I was initially skeptical about reading this book because I didn’t think I needed the courage to be happy. I know what makes me happy. But then, after reading the first book that the same authors co-wrote, I realized the title was misleading. This and the prior book are about the courage to be disliked or happy and so much more than that.
In the prior book in this series, The Courage to be Disliked, the authors philosophically discussed the principles of Alfred Adler’s psychology. Rather than putting it as step-by-step guidelines, they created two characters: an old man philosopher and a young man librarian who later became an educator.
The book starts as a dialogue between the two characters. This is a traditional format that ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates used to practice. By practicing question-and-answer talk, it makes it easier to make meaning out of concepts and knowledge.
Briefly, the main points of the prior book, The Courage to Be Disliked, are:
- Past does not exist — Unlike Freudian psychology, which supports people’s past lives as the cause of their current behavior and actions, Alderian psychology believes despite their past life, people can choose to change their life by stating their purpose for their current behavior and actions.
- Separation of tasks — you do not need to do tasks you don't control. Don't try to change others, if that is not your job. Focus on the things you can control.
- Build horizontal relationships — always strive for gratitude and contribute, but don’t work for praise and recognition because praise and recognition are indicators of vertical relationships.
- Happiness is contribution — to be happy is to have a sense of contribution to the community, which he also refers to as community feeling.
In this book (The Courage to be Happy), the youth has become a teacher and has returned to the philosopher studies for one final conversation. He said there was a pressing issue that he wanted to discuss with the professor. After their last conversation, he has decided to implement Adler’s ideas in his classroom. But it did not go as well as he expected. The youth basically has lost hope in Adler’s psychology of leaving behind praise as a concept in the education system because the kids and the other teachers see him as “soft.” He came to the philosopher to tell him that he would leave Adler’s ideas behind, but he would continue working as an educator. He was questioning what the point of education was. The philosopher’s response was “love”. He argues that many misunderstood Adler’s psychology and had to go back and “climb the stairway of understanding.” They both agreed to continue their dialogue for one last time.
Part I: That Bad Person and Poor Me
An ongoing debate is about Adler’s psychology being not science. The philosopher thinks that Adler’s psychology stems from Greek philosophy and sees him “as a philosopher who put his expertise to practical use in clinical settings.” The youth compares spreading Adler’s philosophy to earlier Catholics who brought religion to various areas of the globe.
What is the difference between religion, philosophy, and science?
The youth thinks that Adler’s psychology is religious or cult-like. The philosopher responded to him by stating if you rule out God, all three target the same things. Where do we come from? Where are we? How do we live? Philosophy deals with human ideas of truth. The most critical point of difference is the search for truth; religion explains the world through stories, whereas philosophy rejects stories. Philosophy is the study of the love of wisdom. “We cannot learn philosophy; we learn to philosophize.” With philosophy, there seems to be no end to learning. Once you reach a point (where you thought the end), there is more to learn and know. I didn’t quite understand what the difference between the three is. Anyway, the youth brought back his original question again.
What is the objective of education?
The philosopher responded with the concept of “Separation of tasks,” and whose task is this? — Some things are out of our control, and some are not our tasks. In these cases, we must not intervene in other peoples’ tasks, and we should not allow others to do our tasks. But how can we differentiate between one’s task and others? For example, if studying is the child’s task and one must not intervene with these tasks, not the parent or teachers, what is education, then? The philosopher states, “To Adler, education was not simply a core task — it was also the greatest hope.” He mentions an example of how counseling treatment is seen as “re-education” in Adlerian psychology. “Education is not intervention but assistance towards self-reliance.”
The objective of education is self-reliance, which is one of the two objectives for behavior in Adlerian psychology (to be self-reliant and to live in harmony). Knowledge is about how one can live with others in the community. Adler refers to this as “human knowledge.” The kind of knowledge that can be learned by being engaged with other people and not necessarily from books. He then starts explaining about respect. “Everything starts from respect.” What is respect? — it is a way to see people as they are — “the ability to be aware of their unique individuality.” “Not to try to change people but accept how they are.” “is the starting point of encouragement.” The students can then start respecting themselves as they are and start regaining their courage. Respect is the basis of all interpersonal relationships. The opposite is trying to get respect by using fear, power, and submission based on fear. That is a dictatorship. This also minimizes or clarifies the separation of tasks. This is subjective reality. I like it. It takes a lot of communication to clarify the separation of tasks especially to live in harmony. But it highlights that effective communication is the root of all our joys.
The other behavior in Adlerian psychology is to live in harmony. To do that, we need “Social feeling,” which are behavioral guidelines based on practice: “Seeing with the eyes of another, listening with the ears of another, and feeling with the heart of another.” The philosopher explains several guidelines here, such as concern for others, empathy, etc. Empathy — “a skill, an attitude that one has when walking side by side with another.” He points out that courage and respect are contagious — we need to teach our students respect by practicing and showing them.
The philosopher thinks the past does not exist. Someone needs to understand this concept to grasp the idea of teleology. It sounds absurd but I agree the past might not decide the now and that we can choose to use it for a better now. The philosopher mentions that there is no magic in Alderian psychology. I say, ከዚህ በላይ ማጂክ ምን አለ?
Part 2 — Why Negate Reward and Punishment
The youth still needs clarification on how to apply all this to his classroom so that students act the way he wants. So he asked if everything will be solved by respecting them. The philosopher responded as if that is not the only factor and might not solve everything, and he started explaining about the classroom as a Democratic nation.
All bad behavior can be explained by the five stages of problem behavior:
- 1st stage: Demand for admiration — “Educators and leaders must ascertain the children’s goals instead of focusing only on their actions…..you teach them continually that they have worth, even if they are not special, by showing them respect.”
- 2nd stage: attention-drawing
- 3rd stage: Power struggle —
- 4th stage: revenge — if you don’t love me, hate me. e.g. stalkers, self-harm, and social withdrawal. This stage needs help from an outside party
- 5th stage: Proof of incompetence — when people around you want you to try harder even though you are showing hate. You have to turn to a specialist.
The youth was passionate about rebuking and punishment to treat bad behavior, and maintain law and order in the classroom. However, the philosopher made a good point about whether other teachers who rebuke frequently have success in their students’ behavior change. But this didn't settle well with the youth. Then, the philosopher asked the youth what he would do if violence broke out between two students in his class. The youth said he would settle it by asking both to say sorry to each other.
The philosopher explained, “Violence is a low-cost, easy means of communication” — people use it when they know they cannot win an argument. He brought the triangular column and asked how he would think with them — should be thinking, “What will I do from now on?” with them? “There is no respect in communication with anger and violence.”
Kids should not be measured by one standard, grade, or a certain way to act. They are humans, and we should also think about their “qualitative” aspects, in which if one praises one is saying there is only one standard way of how they should be acting when in reality that is not true. “Instead of clinging to the things one cannot change, look at the things one can change that are right in front of you” — ነው የሚለን። This relates to The Serenity Prayer — “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.”
Then they started discussing the Juvenile condition, which is a condition of not attaining true self-reliance even if you have the ability but lack the courage. Why do people reject self-reliance? Other people usually hinder them because they are afraid of them becoming self-reliant, which collapses the vertical relationship. As an educator, parent, and leader, you should allow children to make decisions independently. You don't have the guarantee that your decision will be a success, so you might as well give them to decide on their own — this is genuine respect. This also relates to the idea of separation of tasks: “Who ultimately is going to receive the end result brought about by the choice that is made?”
Part 3 — From the Principle of Competition to the Principle of Cooperation
“Hey, great work! I had no idea you could write such a fine composition. It’s changed my opinion of you!” This is not positive praise. I mean, if that child knows their worth, he/she will probably be offended by the last sentence and ask, “How did you think of me before?” But the youth thinks the child and other children are excited by this praise and even inspired to do more, so he challenges the philosopher, asking what is the point of education without praise?
The philosopher explains how praise is related to competition and that competition is not acceptable. He refers back to education as a democratic nation argument. In a dictatorship government where there are many corrupt people, people compete for praise from a single power source. And that causes people to think others are their enemies. However, the youth thinks the presence of rivals is a stimulus for people to grow. The philosopher thinks competition and praise are the diseases of the classroom and could only be solved by removing them and adding the principle of cooperation. — This relates to the vertical vs. horizontal relationship. All humans are equal regardless of academic achievement or work performance.
The youth gets super frustrated by some of the philosopher’s assumptions: “Outdate Socrates!”, and “Sadist.” Why is the youth so mean? And the number of times he asked the philosopher to be concrete. Throughout the book, he also accuses the philosopher of how his concepts do not apply to the real world, and that the philosopher doesn’t know what he is talking about because he is not in a classroom or something. The philosopher doesn’t directly address these accusations for the most part. He continues explaining, and the youth gets back to the conversation as if he is again curious. What is the “real world,” tho? How are we different from ገዳም የገባ ሰው? In recent years, everybody seems to care about searching for the truth or reality, trying to back things with science. But this made me think, is the reality the same for everyone?
Feelings of inferiority — all children feel it. Community feeling is rooted in human weakness — desperately weak that they needed to cooperate with others. On the other hand, isolation is the scariest thing for humans physically and mentally. The youth asked how this related to praise? The philosopher responds by bringing back the five stages of problem behavior. For people to belong in a community, they want to gain a special position in the society. Speaking of isolation leading to social and biological death, I was reminded about this recent documentary I saw — Unseen Connection. So we are at the age of a loneliness or isolation epidemic, and people pay strangers to accompany them. The philosopher thinks we should all be ourselves instead of trying to be a “special me”. Is individuality absolute?
The youth asks, but children don’t live by themselves; other people around them impact them. So he asks, how to narrowly define education and make the role of personality formation of parents as clear as possible. No one always wears the same face, so when kids show problematic behavior, they are directing that specific problem at you, the professor argues. Only through respect do you have to show them some other place to be. One thing I like about the youth is he asks for concrete examples over and over, trying to make the general philosophical idea into a practical one. The philosopher asked him to leave education and stop wanting to save the children. But the youth is worried about how this idea could spread to the rest of the world.
The case of the girl treated by Adler reminded me of the movie “A Dangerous Method”. The relationship you should create between you and the children is friendship as a counselor and educator. — relates to life tasks; this should not be a work life task but a friendship task. Why?
Part IV — Give, and It shall Be Given Unto You
This part started with a funny title: “All joy is interpersonal relationship joy.” This is funny because, in the prior book, the word was problem, not joy. All world sufferings arise because one cannot live by itself. We all have to interact with others; it's an innate behavior. As soon as we start interacting, there comes all the competition, envy, loneliness, and basically all the world's suffering. Then you would think let me avoid everyone and live a peaceful life. That is not possible either because all our joys come from interactions with others. We’re screwed (I think)! Adlerian psychology says, “In friendship, we see with the eyes of another, listen with the ears of another, and feel with the heart of another.” people learn friendships first in school. What about home?
How is friendship linked with community feeling? — The philosopher brings the concepts of trust and confidence discussed in the prior book. In short, trust is conditional, whereas confidence is unconditional. He explained the difference between work-life tasks and friendship life tasks is it trust or confidence? Work relationships are condition-based, whereas friendship is a relationship of confidence. But being an educator is work or professional experience based on trust, right? Why is the philosopher asking the youth to build friendship relationships with the students? He does that because he gets paid, not out of lack of friends. This ended without a detailed explanation.
Alderian psychology thinks that we work for the sake of survival. “Division of labor is the incomparable survival strategy that the human race acquired to compensate for its physical inferiority” እንደበግ ከመነዳት ያዳነን የስራ ክፍፍል ነው ለማለት ነው። ሁሉም የተቻለውን በማረግ ብቻ ማህበረሰቡ ተጠብቆ ይቆያል። To divide the labor, humans create society, which is how work relates to interpersonal relationships. To divide work with another person, one has to have confidence and believe in the other person. Adam Smith’s division of labor: “The combination of pure self-interest establishes the division of labor, and as a result of having pursued self-interest, a fixed economic order is created.”
In summary, the objective of education → self-reliance →. Educators assist students in self-reliance, → starts from respect → the ability to see a person as they are, → confidence. A relationship based on confidence is friendship.
How many friends do you have that you can have your “real face”? Interestingly, we are taught the concept of friendship because, at this point in my life, I have a few strangers that I can have my “real face” with. This part made me think about ጓደኝነት ምን ማለት እንደሆነ። I relate with these people because I can be who I am unapologetically. It’s also interesting how many friends I have lost (or parted ways with) in the past 2 or 3 years just by realizing this. Another issue in our current reality is the idea of social media friends. We have a common saying, “We are friends on social media” or “We follow each other on SM,” as if the idea of friendship is different from the one portrayed in reality. But I find those “social media friends” more real than the ones in reality. Because we see each others’ expressions more than anybody else in reality, this is to say that the concept of “friendship” really needs rethinking and a new definition.
“In principle, we may say that it is your ‘functions’ that are recognized as a result of your work, not you. If someone who possesses greater ‘functions’ appears, the people around you will turn to that person.” I screamed after reading this part, mainly because I didn’t think an individualistic psychologist like Alderian would have such conclusions. The youth asked an important question: if this is true, how do we find a true sense of belonging? The philosopher's answer was through confidence and friendships with others. So work is basically for survival; to truly belong, you need confidence in others, creating a friendship relationship. I don’t understand why he is asking the youth to treat his work environment as a friendship environment.
And then he switched to talking about Adler’s life. How did Adler come up with such concepts? He was a medical doctor during World War I, treating soldiers so they could go back and fight. During this time, he felt like a prisoner. World War I impacted many psychologists of that time; for instance, after World War I, Freud came up with the Death drive — Thanatos — Destrudo. However, Adler chose to be hopeful and proposed a “community feeling.”
How confident are you in the people closest to you? This leads to the “giving” concept. The philosopher gives an example of money-giving. In our society, people give money to others because they have something to offer. So the rest is a beggar. Adler’s psychology puts it as “Give, and it shall be given unto you” — a concept of abundance that asks us to let go of poor-spirited mentality. Just as we give out money, we need to give confidence and respect without requiring others to do the same because that is not our task — out of our control. It doesn't specifically say how much to give, so I think it is acceptable :)
In this part, the philosopher brings quotes from the Bible, such as “thy love your neighbor as thyself”, and “ask and it shall be given to you” to prove his point. I am usually skeptical about books that refer to religious works, such as the bible. It is interesting how I trust we, as humans, we have the potential for all the concepts Adler says, but I don’t have confidence that our reality is the right place for it. Ideally, yeah, I would love my neighbor as myself, but do I even know my neighbor that much to love them as myself? What does love even mean in this sense? Hopefully, the next part will answer these.
Part V — Choose a Life You Love
Adler thinks we do not fall in love; we instead build it. Adler believes falling in love is easy, but the task of love (one of the life tasks) is difficult.
Have you ever loved someone? — My answer is no because the past no longer exists, and I’m not currently in love. :) The philosopher continues explaining about how love is “liberation from ‘me’.” Apparently, “me” vanishes for a happy and loving life to exist. WTF?
In the prior book, one of the major and the most clear concepts is that “Happiness is the feeling of Contribution.” — In the current book, he specifies that “Love is the building of a happiness of an inseparable ‘us’”. Basically ወደደኝ፣ ወደድኩት ሳይሆን it's about ተዋደድን። He specifies the subject of life after love is ‘us’ which relates to community feeling.
And since childhood, we have always been about ‘me, me, me,’ which is self-centeredness. We choose our childhood lifestyle based on “How I can be loved. ”The good vs. the bad child → is a self-centered lifestyle of garnering attention from others, however possible, and searching how one can stand, however possible, at the center of the world. We always think we were the center of the world, at least for our parents. However, since the objective of education is self-reliance, and self-reliance is breaking away from self-centeredness, the aim of education is love. It is through loving others that we become adults → self-reliance. This is an insult for all single folks. Smh. Y’all are still in your childhood lifestyle eyalen new sewyew. If this is so, why can’t the philosopher tell us about his love life? When did he find love? Or began life of adulthood, really?
Why do people seek collateral in love? They do not love themselves → inferiority complex →how to change it? So, the philosopher is trying to prove that love is a decision anyone makes and that it doesn't matter who we are destined to love because we are the creators of our destiny. It’s not about finding that soulmate or the destined one, but we decide to commit. He basically wants us to start love from marriage. Smh.
He makes a point about dancing. He told the youth that he was now at the edge of a dance floor, watching other people dance, just waiting for the right person. I know a few things about dancing, particularly those that require two people. When you are a beginner, yeah, you can dance with any other beginner because you are learning. But when you want to really dance, you know, you don’t just dance with anyone. The partner you choose needs to have a vibe and needs to know something about musicality, the rhythm, and the steps. And some of them don't even dance WITH you after picking you. They are trying to show off their own thing and forget that it is a game of two. They fail to be connected, create a vibe together, sway away, and share magical moments.
The philosopher says in the first book that life is not linear, and instead, it is dots that we need to connect. And we need to dance while connecting those dots minamin…now he asks us to dance to commit to love. Overall, this is more of a philosophical than psychological book, so the concepts are adaptable to different contexts.
