The Courage to Be Disliked

The man returns to the philosopher after a month and asks how to shift from thinking about the self to thinking about others—in his case, from self-loathing to concern for others. He explains that he is self-conscious and cannot feel free. The philosopher introduces the idea of happiness for their conversation of the day.

The philosopher clarifies that being self-conscious is an interpersonal issue, because when the young man is alone, only then can he be himself. The philosopher introduces concepts of self-acceptance, confidence in others, and contribution to others. He explains that self-acceptance as opposed to self-affirmation encourages one to see oneself as they are, including the things they cannot change, whether good or bad. Then, they can gain the courage to change the things that it is possible to change. The man quotes Kurt Vonnegut, who wrote a similar adage in his novel Slaughterhouse-Five.

The philosopher explains that confidence requires believing in someone unconditionally, whereas trust includes some form of security backing the belief. The philosopher argues that confidence should be given freely because the goal is to develop deep relationships. The youth wonders how one can avoid being taken advantage of, and the philosopher responds that this is not his task—he cannot control it. If the choice in life is to believe or to doubt, the philosopher states that confidence is an obvious choice.

The young man agrees upon the philosopher’s definitions of self-acceptance and confidence in others, but he still wonders how to achieve community feeling. The philosopher explains the idea of contribution to others—that working to contribute to the community helps people to see their own worth. The young man sees a hole in the argument and wonders how a person can be of use to others without sacrificing oneself.

The philosopher explains that if one sees other people as comrades, work does not feel self-sacrificial. The young man considers how hard it is to put ideas into practice, even if one believes them. The philosopher responds that Adler says it takes half of the years one has lived to truly change. In this way, the youth is progressing ahead of many adults. Nevertheless, everyone is capable of change.

The philosopher discusses a story from Judaism. In this thought experiment, there are 10 people: one who hates you, two who love you, and seven who are neutral. He explains that he teaches a class to people who stammer and to their families in which he tells them that by focusing on the one who hates you, you are compromising the harmony of life. In the same way, workaholics compromise the harmony of life by focusing only on one aspect of life. In reality, work is much greater than time spent at a company, and after all, there will come a time when one is no longer able to work. One must therefore choose whether to define one’s life based on acts or feelings.

The philosopher states that a feeling of contribution to others leads to happiness. The man argues that desire for recognition is a way to confirm one’s contribution and therefore should lead to happiness, but the philosopher responds that in that case, one would be living for someone else. Freedom from others’ approval is necessary for happiness, and when happiness exists, the desire for recognition will disappear. The youth thinks that this kind of happiness is not enough.

The youth explains that he wants to accomplish a dream and reach self-realization, at which point he will experience happiness. To explain why this is not healthy, the philosopher uses the example of a child misbehaving. Whether a child is overachieving or misbehaving, they are trying to get attention. They want to be special in some way, which is an example of the “pursuit of easy superiority” (240).

The philosopher asks whether being normal is such a bad thing, introducing Adler’s idea of having the courage to be normal. The youth accuses him of trying to rid the world of geniuses—to accept normality is to give up. He resolves to keep fighting the philosopher.

Instead of looking at life as a mountain that one must climb in order to reach the top, the philosopher proposes that the young man look at life as a series of dots, which are moments. Life only really exists in the now. He says that planning is impossible, but the young man disagrees.

The philosopher explains the difference between a kinetic life and an “energial” life. The former is building to some goal, and all that leads to that goal is incomplete. The latter is like dancing—the act is what matters, and it may lead to something, but that is not the point. Each moment is its own journey, even if one does not reach a destination. The man accuses the philosopher of landing in a contradiction.

In an analogy to being on a stage, the philosopher says that if one shines a dim light over everything one thinks, it will become possible to see the past and the future. However, a better goal is to shine a light on the present and thereby sacrifice the dim lights on the past and future. Again, he explains that the past is only an excuse and that the future is blank. Whatever story one tells is therefore fabricated. He states that living in the present is to live “earnestly and conscientiously” (254).

One can prepare for the future, but the preparation happens each day. And even without a goal, living in the present is a worthy practice in itself. He explains that all lives are complete from this perspective, no matter how long or what they include. The greatest life-lie is the belief that one can truly see the past or the future.

The philosopher states that he has brought the man to water, and the man begins to agree. In the youth’s final question, he asks how to put meaning into life. The philosopher responds that life has no general meaning, but each individual puts their own meaning into it. Everyone must decide what life will mean for themselves. When the youth expresses that he is still lost, the philosopher provides a “guiding star” of Adler’s beliefs: contributions to others (261). If one contributes to others, one will always have comrades and happiness. The man says that he finally believes that he has the power to change the world by changing himself. For a moment, he expresses regret that he hadn’t come to this information sooner, but the philosopher reminds him that he needed to hear this now.

The young man says that he would like to visit the philosopher again as an irreplaceable friend, without the goal of dismantling his arguments. When he steps outside again, it is snowing. He admires the world he has entered, takes a breath, and repeats the philosopher’s words: “The world is simple, and life is too” (264).