More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Rather, he’s saying that on the same level playing field, there are people who are moving forward, and there are people who are moving forward behind them.
The pursuit of superiority is the mindset of taking a single step forward on one’s own feet, not the mindset of competition of the sort that necessitates aiming to be greater than other people.
And that we are not the same, but we are equal.
PHILOSOPHER: No, not a mere rival. Before you know it, you start to see each and every person, everyone in the whole world, as your enemy.
The reason that so many people don’t really feel happy while they’re building up their success in the eyes of society is that they are living in competition. Because to them, the world is a perilous place that is overflowing with enemies.
One may become able to contribute actively to other people’s happiness. The person who always has the will to help another in times of need—that is someone who may properly be called your comrade.
PHILOSOPHER: You are returning to aetiology (the attributing of causes) again.
PHILOSOPHER: They are completely different. Because righteous indignation goes beyond one’s own interests.
PHILOSOPHER: In this case, what is the other person’s goal? Is it only that he wants to discuss politics? No, it isn’t. It’s that he finds you unbearable, and he wants to criticise and provoke you, and make you submit through a power struggle.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. It’s the revenge stage. Though he has withdrawn for the time being, he will be scheming some revenge in another place and another form, and will reappear with an act of retaliation.
In Freudian aetiology, this is regarded as simple cause and effect:
But Adlerian teleology does not turn a blind eye to the goal that the child is hiding. That is to say, the goal of revenge on the parents.
It is in the knowledge that this will happen that the child engages in problem behaviour.
So that the current goal (revenge on the parents) can be realised, not because he is motivated by past causes (home environment).
PHILOSOPHER: No, the idea that you are ‘bearing it’ is proof that you are still stuck in the power struggle.
PHILOSOPHER: The first thing that I want you to understand here is the fact that anger is a form of communication, and that communication is nevertheless possible without using anger.
PHILOSOPHER: You don’t seem to understand yet. It’s not that you mustn’t get angry, but that there is no need to rely on the tool of anger.
Irascible people do not have short tempers—it is only that they do not know that there are effective communication tools other than anger.
If you think you are right, regardless of what other people’s opinions might be, the matter should be closed then and there. However, many people will rush into a power struggle, and try to make others submit to them. And that is why they think of ‘admitting a mistake’ as ‘admitting defeat’.
Admitting mistakes, conveying words of apology, and stepping down from power struggles—none of these things is defeat. The pursuit of superiority is not something that is carried out through competition with other people.
PHILOSOPHER: First, there are two objectives for behaviour: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with society. Then, the objectives for the psychology that supports these behaviours are the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness that people are my comrades.
Adler sometimes used the expression ‘three social ties’ to emphasise the point.
There’s no value at all in the number of friends or acquaintances you have.
But Adler does not accept restricting one’s partner. If the person seems to be happy, one can
frankly celebrate that condition. That is love. Relationships in which people restrict each other eventually fall apart.
Whenever I am with this person, I can behave very freely, one can really feel love.
Restriction, on the other hand, is a manifestation of the mindset of attempting to control one’s partner, and also an idea founded on a sense of distrust.
PHILOSOPHER: The person feels this way because at some stage she has resolved to herself, I want to end this relationship, and
Look, people are extremely selfish creatures who are capable of finding any number of flaws and shortcomings in others whenever the mood strikes them.
not a ‘psychology of possession’, but a ‘psychology of use’.
PHILOSOPHER: We humans are not so fragile as to simply be at the mercy of aetiological (cause and effect) traumas. From the standpoint of teleology, we choose our lives and
our lifestyles ourselves. We have the power to do that.
YOUTH: Yes, please. I am a human being. I am not a machine. I’ve been told that I’m all out of courage, but I can’t just get a refill of courage as if I were filling up my tank with fuel.
But you wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘freedom therefore is money’, would you?
PHILOSOPHER: I see. Let’s talk about one of the major premises of Adlerian psychology regarding this matter. Adlerian psychology denies the need to seek recognition from others.
PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to be recognised by others. Actually, one must not seek recognition. This point cannot be overstated.
DO NOT LIVE TO SATISFY THE EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS
PHILOSOPHER: Now, let’s consider a familiar setting. For example, let’s say you’ve been picking up litter around your workplace. The thing is, no one seems to notice at all. Or if they do, no one has given you any appreciation for what you’ve done, or even said a single word of thanks. Well, will you keep on picking up litter from now on?
YOUTH: That’s a difficult situation. I suppose that if no one appreciates what I’m doing, I might stop.
PHILOSOPHER: This is the danger of the desire for recognition. Why is it that people seek recognition from others? In many cases, it is due to the influence of reward-and-punishment education.
PHILOSOPHER: In the teachings of Judaism, one finds a view that goes something like this: if you are not living your life for yourself, then who is going to live it for you? You are living only your own life. When it comes to who you are living it for, of course it’s you. And then, if you are not living your life for yourself, who could there be to live it instead of you? Ultimately, we live thinking about ‘I’. There is no reason that we must not think that way.
for instance, in Adlerian psychology we consider it from the perspective of ‘whose task is this?’ YOUTH: Whose task?
PHILOSOPHER: One does not intrude on other people’s tasks. That’s all.
PHILOSOPHER: As a result of having received counselling, what kind of resolution does the client make? To change his lifestyle, or not. This is the client’s task, and the counsellor cannot intervene.
PHILOSOPHER: You are the only one who can change yourself.
PHILOSOPHER: Look, the act of believing is also the separation of tasks. You believe in your partner; that is your task. But how that person acts with regard to your expectations and trust is other people’s tasks. When you push your wishes without having drawn that line, before you know it you’re engaging in stalker-like intervention.
PHILOSOPHER: Of course, it is. But think about it this way: intervening in other people’s tasks and taking on other people’s tasks turns one’s life into something heavy and full of hardship.
YOUTH: Now, wait a minute. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter how sad I make my parents feel?
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. It doesn’t matter.
PHILOSOPHER: But is being acknowledged by your boss ‘work’ that you should think of as top priority? It isn’t your job to be liked by people at the place you work. Your boss doesn’t like you. And his reasons for not liking you are clearly unreasonable. But in that case, there’s no need for you to get cosy with him.
