sense of inferiority about his background, education, and even appearance. Perhaps because of this, he often cares too much about the opinions of others; moreover, he cannot sincerely bless the happiness of others, often falling into a painful state of self-loathing.

The Lesser-Known "Third Giant" of Psychology#

Adler's psychology clearly denies psychological trauma, which is a groundbreaking innovation. Freud's theory of psychological trauma is indeed interesting. He believes that the harm suffered by the mind in the past (psychological trauma) is the root cause of current misfortunes. When we view life as a large drama, its simple logic of causality and dramatic development naturally exudes a captivating charm.

He is dissatisfied and not happy. However, he indeed acts according to "purpose." Not just him; we all live for some "purpose." This is teleology.

Don't you understand yet? So-called anger is merely a "means" that can be retracted or released. It can be cleverly retracted in the moment of answering a phone call and released again after hanging up.

It's not just pain. If the past determines everything and cannot be changed, then we living today will be helpless in the face of life. What will the result be? It may lead to nihilism or pessimism, despairing of the world and loathing life. Freud's causal theory, represented by the theory of psychological trauma, is a disguised determinism, an entry point to nihilism. Do you agree with this value system?

The answer should not be obtained from others but should be found by oneself. Answers obtained from others are merely symptomatic treatments and have no value.

I want to quote Adler again. He said, "What is important is not what is given, but how to use what is given."

It is you who ignores reality. Will reality change by obsessing over "what is given"? We are not replaceable machines. What we need is not replacement but renewal.

There are indeed many evils in behavior. However, no matter what kind of criminal, none commits bad deeds purely out of a desire to do evil; all criminals have their internal "corresponding reasons" for their crimes. Suppose someone kills another over a financial dispute. Even so, it is a behavior with "corresponding reasons" for that person, in other words, an action of "good." Of course, this does not refer to moral goodness but to "self-interest."

To be more precise, it should mean "the state of life." You must think that temperament or character cannot change according to one's will. However, Adler's psychology believes that lifestyle is the result of one's active choice.

People can change at any time and in any environment. The reason you cannot change is that you have made a resolution of "not to change."

On the other hand, if you choose a new lifestyle, you will neither know what problems the new you will encounter nor how to deal with the current situation. The future is unpredictable, life will be filled with anxiety, and there may be even more painful and unfortunate lives waiting for you. In other words, even if people have various complaints, they still believe that maintaining the status quo is easier and more reassuring.

In fact, he wants to preserve a possibility of "I could do it if I tried" by not competing, unwilling to go out to be evaluated, and even less willing to face the reality of being rejected due to poor work. He just wants to live in possibilities like "I could write if I had time, I could write if the environment was right, I have this talent."

Adler's psychology clearly denies psychological trauma, which is a groundbreaking innovation. Freud's theory of psychological trauma is indeed interesting. He believes that the harm suffered by the mind in the past (psychological trauma) is the root cause of current misfortunes. When we view life as a large drama, its simple logic of causality and dramatic development naturally exudes a captivating charm.

He is dissatisfied and not happy. However, he indeed acts according to "purpose." Not just him; we all live for some "purpose." This is teleology.

Don't you understand yet? So-called anger is merely a "means" that can be retracted or released. It can be cleverly retracted in the moment of answering a phone call and released again after hanging up.

It's not just pain. If the past determines everything and cannot be changed, then we living today will be helpless in the face of life. What will the result be? It may lead to nihilism or pessimism, despairing of the world and loathing life. Freud's causal theory, represented by the theory of psychological trauma, is a disguised determinism, an entry point to nihilism. Do you agree with this value system?

The answer should not be obtained from others but should be found by oneself. Answers obtained from others are merely symptomatic treatments and have no value.

I want to quote Adler again. He said, "What is important is not what is given, but how to use what is given."

It is you who ignores reality. Will reality change by obsessing over "what is given"? We are not replaceable machines. What we need is not replacement but renewal.

There are indeed many evils in behavior. However, no matter what kind of criminal, none commits bad deeds purely out of a desire to do evil; all criminals have their internal "corresponding reasons" for their crimes. Suppose someone kills another over a financial dispute. Even so, it is a behavior with "corresponding reasons" for that person, in other words, an action of "good." Of course, this does not refer to moral goodness but to "self-interest."

To be more precise, it should mean "the state of life." You must think that temperament or character cannot change according to one's will. However, Adler's psychology believes that lifestyle is the result of one's active choice.

People can change at any time and in any environment. The reason you cannot change is that you have made a resolution of "not to change."

On the other hand, if you choose a new lifestyle, you will neither know what problems the new you will encounter nor how to deal with the current situation. The future is unpredictable, life will be filled with anxiety, and there may be even more painful and unfortunate lives waiting for you. In other words, even if people have various complaints, they still believe that maintaining the status quo is easier and more reassuring.

In fact, he wants to preserve a possibility of "I could do it if I tried" by not competing, unwilling to go out to be evaluated, and even less willing to face the reality of being rejected due to poor work. He just wants to live in possibilities like "I could write if I had time, I could write if the environment was right, I have this talent."

Why Do We Hate Ourselves?#

This situation is not limited to her. Candidates think, "If I pass the exam, life will be bright," while company employees think, "If I can change careers, everything will go smoothly." However, in many cases, even if those wishes come true, the situation will not change much.

Acknowledgment is a remarkable attitude. However, please do not forget that it is impossible to avoid being hurt in interpersonal relationships. As long as one is involved in interpersonal relationships, one will inevitably be hurt to some extent and will also hurt others. Adler once said, "To eliminate worries, one must live alone in the universe." However, that is simply impossible.

However, subjectivity has an advantage, which is the ability to choose with one's own hands. Whether to see one's height as an advantage or a disadvantage is entirely up to one's subjective decision. Because of this, I can choose freely.

This needs to be said from the beginning. First of all, people live in this world as powerless beings. Moreover, people wish to escape from this state of powerlessness, which leads to a universal desire. Adler calls this "the pursuit of superiority."

A sense of inferiority itself is not a bad thing. You can understand this, right? Just as Adler said, a sense of inferiority can also become an opportunity for effort and progress. For example, although one feels inferior about their education, if that is precisely why one resolves, "I have a low education, so I must work twice as hard," that becomes a good thing. On the other hand, an inferiority complex refers to the state of using one's sense of inferiority as an excuse. Specifically, thoughts like "I can't succeed because I have a low education" or "I can't get married because I'm not attractive" are examples. The theory that promotes "I can't do B because of A" in daily life has exceeded the scope of a sense of inferiority; it is an inferiority complex.

This is another aspect of the inferiority complex. Those who express their inferiority complex through language or attitude and claim, "I can't do B because of A," imply that "if I didn't have A, I would also be capable and valuable."

Acting as if one is excellent and then indulging in a false sense of superiority.

Adler clearly pointed out, "If someone is arrogant, it must be because they have a sense of inferiority."

Adler even pointed out, "In our culture, the weak are actually very powerful and privileged."

A healthy sense of inferiority does not come from comparing oneself to others but from comparing oneself to "the ideal self."

We move forward not to compete with anyone. The value lies in continuously surpassing oneself.

It is to withdraw completely from the competition of winning and losing. When a person wants to be themselves, competition inevitably becomes an obstacle.

The terrifying aspect of competition lies here. Even if one is not a loser, even if one remains undefeated, those in competition will never feel at ease, not wanting to become a loser. To avoid being a loser, one must always win and cannot trust others. The reason many people, despite achieving social success, do not feel happy is that they live in competition. Because the world in their eyes is a dangerous place filled with enemies.

The key lies in the following point. If one can realize that "everyone is my partner," then the view of the world will be entirely different. No longer seeing the world as a dangerous place and no longer living in unnecessary suspicion, the world in one's eyes will become a safe and comfortable place. Troubles in interpersonal relationships will also significantly decrease.

If I am insulted to my face, I will consider the hidden "purpose" of that person. Not only direct insults, but also when provoked by the other person's words and actions, one must recognize that the other is provoking a "power struggle."

Wanting to win, wanting to prove one's strength through victory.

Yes. Moreover, once interpersonal relationships develop to the stage of revenge, reconciliation between the parties involved becomes nearly impossible. To avoid this, one must never fall for provocations in a power struggle.

First, I hope you can understand this fact: anger is a form of communication, and it is possible to communicate without using anger. Even without using anger, we can communicate and gain others' recognition. If one can understand this from experience, then naturally, anger will no longer arise.

You seem not to truly understand. It is not that one cannot be angry, but that "it is unnecessary to rely on anger as a tool." An irritable person is not impatient by nature but does not understand effective communication tools other than anger. That is why they say things like "I couldn't help but get angry." This is actually using anger to communicate.

Philosopher: Regarding power struggles, there is one more point to note. That is, no matter how correct one believes oneself to be, one should not use that as a reason to blame others. This is a trap many people easily fall into in interpersonal relationships. Young man: Why? Philosopher: Once a person is convinced in interpersonal relationships that "I am correct," they have already entered a power struggle.

Philosopher: Because they do not want to fail, they are unwilling to admit their mistakes, resulting in choosing the wrong path. Admitting mistakes, apologizing, and withdrawing from power struggles are not "failures." The pursuit of superiority is not achieved through competition with others. Young man: So, if one is overly fixated on winning and losing, one cannot make the right choice? Philosopher: Yes. If one's glasses are fogged up, seeing only the immediate win or loss will lead to the wrong path; we can only change and improve ourselves by taking off the glasses of competition or winning and losing.

Many people believe that the more friends, the better, but is that really the case? The number of friends or acquaintances has no value. This is a topic related to the theme of love; what we should consider is the distance and depth of relationships.

Philosopher: This can be divided into two stages: one is the so-called romantic relationship, and the other is the relationship with family, especially parent-child relationships. Among the three major topics of work, friendship, and love, the topic of love is probably the most challenging. For example, when a friendship develops into a romantic relationship, some behaviors that were allowed among friends are no longer permitted. Specifically, for instance, one cannot hang out with friends of the opposite sex, and sometimes even just making a phone call to a friend of the opposite sex can make a partner jealous. In this way, as the distance shortens, the relationship deepens. Young man: Yes, that's unavoidable. Philosopher: However, Adler disagrees with the idea of binding the other person. If the other person is happy, one can sincerely bless them; that is love. A mutually binding relationship will quickly break apart. Young man: No, no, this argument seems disloyal! If the other person is happily fooling around, should I bless that behavior? Philosopher: It is not about positively affirming infidelity. Please think this way: if being together feels painful or tense, then even a romantic relationship cannot be called love. When a person can feel "I can be free with this person," only then can they experience love. There is neither a sense of inferiority nor a need to flaunt superiority, maintaining a calm and natural state. True love should be like this. On the other hand, binding is a manifestation of wanting to control the other person and is a thought based on distrust. Being in the same space with someone who does not trust you makes it impossible to maintain a natural state. Adler said, "If you want to live harmoniously together, you must treat the other person as an equal." Young man: Hmm. Philosopher: However, in a romantic relationship or marriage, one can choose to "break up." Even couples who have lived together for many years can choose to break up if they find it difficult to maintain the relationship. However, parent-child relationships, in principle, cannot be like this. If a romantic relationship is a bond tied with a red thread, then a parent-child relationship is a bond connected by a strong chain. Moreover, one only has a small pair of scissors in hand. The difficulty of parent-child relationships lies here.

This is because that person has already made up their mind to find an opportunity to "end this relationship," and is collecting materials to end the relationship, which is why they feel that way. The other person has not changed at all; only one's "purpose" has changed. People are such capricious and selfish beings; once this thought arises, they can find faults in the other person no matter what. Even if the other person is a saint, they can easily find reasons to dislike them. Because of this, the world can always turn into a dangerous place, and people may see everyone else as "enemies."

Yes, you remember well. Freud's causal theory is "the psychology of possession," which then leads to determinism. On the other hand, Adler's psychology is "the psychology of use," where the deciding factor is yourself.

This situation is not limited to her. Candidates think, "If I pass the exam, life will be bright," while company employees think, "If I can change careers, everything will go smoothly." However, in many cases, even if those wishes come true, the situation will not change much.

Acknowledgment is a remarkable attitude. However, please do not forget that it is impossible to avoid being hurt in interpersonal relationships. As long as one is involved in interpersonal relationships, one will inevitably be hurt to some extent and will also hurt others. Adler once said, "To eliminate worries, one must live alone in the universe." However, that is simply impossible.

However, subjectivity has an advantage, which is the ability to choose with one's own hands. Whether to see one's height as an advantage or a disadvantage is entirely up to one's subjective decision. Because of this, I can choose freely.

This needs to be said from the beginning. First of all, people live in this world as powerless beings. Moreover, people wish to escape from this state of powerlessness, which leads to a universal desire. Adler calls this "the pursuit of superiority."

A sense of inferiority itself is not a bad thing. You can understand this, right? Just as Adler said, a sense of inferiority can also become an opportunity for effort and progress. For example, although one feels inferior about their education, if that is precisely why one resolves, "I have a low education, so I must work twice as hard," that becomes a good thing. On the other hand, an inferiority complex refers to the state of using one's sense of inferiority as an excuse. Specifically, thoughts like "I can't succeed because I have a low education" or "I can't get married because I'm not attractive" are examples. The theory that promotes "I can't do B because of A" in daily life has exceeded the scope of a sense of inferiority; it is an inferiority complex.

This is another aspect of the inferiority complex. Those who express their inferiority complex through language or attitude and claim, "I can't do B because of A," imply that "if I didn't have A, I would also be capable and valuable."

Acting as if one is excellent and then indulging in a false sense of superiority.

Adler clearly pointed out, "If someone is arrogant, it must be because they have a sense of inferiority."

Adler even pointed out, "In our culture, the weak are actually very powerful and privileged."

A healthy sense of inferiority does not come from comparing oneself to others but from comparing oneself to "the ideal self."

We move forward not to compete with anyone. The value lies in continuously surpassing oneself.

It is to withdraw completely from the competition of winning and losing. When a person wants to be themselves, competition inevitably becomes an obstacle.

The terrifying aspect of competition lies here. Even if one is not a loser, even if one remains undefeated, those in competition will never feel at ease, not wanting to become a loser. To avoid being a loser, one must always win and cannot trust others. The reason many people, despite achieving social success, do not feel happy is that they live in competition. Because the world in their eyes is a dangerous place filled with enemies.

The key lies in the following point. If one can realize that "everyone is my partner," then the view of the world will be entirely different. No longer seeing the world as a dangerous place and no longer living in unnecessary suspicion, the world in one's eyes will become a safe and comfortable place. Troubles in interpersonal relationships will also significantly decrease.

If I am insulted to my face, I will consider the hidden "purpose" of that person. Not only direct insults, but also when provoked by the other person's words and actions, one must recognize that the other is provoking a "power struggle."

Wanting to win, wanting to prove one's strength through victory.

Yes. Moreover, once interpersonal relationships develop to the stage of revenge, reconciliation between the parties involved becomes nearly impossible. To avoid this, one must never fall for provocations in a power struggle.

First, I hope you can understand this fact: anger is a form of communication, and it is possible to communicate without using anger. Even without using anger, we can communicate and gain others' recognition. If one can understand this from experience, then naturally, anger will no longer arise.

You seem not to truly understand. It is not that one cannot be angry, but that "it is unnecessary to rely on anger as a tool." An irritable person is not impatient by nature but does not understand effective communication tools other than anger. That is why they say things like "I couldn't help but get angry." This is actually using anger to communicate.

Philosopher: Regarding power struggles, there is one more point to note. That is, no matter how correct one believes oneself to be, one should not use that as a reason to blame others. This is a trap many people easily fall into in interpersonal relationships. Young man: Why? Philosopher: Once a person is convinced in interpersonal relationships that "I am correct," they have already entered a power struggle.

Philosopher: Because they do not want to fail, they are unwilling to admit their mistakes, resulting in choosing the wrong path. Admitting mistakes, apologizing, and withdrawing from power struggles are not "failures." The pursuit of superiority is not achieved through competition with others. Young man: So, if one is overly fixated on winning and losing, one cannot make the right choice? Philosopher: Yes. If one's glasses are fogged up, seeing only the immediate win or loss will lead to the wrong path; we can only change and improve ourselves by taking off the glasses of competition or winning and losing.

Many people believe that the more friends, the better, but is that really the case? The number of friends or acquaintances has no value. This is a topic related to the theme of love; what we should consider is the distance and depth of relationships.

Philosopher: This can be divided into two stages: one is the so-called romantic relationship, and the other is the relationship with family, especially parent-child relationships. Among the three major topics of work, friendship, and love, the topic of love is probably the most challenging. For example, when a friendship develops into a romantic relationship, some behaviors that were allowed among friends are no longer permitted. Specifically, for instance, one cannot hang out with friends of the opposite sex, and sometimes even just making a phone call to a friend of the opposite sex can make a partner jealous. In this way, as the distance shortens, the relationship deepens. Young man: Yes, that's unavoidable. Philosopher: However, Adler disagrees with the idea of binding the other person. If the other person is happy, one can sincerely bless them; that is love. A mutually binding relationship will quickly break apart. Young man: No, no, this argument seems disloyal! If the other person is happily fooling around, should I bless that behavior? Philosopher: It is not about positively affirming infidelity. Please think this way: if being together feels painful or tense, then even a romantic relationship cannot be called love. When a person can feel "I can be free with this person," only then can they experience love. There is neither a sense of inferiority nor a need to flaunt superiority, maintaining a calm and natural state. True love should be like this. On the other hand, binding is a manifestation of wanting to control the other person and is a thought based on distrust. Being in the same space with someone who does not trust you makes it impossible to maintain a natural state. Adler said, "If you want to live harmoniously together, you must treat the other person as an equal." Young man: Hmm. Philosopher: However, in a romantic relationship or marriage, one can choose to "break up." Even couples who have lived together for many years can choose to break up if they find it difficult to maintain the relationship. However, parent-child relationships, in principle, cannot be like this. If a romantic relationship is a bond tied with a red thread, then a parent-child relationship is a bond connected by a strong chain. Moreover, one only has a small pair of scissors in hand. The difficulty of parent-child relationships lies here.

This is because that person has already made up their mind to find an opportunity to "end this relationship," and is collecting materials to end the relationship, which is why they feel that way. The other person has not changed at all; only one's "purpose" has changed. People are such capricious and selfish beings; once this thought arises, they can find faults in the other person no matter what. Even if the other person is a saint, they can easily find reasons to dislike them. Because of this, the world can always turn into a dangerous place, and people may see everyone else as "enemies."

Yes, you remember well. Freud's causal theory is "the psychology of possession," which then leads to determinism. On the other hand, Adler's psychology is "the psychology of use," where the deciding factor is yourself.

Is Freedom No Longer Seeking Recognition?#

Ah, I haven't reached a conclusion. However, there is a thought that is not my own but a phrase I found in the library: "Money is manufactured freedom." It is a phrase that appears in Dostoevsky's novels. How refreshing it is to say "manufactured freedom"! I think this is a very insightful statement that reveals the essence of money.

Adler's psychology denies the pursuit of recognition from others.

If doing the right thing can earn praise, and doing the wrong thing will lead to punishment, Adler harshly criticizes this reward-and-punishment style of education. Under reward-and-punishment education, a wrong lifestyle emerges: "If no one praises me, I won't do good things," or "If no one punishes me, I will do bad things." The hope of receiving praise is the purpose behind picking up trash. Moreover, if one cannot receive any praise from anyone, they will feel indignant or resolve never to do such things again. Clearly, this is an abnormal way of thinking.

There is a saying in Jewish teachings: "If you do not live your own life, who will live for you?" You live in your own life. If you say you live for someone, it is, of course, for yourself. If you do not live for yourself, who will live for you? Ultimately, we live for ourselves. There is no reason not to think this way.

Overly hoping for recognition from others leads one to live according to others' expectations. This means abandoning the true self and living in someone else's life. Moreover, please remember that if you say you "do not live to meet others' expectations," then others "do not live to meet your expectations" either. When others' actions do not align with one's thoughts, one should not get angry. This is also a matter of course.

Basically, all interpersonal relationship conflicts arise from interfering with others' issues or having one's issues interfered with by others. As long as one can separate issues, interpersonal relationships will undergo a significant change.

Indeed, parents in the world often say things like "I am thinking of you." However, sometimes parents' actions are clearly to satisfy their own purposes—face, vanity, or a desire to control. In other words, it is not "for you" but "for me," and because children perceive this deceptive behavior, they will rebel.

Parents troubled by their relationship with their children often easily believe: the child is my life. In short, they regard the child's issues as their own issues, always considering the child, and by the time they realize it, they have lost themselves. However, no matter how much parents bear the child's issues, the child remains an independent individual and will not live entirely according to the parents' wishes. The child's learning, work, marriage partner, or even daily behavior will not completely align with what the parents think. Of course, I will worry and even want to interfere. However, as I mentioned earlier, "others do not live to meet your expectations." Even one's own child does not live to meet the parents' expectations.

Philosopher: Trusting others also requires issue separation. Trusting others is your issue. However, how to treat your trust is the other person's issue. If one does not clarify boundaries and imposes their hopes on others, it becomes a crude "interference." Can one still trust and love even if the other does not meet one's wishes? The "issue of love" that Adler speaks of includes this inquiry. Young man: That's too difficult! It's too difficult! Philosopher: Of course. But please think this way: interfering or even taking on others' issues will make one's life heavy and painful. If you are troubled by your own life—this trouble stemming from interpersonal relationships—then first clarify the boundary of "this is not my issue"; then, please let go of others' issues. This is the first step to lighten the burden of life and make it simpler.

Regarding your own life, all you can do is "choose the path you think is best." On the other hand, how others evaluate your choice is their issue, which you cannot control.

This is closely related to the fundamental principles of Adler's psychology. If one is angry, they cannot think calmly. Believing "because I have such a boss, I cannot work well" is entirely causal reasoning. Please do not think this way; rather, look at it this way: "Because I do not want to work, I create a detestable boss." Or think: "Because I am unwilling to accept my incompetence, I create an incompetent boss." This becomes a teleological way of thinking.

Just now, I mentioned that issue separation is wantonly trampling on the goodwill of others. This is actually a thought bound by the idea of "reciprocity." In other words, if the other person does something for you—even if it is not what you expected—you must reciprocate. This is not about not disappointing goodwill but merely being bound by the idea of reciprocity. Regardless of what the other person does, the decision of how one should act should be one's own.

Indeed, living according to others' expectations is easier because it entrusts one's life to others, such as walking on the tracks laid by parents. Although there will be various complaints here, as long as one is still on the track, they will not get lost. However, if one has to decide their own path, they may get lost and even face the dilemma of "how to survive."

Indeed, there is no hope for being disliked. However, please think this: what must one do to avoid being disliked by anyone? There is only one answer. That is to constantly watch others' expressions and swear loyalty to anyone. If there are 10 people around, then swear loyalty to all 10. If so, one can temporarily avoid being disliked by anyone. However, at this time, a significant contradiction awaits you. Because one is determined not to be disliked, swearing loyalty to all 10 people is like a populist politician who promises "can do" for things that cannot be done and takes on responsibilities that cannot be borne. Of course, this kind of lie will soon be exposed, leading to a loss of credibility and making one's life more painful. Naturally, the pressure of continuing to lie exceeds imagination. Please understand this well. Living to meet others' expectations and entrusting one's life to others is a way of life that involves lying to oneself and continuously lying to those around.

Adults who choose an unfree lifestyle criticize young people who live freely in the present for their "hedonism." Of course, this is a life lie fabricated to accept an unfree life. Adults who choose true freedom do not say such things; on the contrary, they encourage young people to bravely strive for freedom.

Perhaps the desire for recognition is a natural desire. So, does one have to keep rolling down the slope to gain others' recognition? Do they have to wear themselves down like a rolling stone until they lose shape and become round? Can such a sphere be called "the true self"? Absolutely not! Young man: Are you saying that resisting instincts and impulses is freedom? Philosopher: As I have repeatedly mentioned, Adler's psychology believes that "all troubles stem from interpersonal relationships." In other words, we are all pursuing freedom liberated from interpersonal relationships. However, living alone in the universe is simply impossible. Once you think of this, you can naturally understand what freedom is. Young man: What is it? Philosopher: In other words, "freedom is being disliked by others." Young man: Wh-what?! Philosopher: It is you being disliked by someone. This is evidence of exercising freedom and living freely, as well as a manifestation of living according to one's own principles.

You must think that freedom is "being liberated from organizations." You think freedom is jumping out of families, schools, companies, or nations. However, even if you jump out of an organization, you cannot obtain true freedom. If you do not care about others' evaluations, do not fear being disliked, and do not pursue recognition from others, you cannot implement your own way of life, which means you cannot gain freedom.

Young man: No, no, let me change the question. Can people really bear the weight of freedom? Are people that strong? Can they be self-righteous and make mistakes, even if they are disliked by their parents? Philosopher: It is neither self-righteousness nor making mistakes; it is merely separating issues. Even if someone dislikes you, that is not your issue. Moreover, thoughts like "I should be liked" or "It is strange that I am not liked after working so hard" are also a form of interference with the other person's issues. Not fearing being disliked but bravely moving forward, not going with the flow but forging ahead, is what freedom means for people. If I were presented with the choice between "a life liked by everyone" and "a life disliked by some," I would undoubtedly choose the latter without hesitation. I care more about how I live than how others see me. That is to say, I want to live freely.

My change is not "to change my father." That is a wrong idea of wanting to manipulate others. I changed, and only "I" changed. As a result, I do not know how the other person will change, nor can I control it; this is also issue separation. Of course, with my change—not through my change—the other person may also change. Perhaps in many cases, the other person has to change, but that is not the goal, and it may not happen. In short, regarding changing oneself as a means to manipulate others is an extremely wrong idea.

Ah, I haven't reached a conclusion. However, there is a thought that is not my own but a phrase I found in the library: "Money is manufactured freedom." It is a phrase that appears in Dostoevsky's novels. How refreshing it is to say "manufactured freedom"! I think this is a very insightful statement that reveals the essence of money.

Adler's psychology denies the pursuit of recognition from others.

If doing the right thing can earn praise, and doing the wrong thing will lead to punishment, Adler harshly criticizes this reward-and-punishment style of education. Under reward-and-punishment education, a wrong lifestyle emerges: "If no one praises me, I won't do good things," or "If no one punishes me, I will do bad things." The hope of receiving praise is the purpose behind picking up trash. Moreover, if one cannot receive any praise from anyone, they will feel indignant or resolve never to do such things again. Clearly, this is an abnormal way of thinking.

There is a saying in Jewish teachings: "If you do not live your own life, who will live for you?" You live in your own life. If you say you live for someone, it is, of course, for yourself. If you do not live for yourself, who will live for you? Ultimately, we live for ourselves. There is no reason not to think this way.

Overly hoping for recognition from others leads one to live according to others' expectations. This means abandoning the true self and living in someone else's life. Moreover, please remember that if you say you "do not live to meet others' expectations," then others "do not live to meet your expectations" either. When others' actions do not align with one's thoughts, one should not get angry. This is also a matter of course.

Basically, all interpersonal relationship conflicts arise from interfering with others' issues or having one's issues interfered with by others. As long as one can separate issues, interpersonal relationships will undergo a significant change.

Indeed, parents in the world often say things like "I am thinking of you." However, sometimes parents' actions are clearly to satisfy their own purposes—face, vanity, or a desire to control. In other words, it is not "for you" but "for me," and because children perceive this deceptive behavior, they will rebel.

Parents troubled by their relationship with their children often easily believe: the child is my life. In short, they regard the child's issues as their own issues, always considering the child, and by the time they realize it, they have lost themselves. However, no matter how much parents bear the child's issues, the child remains an independent individual and will not live entirely according to the parents' wishes. The child's learning, work, marriage partner, or even daily behavior will not completely align with what the parents think. Of course, I will worry and even want to interfere. However, as I mentioned earlier, "others do not live to meet your expectations." Even one's own child does not live to meet the parents' expectations.

Philosopher: Trusting others also requires issue separation. Trusting others is your issue. However, how to treat your trust is the other person's issue. If one does not clarify boundaries and imposes their hopes on others, it becomes a crude "interference." Can one still trust and love even if the other does not meet one's wishes? The "issue of love" that Adler speaks of includes this inquiry. Young man: That's too difficult! It's too difficult! Philosopher: Of course. But please think this way: interfering or even taking on others' issues will make one's life heavy and painful. If you are troubled by your own life—this trouble stemming from interpersonal relationships—then first clarify the boundary of "this is not my issue"; then, please let go of others' issues. This is the first step to lighten the burden of life and make it simpler.

Regarding your own life, all you can do is "choose the path you think is best." On the other hand, how others evaluate your choice is their issue, which you cannot control.

This is closely related to the fundamental principles of Adler's psychology. If one is angry, they cannot think calmly. Believing "because I have such a boss, I cannot work well" is entirely causal reasoning. Please do not think this way; rather, look at it this way: "Because I do not want to work, I create a detestable boss." Or think: "Because I am unwilling to accept my incompetence, I create an incompetent boss." This becomes a teleological way of thinking.

Just now, I mentioned that issue separation is wantonly trampling on the goodwill of others. This is actually a thought bound by the idea of "reciprocity." In other words, if the other person does something for you—even if it is not what you expected—you must reciprocate. This is not about not disappointing goodwill but merely being bound by the idea of reciprocity. Regardless of what the other person does, the decision of how one should act should be one's own.

Indeed, living according to others' expectations is easier because it entrusts one's life to others, such as walking on the tracks laid by parents. Although there will be various complaints here, as long as one is still on the track, they will not get lost. However, if one has to decide their own path, they may get lost and even face the dilemma of "how to survive."

Indeed, there is no hope for being disliked. However, please think this: what must one do to avoid being disliked by anyone? There is only one answer. That is to constantly watch others' expressions and swear loyalty to anyone. If there are 10 people around, then swear loyalty to all 10. If so, one can temporarily avoid being disliked by anyone. However, at this time, a significant contradiction awaits you. Because one is determined not to be disliked, swearing loyalty to all 10 people is like a populist politician who promises "can do" for things that cannot be done and takes on responsibilities that cannot be borne. Of course, this kind of lie will soon be exposed, leading to a loss of credibility and making one's life more painful. Naturally, the pressure of continuing to lie exceeds imagination. Please understand this well. Living to meet others' expectations and entrusting one's life to others is a way of life that involves lying to oneself and continuously lying to those around.

Adults who choose an unfree lifestyle criticize young people who live freely in the present for their "hedonism." Of course, this is a life lie fabricated to accept an unfree life. Adults who choose true freedom do not say such things; on the contrary, they encourage young people to bravely strive for freedom.

Perhaps the desire for recognition is a natural desire. So, does one have to keep rolling down the slope to gain others' recognition? Do they have to wear themselves down like a rolling stone until they lose shape and become round? Can such a sphere be called "the true self"? Absolutely not! Young man: Are you saying that resisting instincts and impulses is freedom? Philosopher: As I have repeatedly mentioned, Adler's psychology believes that "all troubles stem from interpersonal relationships." In other words, we are all pursuing freedom liberated from interpersonal relationships. However, living alone in the universe is simply impossible. Once you think of this, you can naturally understand what freedom is. Young man: What is it? Philosopher: In other words, "freedom is being disliked by others." Young man: Wh-what?! Philosopher: It is you being disliked by someone. This is evidence of exercising freedom and living freely, as well as a manifestation of living according to one's own principles.

You must think that freedom is "being liberated from organizations." You think freedom is jumping out of families, schools, companies, or nations. However, even if you jump out of an organization, you cannot obtain true freedom. If you do not care about others' evaluations, do not fear being disliked, and do not pursue recognition from others, you cannot implement your own way of life, which means you cannot gain freedom.

Young man: No, no, let me change the question. Can people really bear the weight of freedom? Are people that strong? Can they be self-righteous and make mistakes, even if they are disliked by their parents? Philosopher: It is neither self-righteousness nor making mistakes; it is merely separating issues. Even if someone dislikes you, that is not your issue. Moreover, thoughts like "I should be liked" or "It is strange that I am not liked after working so hard" are also a form of interference with the other person's issues. Not fearing being disliked but bravely moving forward, not going with the flow but forging ahead, is what freedom means for people. If I were presented with the choice between "a life liked by everyone" and "a life disliked by some," I would undoubtedly choose the latter without hesitation. I care more about how I live than how others see me. That is to say, I want to live freely.

My change is not "to change my father." That is a wrong idea of wanting to manipulate others. I changed, and only "I" changed. As a result, I do not know how the other person will change, nor can I control it; this is also issue separation. Of course, with my change—not through my change—the other person may also change. Perhaps in many cases, the other person has to change, but that is not the goal, and it may not happen. In short, regarding changing oneself as a means to manipulate others is an extremely wrong idea.

Individual Psychology and Holism#

Philosopher: As I have always said, Adler's psychology believes that "all troubles stem from interpersonal relationships." The source of misfortune also lies in interpersonal relationships. Conversely, the source of happiness also lies in interpersonal relationships. Young man: Indeed. Philosopher: The feeling of community is the most important indicator of a happy interpersonal relationship.

I mentioned this last time. Some people think you are not good, which proves you live freely, perhaps sensing a self-centered aura from it. However, what we are discussing now is not this. Living solely concerned about "what others think" is precisely a self-centered way of living that only cares about "me."

If a relationship can collapse because of your opposition, then there was no need to establish that relationship from the beginning; it is fine to abandon it proactively. Living in fear of relationship breakdown is an unfree way of living for others.

The purpose of people praising others is to "manipulate those who are less capable than themselves," which contains neither gratitude nor respect.

That's right. A sense of inferiority originally arises from a vertical relationship. As long as one can establish a horizontal relationship of "though different, but equal" with everyone, an inferiority complex will not arise at all.

When explaining issue separation, I mentioned the term "interference." This refers to the act of interfering with others' issues. So, why do people interfere with others? Behind this is actually a vertical relationship. Because they view interpersonal relationships as vertical and see the other as lower than themselves, they interfere. They hope to guide the other person in the direction they wish through interference. This is the belief that they are correct and the other person is wrong. Of course, this interference is manipulation. Parents who command their children to "study hard" are a typical example. They may act out of goodwill, but the result is interference because they want to manipulate the other person according to their wishes.

The premise of assistance is issue separation and horizontal relationships. After understanding that learning is the child's issue, one should consider what can be done, specifically not commanding them to study from a superior position but striving to help them build confidence in "I can learn" and improve their ability to independently cope with issues.

If you feel joy from receiving praise, it means you are subordinate to a vertical relationship and acknowledging "your own incapacity." Because praise is "an evaluation made by capable people towards incapable people."

When people hear words of gratitude, they realize they can contribute to others.

How can one gain "courage"? Adler's insight is: people can only gain courage when they feel they are valuable.

Philosopher: Very simple! People can only feel their value when they can experience "I am useful to the community." This is the answer of Adler's psychology. Young man: I am useful to the community? Philosopher: It is through serving the community, that is, others, that one can feel "I am useful to others," not being evaluated by others as "good," but subjectively believing "I can contribute to others." Only in this way can we truly experience our value. The previously discussed topics of "community feeling" or "encouragement" are closely related to this.

Regarding the issue of community feeling, someone also posed the same question to Adler himself. At that time, Adler's answer was: "Someone must start. Even if others do not cooperate, it has nothing to do with you. My opinion is this: it should start with you. There is no need to consider whether others cooperate." My opinion is entirely the same.

Philosopher: As I have always said, Adler's psychology believes that "all troubles stem from interpersonal relationships." The source of misfortune also lies in interpersonal relationships. Conversely, the source of happiness also lies in interpersonal relationships. Young man: Indeed. Philosopher: The feeling of community is the most important indicator of a happy interpersonal relationship.

I mentioned this last time. Some people think you are not good, which proves you live freely, perhaps sensing a self-centered aura from it. However, what we are discussing now is not this. Living solely concerned about "what others think" is precisely a self-centered way of living that only cares about "me."

If a relationship can collapse because of your opposition, then there was no need to establish that relationship from the beginning; it is fine to abandon it proactively. Living in fear of relationship breakdown is an unfree way of living for others.

The purpose of people praising others is to "manipulate those who are less capable than themselves," which contains neither gratitude nor respect.

That's right. A sense of inferiority originally arises from a vertical relationship. As long as one can establish a horizontal relationship of "though different, but equal" with everyone, an inferiority complex will not arise at all.

When explaining issue separation, I mentioned the term "interference." This refers to the act of interfering with others' issues. So, why do people interfere with others? Behind this is actually a vertical relationship. Because they view interpersonal relationships as vertical and see the other as lower than themselves, they interfere. They hope to guide the other person in the direction they wish through interference. This is the belief that they are correct and the other person is wrong. Of course, this interference is manipulation. Parents who command their children to "study hard" are a typical example. They may act out of goodwill, but the result is interference because they want to manipulate the other person according to their wishes.

The premise of assistance is issue separation and horizontal relationships. After understanding that learning is the child's issue, one should consider what can be done, specifically not commanding them to study from a superior position but striving to help them build confidence in "I can learn" and improve their ability to independently cope with issues.

If you feel joy from receiving praise, it means you are subordinate to a vertical relationship and acknowledging "your own incapacity." Because praise is "an evaluation made by capable people towards incapable people."

When people hear words of gratitude, they realize they can contribute to others.

How can one gain "courage"? Adler's insight is: people can only gain courage when they feel they are valuable.

Philosopher: Very simple! People can only feel their value when they can experience "I am useful to the community." This is the answer of Adler's psychology. Young man: I am useful to the community? Philosopher: It is through serving the community, that is, others, that one can feel "I am useful to others," not being evaluated by others as "good," but subjectively believing "I can contribute to others." Only in this way can we truly experience our value. The previously discussed topics of "community feeling" or "encouragement" are closely related to this.

Regarding the issue of community feeling, someone also posed the same question to Adler himself. At that time, Adler's answer was: "Someone must start. Even if others do not cooperate, it has nothing to do with you. My opinion is this: it should start with you. There is no need to consider whether others cooperate." My opinion is entirely the same.

Excessive Self-Awareness Can Bind Oneself#

It is still about community feeling. Specifically, it is about transforming one's obsession with oneself (self-interest) into concern for others (social interest) and establishing a sense of community. This requires starting from the following three points: "self-acceptance," "trust in others," and "contribution to others."

Issue separation is the same; one must distinguish between "what can be changed" and "what cannot be changed." We cannot change "what is given." However, regarding "how to use what is given," we can change with our own strength. This means not focusing on "what cannot be changed," but rather on "what can be changed." This is what I call self-acceptance.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change; courage to change what I can; and wisdom to know the difference between the two."

Philosopher: When trusting others, do not attach any conditions. Even without objective evidence sufficient to constitute trust, still believe, without considering things like collateral, and trust unconditionally. This is trust. Young man: Trust unconditionally? Is this the neighborly love you often talk about? Philosopher: Of course, trusting others unconditionally can sometimes lead to betrayal. Just like a loan guarantor can sometimes suffer losses. Even so, the attitude of continuing to trust is called trust. Young man: This is being foolishly naive! You may support the idea of inherent goodness, but I advocate for inherent evil; unconditionally trusting strangers will lead to being taken advantage of! Philosopher: You may be deceived or exploited. However, please think from the perspective of the betrayer. If someone continues to trust you unconditionally even after you betray them, regardless of how they are treated, can you repeatedly act treacherously towards such a person?

Adler's psychological viewpoint is very simple. You currently believe that "trusting others unconditionally will only lead to betrayal." However, the decision to betray or not is not yours; it is the other person's issue. You only need to consider "what should I do?" "If the other party is trustworthy, I will also trust them," is merely a trust relationship based on collateral or conditions.

I want to make this clear. Adler's psychology does not advocate for "trusting others unconditionally" based on moral values. Unconditional trust is a "means" to improve interpersonal relationships and build horizontal relationships. If you do not want to improve your relationship with that person, you can completely cut off the relationship with the scissors in your hand, as cutting off the relationship is your own issue.

You are currently overly worried about "being betrayed," focusing only on the pain caused by it. However, if you do not dare to trust others, you will ultimately be unable to establish deep relationships with anyone.

Trusting others means seeing them as partners. Because they are partners, one can trust them. If they are not partners, trust cannot be established. Moreover, if one sees others as partners, they can find their place in the community they belong to, thus gaining a sense of belonging of "I can be here."

Contribution to others does not mean self-sacrifice. On the contrary, Adler refers to those who sacrifice their own lives for others as "overly adapted to society" and warns against this. Moreover, please think about it. We can only truly feel our value when we feel that our existence or actions benefit the community, that is, when we experience "I am useful to others." Is that right? In other words, contribution to others is not about abandoning "I" to serve others; rather, it is a means to experience the value of "I."

For convenience, I have been explaining in the order of self-acceptance, trust in others, and contribution to others. However, these three are an inseparable whole. Only by accepting the real self—namely, "self-acceptance"—can one trust others without fear of betrayal; and only by giving unconditional trust to others and seeing them as partners can one contribute to others; simultaneously, only by contributing to others can one experience "I am useful to others," thus accepting the real self and achieving "self-acceptance."

Philosopher: This is probably true. Adler himself said, "Understanding people is not easy. Individual psychology is probably the most difficult psychology to learn and practice among all psychologies." Young man: Exactly! Even if I understand the theory, it is difficult to practice! Philosopher: Some even say that to truly understand Adler's psychology and change one's lifestyle requires "about half the time of one's age." In other words, if one starts learning at 40, it will take 20 years, meaning they will learn by 60. If one starts learning at 20, it will take an additional 10 years, meaning they will learn by 30. You are still young; the earlier you learn, the more likely you are to change sooner. In this sense, you are ahead of the elders in the world. To create a new world by changing oneself, in a sense, you are more advanced than I am. You can get lost or go astray; as long as you no longer belong to a vertical relationship and bravely move forward without fearing being disliked, you can do it. If everyone can think that "young people are more advanced," the world will undergo significant changes.

Indeed, not everyone in the world is good; there will be many unpleasant things in interpersonal relationships. However, one must not make this mistake: in any case, only the person attacking me is at fault, and it is not "everyone's" fault. Those with a neurotic lifestyle often use words like "everyone," "always," or "everything." "Everyone hates themselves," "I always suffer losses," or "everything is wrong," etc. If you often use such generalized terms, you need to be cautious.

Unsuccessful interpersonal relationships are neither due to stuttering nor due to blush phobia; the real problem lies in the inability to achieve self-acceptance, trust in others, and contribution to others, while focusing on a trivial aspect and attempting to evaluate the entire world based on that. This is a wrong way of living that lacks harmony in life.

Philosopher: In a sense, this is a way of living that does not dare to face life's issues. "Work" does not merely refer to working in a company. Work at home, parenting, contributing to the local community, interests, etc., all of these are "work"; companies are just a small part of it. Only considering work in a company is a way of living that lacks harmony in life. Young man: Ah, exactly! Moreover, the dependent family members cannot refute this at all. They cannot refute the father's near-violent words, "Think about who you rely on to eat!" Philosopher: Perhaps such a father can only recognize his value based on "behavior standards." He believes that because he has worked for this long, earned enough money to support the family, and received social recognition, he is the most valuable person in the family. However, everyone has times when they are no longer producers. For example, after getting older and retiring, they must rely on pensions or the support of their children; or even if they are young, they may be unable to work due to injury or illness. At such times, those who can only accept themselves based on "behavior standards" will suffer a severe blow. Young man: So, those are the people who have a "work is everything" way of living? Philosopher: Yes. They lack harmony in life.

I understand your question. When I first heard the report on Adler's psychology, the lecturer, Oscar Christine—who is equivalent to Adler's disciple—said the following: "Those who listen to my words today can gain happiness from this moment on. However, those who cannot do this will never gain happiness."

For people, the greatest misfortune is disliking oneself. For this reality, Adler prepared an extremely simple answer—thinking "I am beneficial to the community" or "I am useful to others" is enough for people to feel their value.

Philosopher: The judgment of whether your contribution is effective is not yours; it is the other person's issue, a problem you cannot interfere with. Whether a real contribution has been made is fundamentally unknowable in principle. In other words, when we contribute to others, even if we make invisible contributions, as long as we can produce the subjective feeling of "I am useful to others," that is the "sense of contribution." Young man: Wait a minute! So, are you saying that happiness is... Philosopher: You have already realized it, right? That is, "happiness is the sense of contribution." This is the definition of happiness.

Philosopher: If one can truly have a sense of contribution, then there is no longer a need for recognition from others. Because even without specifically seeking recognition from others, one can feel "I am useful to others." In other words, those bound by the desire for recognition do not possess a sense of community and cannot achieve self-acceptance, trust in others, and contribution to others. Young man: Are you saying that once there is a sense of community, the desire for recognition will disappear? Philosopher: It will disappear. There will be no longer a need for recognition from others.

Whether one hopes to be particularly excellent or particularly poor, the purpose is the same—to attract others' attention, to escape the "ordinary" state, to become a "special existence." This is their purpose.

If life is a line, then life planning may be possible. However, our lives are merely a continuous series of points. A planned life is not a matter of necessity; it is fundamentally impossible.

Please think this way. Life is like a continuous moment that spins and dances at every instant. And often, when looking back, one will suddenly realize: "Have I already come here?" Among those dancing the violin dance, some may become professional violinists; among those dancing the judicial examination dance, some may become lawyers; or perhaps some dancing the writing dance may become writers. Of course, there may also be entirely different results. However, all lives are not about ending "on the road"; as long as the "here and now" of dancing is fulfilling, it is already enough.

If the purpose of climbing a mountain is to reach the summit, then it is a potential behavior. To put it extremely, taking an elevator to the top, staying for 5 minutes, and then taking the elevator back down is also possible. Of course, if one fails to reach the summit, the climbing activity is equivalent to failure. However, if the purpose of climbing is not to reach the summit but to climb itself, then it can be said to be a realistic activity. Ultimately, it does not matter whether one can reach the summit.

Philosopher: Yes. We should take life more seriously in the "here and now." If one feels they can see the past and predict the future, it proves they are not living seriously in the "here and now," but rather living in a vague and weak light. Life is a continuous moment; there is fundamentally no past or future. You want to find an excuse for yourself by focusing on the past or future. What happened in the past has nothing to do with your "here and now," and what will happen in the future is not something to consider in the "here and now." If one lives seriously in the "here and now," they would not say such things. Young man: But, but... Philosopher: If one stands on the standpoint of Freud's causal reasoning, they will understand life as a long story based on causality. When and where one was born, what kind of childhood one had, what kind of school one graduated from, what kind of company one entered—these factors determine who I am now and who I will be in the future. Indeed, treating life as a story is very interesting. However, in the earlier parts of the story, one can see the "vague future"; moreover, people will want to live according to this story. My life is like this, so I can only live like this; the fault is not mine but lies in the past and environment. The past brought up here is merely an excuse, a lie of life. However, life is a series of points, a continuous moment. If one can understand this, then there is no longer a need for a story.

Philosopher: Your own life is the same. Setting a goal for a distant future and believing that now is its preparation stage. Always thinking, "What I really want to do is this; I will do it when the time comes," is a way of procrastinating life. As long as one procrastinates life, they will make no progress and can only live a monotonous and boring life every day. Because in this case, one will think that "the here and now" is merely a preparation phase and a phase of endurance. However, the "here and now" of studying hard for a distant future exam is a real existence. Young man: Yes, I admit! Taking life seriously in the "here and now," not setting lines that do not exist at all—this is my confirmation too! But sir, I can't find ideals and goals; I don't even know what dance I should jump; my "here and now" only consists of some useless moments! Philosopher: It does not matter if you have no goals. Taking life seriously in the "here and now" is itself dancing. Do not make life too profound. Please do not confuse seriousness with profundity. Young man: Serious but not profound. Philosopher: Yes. Life is simple; it is not something profound. If one takes every moment seriously, there is no need to make it overly profound. And remember one more thing. From the perspective of reality, life is always in a state of completion. Young man: State of completion? Philosopher: You still have me; even if life ends in the "here and now," that is not enough to be called unfortunate. Whether a life ends at 20 or 90, both are complete, happy lives. Young man: Are you saying that if I take the "here and now" seriously, then every moment is a completion? Philosopher: Exactly. I have mentioned the term "lie of life" several times before. Finally, I want to mention the greatest lie in life. Young man: I'm all ears. Philosopher: The greatest lie in life is not living in the "here and now." Being entangled in the past, focusing on the future, casting a weak and vague light on the entirety of life, and believing one has seen something. You have been ignoring the "here and now," focusing only on the nonexistent past and future. You have told a big lie about your life and the irreplaceable moment. Young man: ...Ah! Philosopher: Come on, shake off the lies of life, and boldly cast a strong spotlight on the "here and now." You can definitely do it! Young man: I... Can I do it? Without relying on the lies of life, taking every moment seriously—do you think I have that "courage"? Philosopher: Because the past and future do not exist, we must talk about the present. The deciding factor is neither yesterday nor tomorrow, but the "here and now."

Therefore, after Adler said, "There is no universal meaning of life," he also said, "The meaning of life is what you give to yourself."

Conclusion#

· Love is the only "shared issue of two people" in life. The essence of love is neither selfishly pursuing "my happiness" nor altruistically hoping for "your happiness," but establishing an inseparable "our happiness." To achieve a happy life, one should let the "self" disappear.

· "The way of living to love" is to make a determination to love someone, at which point one can bid farewell to the childish way of living and achieve true independence. Because we gradually mature through loving others. Love is independence; love is maturity. For this reason, love is very difficult. · "Destined lovers" do not exist; by setting an overly grand and nonexistent ideal, one avoids interacting with real people, which is the true face of those who lament "there are no encounters." The truth is: we can love anyone; love is a decision, a determination, a commitment. · Those who only wish to live "easily" or "happily" may gain temporary happiness but cannot achieve true happiness. We can only liberate ourselves from self-centeredness through loving others; we can only achieve independence through loving others. Moreover, we can only find a sense of community through loving others.

· Love is the only "shared issue of two people" in life. The essence of love is neither selfishly pursuing "my happiness" nor altruistically hoping for "your happiness," but establishing an inseparable "our happiness." To achieve a happy life, one should let the "self" disappear.

· "The way of living to love" is to make a determination to love someone, at which point one can bid farewell to the childish way of living and achieve true independence. Because we gradually mature through loving others. Love is independence; love is maturity. For this reason, love is very difficult. · "Destined lovers" do not exist; by setting an overly grand and nonexistent ideal, one avoids interacting with real people, which is the true face of those who lament "there are no encounters." The truth is: we can love anyone; love is a decision, a determination, a commitment. · Those who only wish to live "easily" or "happily" may gain temporary happiness but cannot achieve true happiness. We can only liberate ourselves from self-centeredness through loving others; we can only achieve independence through loving others. Moreover, we can only find a sense of community through loving others.

This article was automatically generated by the WeRead-xLog synchronization tool.