The Courage to Be Disliked

The Courage to Be Disliked is a 2013 nonfiction self-help and psychology book written by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. Structured as a Socratic dialogue between a youth and a philosopher, the book introduces Alfred Adler’s psychological theories, addressing common challenges and points of confusion in the context of real-world application.

Kishimi is a Japanese philosopher, psychologist, teacher, and translator who has studied Adlerian psychology and Greek philosophy for decades. Koga, a Japanese writer, encountered Adlerian psychology when he was a young man and sought a conversation with Kishimi, an encounter that ultimately led to their collaboration on The Courage to Be Disliked. The book was originally published in Japanese in 2013, and the authors later translated it into English themselves.

This guide refers to the e-book edition of the English translation, which was published in 2017.

Summary

In the book’s Introduction, a young man (who is consistently referred to as the “youth” throughout the book) approaches a philosopher to discuss his ideas. The philosopher asserts that “[t]he world is simple, and life is simple too” (Introduction), and the youth resolves to prove him wrong. In the young man’s eyes, happiness is unattainable, and the world is full of painful contradictions. The philosopher welcomes the young man’s perspective and promises not to be offended when the young man challenges his beliefs.

On the first night of their conversation, the philosopher discusses Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychologist who worked alongside Sigmund Freud but held vastly different beliefs. To emphasize Adler’s belief in everyone’s ability to change, the philosopher explains that Adler denies the impact of trauma on the individual. Instead, Adler believes in “teleology,” which studies a phenomenon’s purpose, rather than Freud’s “etiology,” which attempts to explain a phenomenon’s cause. The philosopher explains that people use trauma as an excuse not to proceed with their lives.

The young man provides two real-life examples that the pair then discusses. He cites the experiences of his friend, who shuts himself in his room, and he also mentions his own inexplicably angry action from the previous day. The philosopher reframes both examples to demonstrate that desires shape actions; he then invites the young man to consider whether he accepts himself as he is now. The young man, while aware that he is anxious and struggling to find happiness, resists the philosopher’s Adlerian principles, calling the philosopher names and trying to find flaws in his explanations. When the philosopher asserts that all people can choose happiness, the youth feels criticized and explains that he would never choose the pain he feels. The philosopher tries to reframe his previous statement to explain that he too can choose happiness: This is not a criticism of his past but a hope for the present. Before parting with the promise to return soon, the youth apologizes for being rude. The philosopher explains that dialogue is supposed to be casual.

On the second night, the philosopher turns away from individual work and focuses on one of Adler’s main tenets: that all problems are interpersonal problems. The philosopher uses the example of a woman who asks him to help her overcome her fear of blushing; she claims that after conquering this fear, she will finally be able to ask the man she loves out on a date. The philosopher explains that the girl is afraid of the rejection that could occur when she asks the man out. In the same way, the youth is afraid to be disliked by others, so he chooses instead to dislike himself. The two then discuss feelings of inferiority and superiority, both of which are subjective assumptions about oneself that impede one’s ability to live freely. The philosopher explains that Adler acknowledges humans’ natural pursuit of superiority but sees it as a drive to improve oneself rather than to best others. In other words, Adlerian principles do not frame life as a competition.

The philosopher tells the young man that he needs the courage to face his life tasks. In explaining one’s life tasks, which include tasks of work, love, and friendship, he demonstrates that each task is inextricably linked to other people. In discussing the task of friendship, they both admit that they have struggled to make friends, and the philosopher says that he has found an “irreplaceable friend” in the young man. In tasks of love, he explains the difference between the red string that connects one with friends and lovers as opposed to the rigid chain that connects one to one’s parents. He then emphasizes the importance of facing relationships that cannot or should not be easily severed. He also introduces Adler’s term the “life-lie” to describe the human tendency to create excuses in order to avoid facing life tasks.

Weeks later, the young man arrives for a third night of discussion, with the idea of freedom weighing heavily upon him. He explains his reflections on the nature of freedom, money, his parents, and his career, and he admits that he chose certain paths in hopes of obtaining recognition from his parents. The young man believes that personal value is based upon recognition, but the philosopher counters that recognition does not make him happy. They discuss the dangers of reward-and-punishment education, in which either outcome is used as a form of manipulation.

The philosopher explains Adler’s concept of “separation of tasks.” Put simply, separation of tasks is the idea that “[y]ou can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” (125). The young man is in pain because he wants recognition from others but does not yet recognize that he cannot control other people’s responses. One can only change oneself. In this way, the young man cannot be free until he no longer craves recognition from others. He wonders whether it is easier to live by someone else’s expectations, even if the cost is freedom. Freedom means being disliked by other people, and the courage to be happy is also the courage to be disliked. The philosopher explains his relationship with his own father. For years, he thought their relationship was flawed because his father hit him when he was a child, but later, he reframed this notion to realize that he was using that past event as an excuse not to rebuild their relationship. Toward the end of his life, his father thanked him. Now the philosopher explains that he led his father to water, and his father drank.

On the fourth night, the young man once again returns with the goal of proving the philosopher wrong. On this night, they discuss how to reframe one’s role in the world in order to find the courage to be happy and free. The philosopher explains that the purpose of having interpersonal relationships is to find a feeling of community. In Adler’s view, community includes all things, including plants, animals, and inanimate objects. The goal is to shift from concern for self to concern for others. The young man is constantly trying to please others, but because of his obsession with how others see him, he is actually most concerned with himself. He is only concerned with others to the extent that they satisfy his desire to be liked. To combat this issue, the philosopher suggests that the young man instead see himself as part of a community, not as the center of the world. It is only by contributing to this community—any community, big or small—that a person can feel a sense of individual value.

The young man asks how he can foster community while engaging in the separation of tasks. In response, the philosopher explains the idea of horizontal and vertical relationships. Returning to the idea of reward and punishment, the philosopher explains that even words of praise imply that the one praising knows more than the one receiving the praise. This dynamic creates a vertical relationship. Adler supports the idea of encouragement, including communicating one’s gratitude or delight rather than commenting on another person’s actions as good or bad. This egalitarian mindset inspires horizontal relationships and allows people to see each other as comrades rather than rivals. Returning to the idea of worth, the philosopher suggests that the young man can find value in his own feelings of contribution rather than in praise received from another person. The philosopher contends that one can be of use simply by being alive. He adds that the two of them are currently building a horizontal relationship. The young man admits that he is afraid to face the task of friendship. He then parts for the night.

On the fifth night, their final night together, the philosopher ties up various loose ends of Adler’s theory, and the youth asks his final questions. The young man enters the conversation feeling dreadfully insignificant. They begin by focusing on the young man’s insecurities and the importance of focusing on increasing self-acceptance, confidence in others, and community contributions. The philosopher contends that when one practices self-acceptance, one can accept the truth and face life tasks. In order to find a sense of community, one must have unconditional confidence in others and see them as comrades rather than as competitors. By contributing to the well-being of others, it is possible to find community feeling.

The philosopher tells the youth that he can be happy right now if he simply decides to be so. Adler suggests that all people can attain happiness simply by realizing their contributions to others, even if others do not recognize these contributions. Put simply, “happiness is the feeling of contribution” (234). If recognition for one’s contribution is in the hands of others, a person can never be free of others’ opinions. Freedom from the need for recognition is therefore a requirement of true happiness.

Still struggling with the idea of an insignificant life, the young man explains that he will reach happiness when he accomplishes a dream and “attains self-realization.” The philosopher explains the tendency for humans to want to be special—whether good or bad—because they will get recognition one way or another. From this idea, the philosopher goes on to explain that one must have the courage to be normal. Upset by the suggestion that he should not pursue greatness, the young man continues arguing.

The philosopher explains that he should see life not as a line reaching a summit but a series of dots in which each dot is one moment. Life is lived in moments; it is not a progression toward a set destination. He suggests that the man live as though he were dancing: There is no end goal, just movement itself. The man takes issue with the philosopher’s suggestion not to live in the future or the past, so the philosopher draws an analogy. He posits that if he is on a stage, right now he can see dim versions of the future and the past. If he can shine a spotlight on the present, he sacrifices the past and future but sees the present with much more brightness. The greatest life-lie, the philosopher says, is living in the future or the past instead of the present.

In the youth’s final question, he asks how to make meaning of what feels like an insignificant life. The philosopher responds that each individual makes their own meaning. When people become lost, they can use the truth that they contribute to others as their guiding star. The philosopher reminds the young man that he has the power to change himself and the world around him. The young man says he would love to come visit the philosopher as his irreplaceable friend, and he promises not to argue next time. He then steps into the outside world. It is snowing, and he appreciates the light and the air. He mutters the philosopher’s opening words to himself: “The world is simple, and life is too.”