YOUTH: I don’t want to accept them, but the past is so powerful.
PHILOSOPHER: Think of the possibilities. If one assumes that people are beings who can change, a set of values based on aetiology becomes untenable, and one is compelled to take the position of teleology as a matter of course.
YOUTH: So, you are saying that one should always take the ‘people can change’ premise?
PHILOSOPHER: Of course. And, please understand, it is Freudian aetiology that denies our free will, and treats humans like machines.
The young man paused and glanced around the philosopher’s study. Floor-to-ceiling bookshelves filled the walls, and on a small wooden desk lay a fountain pen and what appeared to be a partially written manuscript. ‘People are not driven by past causes, but move toward goals that they themselves set’—that was the philosopher’s claim. The teleology he espoused was an idea that overturned at the root the causality of respectable psychology, and the young man found that impossible to accept. So, from which standpoint should he start to argue it? The youth took a deep breath.
SOCRATES AND ADLER
YOUTH: All right. Let me tell you about another friend of mine, a man named Y. He’s the kind of person who has always had a bright personality and talks easily to anyone. He’s like a sunflower—everyone loves him, and people smile whenever he’s around. In contrast, I am someone who has never had an easy time socially, and who’s kind of warped in various ways. Now, you are claiming that people can change through Adler’s teleology?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. You, I and everyone can change.
YOUTH: Then, do you think I could become someone like Y? From the bottom of my heart, I really wish I could be like him.
PHILOSOPHER: At this point, I’d have to say that’s totally out of the question.
YOUTH: Aha! Now you’re showing your true colours! So, are you going to retract your theory?
PHILOSOPHER: No, I am not. Unfortunately, you have almost no understanding of Adlerian psychology yet. The first step to change is knowing.
YOUTH: So, if I can understand just something about Adlerian psychology, can I become a person like Y?
PHILOSOPHER: Why are you rushing for answers? You should arrive at answers on your own, and not rely upon what you get from someone else. Answers from others are nothing more than stopgap measures; they’re of no value. Take Socrates, who left not one book actually written by himself. He spent his days having public debates with the citizens of Athens, especially the young, and it was his disciple, Plato, who put his philosophy into writing for future generations. Adler, too, showed little interest in literary activities, preferring to engage in personal dialogue at cafés in Vienna, and hold small discussion groups. He was definitely not an armchair intellectual.
YOUTH: So, Socrates and Adler both conveyed their ideas by dialogue?
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. All your doubts will be dispelled through this dialogue. And you will begin to change. Not by my words, but by your own doing. I do not want to take away that valuable process of arriving at answers through dialogue.
YOUTH: So, are we going to try and re-enact the kind of dialogue that Socrates and Adler carried out? In this little study?
PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t that good enough for you?
YOUTH: That’s what I’m hoping to find out! So, let’s take it as far as we can, until either you retract your theory or I bow before you.
ARE YOU OKAY JUST AS YOU ARE?
PHILOSOPHER: Okay, let’s go back to your query. So, you’d like to be a more upbeat person, like Y?
YOUTH: But you just rejected that, and said it was out of the question. Well, I guess that’s just how it is. I was just saying that to give you a hard time—I know myself well enough. I could never be someone like that.
PHILOSOPHER: Why not?
YOUTH: It’s obvious. Because we have different personalities, or I guess you could say dispositions.
PHILOSOPHER: Hmm.
YOUTH: You, for instance, live surrounded by all these books. You read a new book and gain new knowledge. Basically, you keep accumulating knowledge. The more you read, the more your knowledge increases. You find new concepts of value, and it seems to you that they change you. Look, I hate to break it to you, but no matter how much knowledge you gain, your disposition or personality isn’t going to basically change. If your base gets skewed, all you’ve learned will be useless. Yes, all the knowledge you’ve acquired will come crashing down around you, and then the next thing you know, you’ll be back to where you started! And the same goes for Adler’s ideas. No matter how many facts I may try to accumulate about him, they’re not going to have any effect on my personality. Knowledge just gets piled up as knowledge, until sooner or later it’s discarded.
PHILOSOPHER: Then let me ask you this. Why do you think you want to be like Y? I guess you just want to be a different person, whether it’s Y or someone else. But what is the goal of that?
YOUTH: You’re talking about goals again? As I said earlier, it’s just that I admire him and I think I’d be happier if I were like him.
PHILOSOPHER: You think you’d be happier if you were like him. Which means that you are not happy now, right?
YOUTH: What!
PHILOSOPHER: Right now, you are unable to feel really happy. This is because you have not learned to love yourself. And to try to love yourself, you are wishing to be reborn as a different person. You’re hoping to become like Y, and throw away who you are now. Correct?
YOUTH: Yes, I guess that’s right! Let’s face it: I hate myself! I, the one who’s doing this playing around with old-fashioned philosophical discourse, and who just can’t help doing this sort of thing—yes, I really hate myself.
PHILOSOPHER: That’s all right. If you were to ask around for people who say they like themselves, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who’d puff up their chest with pride and say, ‘Yes, I like myself.’
YOUTH: How about you? Do you like yourself?
PHILOSOPHER: At the very least, I do not think I would like to be a different person and I accept who I am.
YOUTH: You accept who you are?
PHILOSOPHER: Look, no matter how much you want to be Y, you cannot be reborn as him. You are not Y. It’s okay for you to be you. However, I am not saying it’s fine to be ‘just as you are’. If you are unable to really feel happy, then it’s clear that things aren’t right just as they are. You’ve got to put one foot in front of the other, and not stop.
YOUTH: That’s a harsh way of putting it, but I get your point. It’s clear that I’m not right just the way I am. I’ve got to move forward.
PHILOSOPHER: To quote Adler again: ‘The important thing is not what one is born with, but what use one makes of that equipment.’ You want to be Y or someone else because you are utterly focused on what you were born with. Instead, you’ve got to focus on what you can make of your equipment.
UNHAPPINESS IS SOMETHING YOU CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF
YOUTH: No way. That’s unreasonable.
PHILOSOPHER: Why is it unreasonable?
YOUTH: Why? Some people are born into affluent circumstances with parents who are nice, and others are born poor with bad parents. Because that’s how the world is. And I don’t really want to get into this sort of subject, but things aren’t equal in the world and differences between race, nationality and ethnicity remain as deep as ever. It’s only natural to focus on what you were born with. All your talk is just academic theory—you’re ignoring the real world!
PHILOSOPHER: It is you who is ignoring reality. Does fixating on what you are born with change the reality? We are not replaceable machines. It is not replacement we need, but renewal.
YOUTH: To me, replacement and renewal are one and the same. You’re avoiding the main point. Look, there is such a thing as unhappiness from birth. Please acknowledge that, first of all.
PHILOSOPHER: I will not acknowledge that.
YOUTH: Why?
PHILOSOPHER: For one thing, right now you are unab
le to feel real happiness. You find living hard, and even wish you could be reborn as a different person. But you are unhappy now because you yourself chose ‘being unhappy’. Not because you were born under an unlucky star.
YOUTH: I chose to be unhappy? How can I possibly accept that?
PHILOSOPHER: There’s nothing extraordinary about it. It’s been repeated ever since the classical Greek era. Have you heard the saying ‘no one desires evil’? It’s a proposition generally known as a Socratic paradox.
YOUTH: There’s no shortage of people who desire evil, is there? Of course, there are plenty of thieves and murderers, and don’t forget all the politicians and officials with their shady deals. It’s probably harder to find a truly good, upright person who does not desire evil.
PHILOSOPHER: Without question, there is no shortage of behaviour that is evil. But no one, not even the most hardened criminal, becomes involved in crime purely out of a desire to engage in evil acts. Every criminal has an internal justification for getting involved in crime. A dispute over money leads someone to engage in murder, for instance. To the perpetrator, it is something for which there is a justification, and which can be restated as an accomplishment of ‘good’. Of course, this is not good in a moral sense, but good in the sense of being ‘of benefit to oneself’.
YOUTH: Of benefit to oneself?
PHILOSOPHER: The Greek word for ‘good’ (agathon) does not have a moral meaning. It just means ‘beneficial’. Conversely, the word for ‘evil’ (kakon) means ‘not beneficial’. Our world is rife with injustices and misdeeds of all kinds, yet there is not one person who desires evil in the purest sense of the word; that is to say something ‘not beneficial’.
YOUTH: What does this have to do with me?
PHILOSOPHER: At some stage in your life, you chose ‘being unhappy’. It is not because you were born into unhappy circumstances or ended up in an unhappy situation. It’s that you judged ‘being unhappy’ to be good for you.
YOUTH: Why? What for?
PHILOSOPHER: How do you justify this? Why did you choose to be unhappy? I have no way of knowing the specific answer or details. Perhaps it will become clearer as we debate this.
YOUTH: You are really trying to make a fool of me. You think this passes for philosophy? I do not accept this at all.
In spite of himself, the young man got up and glared at the philosopher. I chose an unhappy life? Because it was good for me? What an absurd argument! Why is he going to such lengths to ridicule me? What did I do wrong? I’ll dismantle his argument, no matter what it takes. I’ll make him kneel before me. The young man’s face flushed with excitement.
PEOPLE ALWAYS CHOOSE NOT TO CHANGE
PHILOSOPHER: Sit down. As things stand, it’s only natural that our views clash. I will now give a simple explanation as to the manner in which humans are understood in Adlerian psychology.
YOUTH: Okay, but please be brief.
PHILOSOPHER: Earlier you said that any person’s disposition or personality cannot be changed. In Adlerian psychology, we describe personality and disposition with the word ‘lifestyle’.
YOUTH: Lifestyle?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Lifestyle is the tendencies of thought and action in life.
YOUTH: Tendencies of thought and action?
PHILOSOPHER: How one sees the world. And how one sees oneself. Think of lifestyle as a concept bringing together these ways of finding meaning. In a narrow sense, lifestyle could be defined as someone’s personality; taken more broadly, it is a word that encompasses the worldview of that person and their outlook on life.
YOUTH: Their view of the world?
PHILOSOPHER: Say there’s someone who worries about himself and says, ‘I am a pessimist.’ One could rephrase that to instead say, ‘I have a pessimistic view of the world.’ You could consider that the issue is not personality, but rather the view of the world. It seems that the word ‘personality’ is nuanced, and suggests being unchangeable. But if we’re talking about a view of the world, well then, that should be possible to alter.
YOUTH: Hmm. This is kind of confusing. When you speak of a lifestyle, do you mean a ‘way of living’?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you could put it that way. To be a little more accurate, it is ‘the way one’s life should be’. You probably think of disposition or personality as something with which you are endowed, without any connection to your will. In Adlerian psychology, however, lifestyle is thought of as something that you choose for yourself.
YOUTH: That you choose for yourself?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, exactly. You choose your lifestyle.
YOUTH: So, not only did I choose to be unhappy, but I even went so far as to choose this warped personality, too?
PHILOSOPHER: Absolutely.
YOUTH: Ha! Now you’re really pushing it. When I became aware, I already had this personality. I certainly don’t have any recollection of having chosen it. But it’s the same for you, isn’t it? Being able to choose one’s own personality at will … Now that sounds like you’re talking about robots, not people.
PHILOSOPHER: Of course, you did not consciously choose ‘this kind of self’. Your first choice was probably unconscious, combined with external factors you have referred to; that is, race, nationality, culture, and home environment. These certainly had a significant influence on that choice. Nevertheless, it is you who chose ‘this kind of self’.
YOUTH: I don’t get what you’re saying. How on earth could I have chosen it?
PHILOSOPHER: Adlerian psychology’s view is that it happens around the age of ten.
YOUTH: Well, for argument’s sake—and now I’m really going out on a limb—say that when I was ten, I unconsciously made this choice of lifestyle or whatever. Would that even matter? You can call it personality or disposition or lifestyle, but, regardless, I had already become ‘this kind of self’. The state of things doesn’t change at all.
PHILOSOPHER: That is not true. If your lifestyle is not something that you were naturally born with, but something you chose yourself, then it must be possible to choose it over again.
YOUTH: Now you’re saying I can choose it all over?
PHILOSOPHER: Maybe you haven’t been aware of your lifestyle until now, and maybe you haven’t been aware of the concept of lifestyle either. Of course, no one can choose his or her own birth. Being born in this country, in this era, and with these parents, are things you did not choose. And all these things have a great deal of influence. You’ll probably face disappointment, and start looking at other people and feeling, I wish I’d been born in their circumstances. But you can’t let it end there. The issue is not the past, but here, in the present. And now you’ve learned about lifestyle. But what you do with it from here on in is your responsibility. Whether you go on choosing the lifestyle you’ve had up till now, or you choose a new lifestyle altogether, it’s entirely up to you.
YOUTH: Then how do I choose again? You’re telling me, ‘You chose that lifestyle yourself, so go ahead and select a new one instantly,’ but there’s no way I can just change on the spot!
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you can. People can change at any time, regardless of the environments they are in. You are only unable to change because you are making the decision not to.
YOUTH: What do you mean, exactly?
PHILOSOPHER: People are constantly selecting their lifestyles. Right now, while we are having this tête-a-tête, we are selecting ours. You describe yourself as an unhappy person. You say that you want to change right this minute. You even claim that you want to be reborn as a different person. After all that then, why are you still unable to change? It is because you are making the persistent decision not to change your lifestyle.
YOUTH: No, don’t you see that’s completely illogical? I do want to change; that is my sincere wish. So, how could I be making the decision not to?
PHILOSOPHER: Although there are some small inconveniences and limitations, you probably think that the lifestyle you have now is the most practical one, and that i
t’s just easier to leave things as they are. If you stay just like this, experience enables you to respond properly to events as they occur, while guessing the results of one’s actions. You could say it’s like driving your old, familiar car. It might rattle a bit, but one can take that into account and manoeuvre easily. On the other hand, if one chooses a new lifestyle, no one can predict what might happen to the new self, or have any idea how to deal with events as they arise. It will be hard to see ahead to the future, and life will be filled with anxiety. A more painful and unhappy life might lie ahead. Simply put, people have various complaints about things, but it’s easier and more secure to be just the way one is.
YOUTH: One wants to change, but changing is scary?
PHILOSOPHER: When we try to change our lifestyles, we put our great courage to the test. There is the anxiety generated by changing, and the disappointment attendant to not changing. I am sure you have selected the latter.
YOUTH: Wait … Just now, you used the word ‘courage’.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Adlerian psychology is a psychology of courage. Your unhappiness cannot be blamed on your past or your environment. And it isn’t that you lack competence. You just lack courage. One might say you are lacking in the courage to be happy.
YOUR LIFE IS DECIDED HERE AND NOW
YOUTH: The courage to be happy, huh?
PHILOSOPHER: Do you need further explanation?
YOUTH: No, hold on. This is getting confusing. First, you tell me that the world is a simple place. That it only seems complicated because of me, and that my subjective view is making it that way. And also, that life just seems complicated because I make it complicated, all of which is what makes it difficult for me to live happily. Then, you say that one should take the stance of teleology, as opposed to Freudian aetiology; that one must not search for causes in one’s past, and should deny trauma. You say that people act to achieve some goal or other, instead of being creatures who are driven by causes in their past. Right?
The Courage To Be Disliked Page 3