I’ve always found reviews to be somewhat self-serving. Either the review is for purpose of criticism to either elevate one’s own perspective and thoughts, or it is for the purpose of promotion of the work. I suppose in both cases it’s still just a promotion of some sort, the author of the review is in effect getting something out of it. So I’ll start this by saying, this review will be no different!
Hopefully, by stating my goal at the start it might diffuse some of the anxiety you and I might have. This is my first “review” of anything, and I’m not sure it may be of use to anyone. I’m writing it less for your benefit than for my own, as I recently completed this terrific book that I have enjoyed and nothing can further impart effect from the reading of a book than to try to do something with the 10% of it that one has actually absorbed. Also, I’ll say that I’m trying to write more in general and this, at the very least, gives me a reason to do so.
Great — so now that I’ve gotten past the rambling disclosure let me dig into what has been a terrific read that I originally get the idea to read from one of Marc Andreessen’s recent tweets
As of late, I’ve made it a habit to immediately buy a book when I hear about it and it sparks my interest. Marc’s thread is worth going through for some awesome reading material, but for better or worse I chose this first one to start reading.
In short, the book takes place as a sort of Socratic dialog that takes place between a reclusive philosopher living on the outskirts of a city that has stood for a thousand years or something like that, and a mid-20s youth that has lived a large part of his life attempting to fulfill the expectations placed on him by his family, friends and society on the whole. The results of these efforts have resulted not in happiness, but instead in an abusive older brother and a lack of recognition from his peers and family. In short, this dude does not like himself and is not particularly happy.
He takes up one day, and heads out to this philosopher with anger. This philosopher has the audacity to say that not only can anyone attain happiness, they would be able to attain it literally this very second if they really wanted to. This youth takes it on himself to go out to this philosopher and talk some sense into him, or perhaps be talked into happiness if he’s not able to — a win win!
I’ll be honest that I generally am not a fan of dialog in books, and generally speaking find it very difficult to follow written plays. Also, I always thought that Socratic dialog needs to have more than two participants, as a variety of perspectives are mixed together on the musings of a particular subject. While, this book was entirely composed of a dialog between two subjects I felt like it was more of a point-counterpoint type of feel than a play or traditional Socratic discussion. In that, I didn’t mind it as much — as my main complaint with free form dialog such as would be found in plays and such is the spaghetti style of the writing. I think more often than not, the points in such works get muddied up by the various directions of the conversations and actions the different characters. This is something I enjoy a lot in movies and TV shows [Game of Thrones, I’m talking about you] — but when it comes to reading it drives me crazy, especially in an era where flipping pages means I have to carry dead trees in my backpack.
The general call and response form and flow of the book actually served the content quite well. At it’s core, this book is a quick dive into Adlerian psychology, and an exploration of it’s implications on philosophy and how one might choose to live their lives. At it’s core, I’d say the central message of these ideas comes down to this quote from the book:
I’ve had musings of a similar thought throughout my life. When I was younger, I would have deep existential thoughts about how somehow sand on the beach would magically know what to do when you put your foot in there. Having grown up on computers, and being obsessed with physics, it blew me away that as soon as you put your foot into the sand every single spec of the stuff just sort of figured out what to do. It was almost like millions of invisible conversations happening instantly, each with precise instructions.
But the world is just not that interesting, and while the ultimate effect zoomed out is something that is infinitely complex [to the point where it’s so far beyond our comprehension that we never consider the flow of sand, water, or any other impossibly complex material that we are surrounded by], at it’s core are a small set of extremely simple rules that govern what a speck of sand can and cannot do, it’s relationship with other specks of sand and the environment. Even when I was younger, I had a feeling that the world was simple, and relationships are complex. Taking the next leap, that life might also be simple too, is something I could never consider. Also, it’s something you should never attempt telling a hormone ridden teenager!
Alfred Adler was a contemporary of Jung and Freud, and instead of taking the perspective that our current selves are the product of our past selves, he instead postulated that life is in effect a series of moments and that we are living in the now.
Unlike Freud and Jung [which I’ve had cursory exposure to from both popular culture and proximal reading in college], Adler suggests that people are able to completely change their lives here and now, because while perhaps previous events and circumstances brought us to our current place and perspective in life — these do not dictate the future, and it is within every persons ability to simply change their life for the better here and now through accepting what it is that we can change, and what we cannot.
I will also note that throughout the book I found it pretty neat how the authors would quote other works, and in many cases my religion of choice.
I’ve personally always found Judaism to be a religion focused on the relationship one has with oneself. Ultimately, this is what this book really comes down to, and perhaps our entire lives as well. The experience of self is just that, yet so often we impart so much importance on what others think of us, or how others may judge our actions. One brilliant insight that I found in this book is the fact that it is ultimately courage that we lack in those moments when we want to speak up, ask a question, or do something that might go against the norms of our community.
At the crux of Adlerian psychology, and this book, is the concept that all problems are ultimately interpersonal problems and can be reduced to relationships. I especially like this concept, and have always felt that all things can be boiled down to relationships. For me, this led to a fascination with music where every note, chord, harmony, and rhythm is in effect a product if it’s relationship with another such element. For example, take a rock and bang it against another. All you’ve got is a dull sound. Take those same two rocks and keep hitting them over and over again, each hit related to that before it by the amount of time and what you’ve got is a rhythm.
The book dives deep into this subject, on the concept of vertical vs. horizontal relationships, and the inclination we all feel with regards to the forces of interpersonal relationships. It goes further, into how to find freedom in one’s relationship and as a result achieve happiness. There’s more to it than that, but really lands on three simple rules: 1. Accept yourself 2. Accept others 3. Contribute to society.
I think that’s pretty cool, I’ll be honest! It’s a bit precarious though. If read wrong, it could sound like “be happy with what you have, be happy with what other people have, and do whatever anyone tells you.” This is of course wrong, and it took a few hundred pages to explain why. Really, it’s more about accepting yourself and your state of being, celebrate the good and accept those around which transforms them into collaborators vs. existential threats, and do something that you care about and find deep personal fulfillment in. The book goes as far as to explore these ideas across the spectrum, from the newborn through the productive adult, to the infirmed.
This review has already gotten pretty long, so I’ll try to wrap this up with my favorite passages from the book which unsurprisingly came at the very end.
If you agree with nothing in this book, these statements are still going to be true. I think our society has transformed into one that makes most people feel particularly paralyzed in their efforts to go out and do something they care about. It’s hard to start juggling if you can go on instagram and see someone with 20 million followers and is able to juggle a tractor and a cow somehow. You obviously don’t see the 20 years they spent waking up every day, putting in the hours, dealing with the emotional dejection of failure and rejection until they finally started to inflect in their own life path and abilities.
The world is ultimately what you make it, I do believe that, and that’s what it’s really all about. The above also reminds me a lot of a Jewish saying growing up [and still today, every few weeks when I’m mad about something]. I’ll butcher the translation, but it’s something like “God will bless the doings of your hands.” Or effectively, don’t expect success if you’re sitting around and doing nothing to get it.
All in all, a terrific read and a quick one at that. This books uses no complex terminology and special terms, and when arriving at new concepts like separation of tasks, or Teleology/Etiology, spends a good amount of time explaining them with clear language and with a number of throwbacks throughout the book to remind you of that term when it comes up.
I wrote and read this once. My thoughts are my own and badly formed — if you’ve made it this far I hope it’s been useful!
PS. Couldn’t find a good fit for it, but here’s another awesome passage from the book [also a Jewish saying I’d never heard before, but I swear my parents have said this to me a million times in my teenage years when I was being immature]
Is the courage to be disliked worth reading?
Excellent book! This is one of the best books I have ever read. It's messages are simple but also force you to reflect deeply on the way you think. I would recommend to anyone.
What is the courage to be disliked summary?
1-Sentence-Summary: The Courage To Be Disliked is a Japanese analysis of the work of 19th-century psychologist Alfred Adler, who established that happiness lies in the hands of each human individual and does not depend on past traumas.
Why do you read Courage to Be Disliked?
The Courage to be Disliked is a book that instructs readers how to have the courage to live a happy, authentic life. All of the advice of the philosopher hinges on retraining your mind to accept yourself as you are, and in turn to accept others as they are.
What is the best line of the courage to be disliked?
Unless one is unconcerned by other people's judgments, has no fear of being disliked by other people, and pays the cost that one might never be recognized, one will never be able to follow through in one's own way of living. That is to say, one will not be able to be free.