Hello everyone, I am Anthony. Welcome to my channel.

Today I want to talk to you about another psychology topic: Is it that we seek the approval of others?

Let’s take “The Courage to Be Disliked” as an example.

This is also the fourth video where we discuss this book.

Some netizens may ask, why so many videos talking about the same book?

This is really because this book contains too many classics and popular psychology views, and it is more convenient to say it all at once.

In previous videos, our main criticism is the teleology advocated by this book.

It's actually very simple and crude. Interested friends can review the previous content.

Then this video, let’s talk about this book in terms of interpersonal relationships, another very famous view: Separation of topics.

This view actually makes more sense than teleology, but it is also very misleading, and it is worth talking about today.

Before the video starts, let me say, if you have anything you want to discuss with me and consulting topics, you can contact my email to make an appointment.

So let's get back to today's topic.

In fact, the title of this book is a good summary of his views on interpersonal relationships, that is, freedom means having the courage to be hated.

This is reflected in the third chapter of the book.

Youth feel I live under various constraints, like having to hang out with people you hate, tolerating a nasty boss, meeting parents' expectations.

For example, study hard, must go to a certain university, choose a certain job, etc.

Although I feel resentful when I obey my parents' wishes, but on the other hand, it has won the approval of parents, there will be a sense of security.

So the young people sighed, each of us, no one can escape the solid web of interpersonal relationships, always needing approval from others.

The philosopher firmly said, Adlerian psychology denies seeking approval from others, there is no need to be recognized by others, don't seek approval.

This sentence is very thorough.

Young people don't understand, the philosopher further explained, people seek recognition from others, many times it is due to the influence of reward and punishment education.

However, we are not here to meet other people’s expectations, and alive.

Too much desire for recognition from others, live according to other people's expectations, living in someone else's life.

Certainly, others don’t live to meet your expectations.

Therefore, when others don't behave the way you want them to, don't get angry either.

The philosopher asks the youth, if you don't get recognition from others and your parents, there is no confidence, so, can such a life be called healthy?

Will you really be happy if you get recognition?

People who have achieved a certain social status, can you experience happiness?

Young people ask, that, how should we treat interpersonal relationships?

So the author introduced another important concept from this book: Separation of topics.

The philosopher gave an example, there is a child who doesn't like to study, no classes, no homework, forgot the textbook at school.

If you are a parent, what should I do?

The young man said, of course, I urge my children to study.

Philosopher says Adlerian psychology should be considered first, whose subject is this.

Whether the child is studying or making friends with whom, this is all children's subject, it’s not the parents’ issue.

Parents order their children to study, it's interfering in other people's issues. This will inevitably lead to conflict.

So we have to figure out whose business this is, then do not interfere, that's all.

All interpersonal conflicts, it can be changed like this.

The young man asked: What if I go against my parents' wishes? As a result, parents strongly opposed, I hate you so much, or even threaten to sever ties?

The philosopher said that is your parents' business, you don't need to care at all.

No matter how sad the parents are, it has nothing to do with you. That's what separation is all about.

You care too much about other people's eyes and comments, so I keep seeking recognition, you don’t know how to separate topics, treating someone else's problem as your own.

Same reason, if your boss is unreasonable, always suppress you and deny you, if you can separate the topics, then you will realize, no matter how angry the other person is, it's not my subject.

This doesn't make sense. This is a topic that the boss should handle himself. I don't have to please the other party, there is no need to compromise.

What I should do is to be honest with my life, draw the line calmly.

The philosopher also made a metaphor, that's everyone, they all have the desire and impulse to be recognized by others, it's like a stone, has a tendency to roll down the hill.

However, the stone rolls down due to force or inertia, it's just a law of nature, it's not freedom.

If people live to seek the approval of others, then you are just a slave to desire.

True freedom, it is to push yourself up from the bottom when you are falling down, that is, fighting this instinct to seek approval from others.

To sum up, the price of freedom is being hated by others.

So far, the part of this book about subject separation, that's about it.

Let's first briefly evaluate.

In fact, the consciousness of separation and drawing boundaries, in reality, it makes a lot of sense.

China and Japan have similar reading of air, or the culture of observing people's words and expressions, individuals are taught to understand their parents' hard work, consider other people's feelings, responsible for the collective.

A large number of family, workplace and interpersonal conflicts in Chinese society, it's all about unclear boundaries.

In this context, the concept of separation of topics does make sense, it awakens individuals' awareness of self-responsibility and boundaries, encourage individuals to stop taking on the emotions of others.

But the problem is, the author seems to have made the separation of topics too simple.

It seems that as long as you realize subjectively, this is someone else's topic, you are free.

However, drawing boundaries is not just a subjective perception, it is a practice that comes with a series of risks and consequences.

Take the unreasonable boss as an example.

The philosopher said that we only need to draw a clear line, realize that no matter how angry the other person is, it's not my subject. This is a problem that the boss should deal with himself.

I don't have to please the other party.

This seems to be the last time I lost my temper, it turns into a purely psychological problem, it seems that two people are equal subjects.

I just need to realize my boss is a person with mental problems, is an NPD, I can easily draw the line, reject the other party and get rid of internal friction.

However, in reality, the boss's mood is his own business, but I'll probably pay the price for it.

For example, your boss is very angry one day, criticize you for not being proactive enough in working overtime, you told him it was just your subject, it's none of my business.

But does it work?

There is a serious confusion here.

The author believes the reason why you are hurt by your boss's emotions, you care too much about what he thinks of you.

But in fact, not many people, do you really care about your boss's mental health?

What everyone cares about is, does your boss's power affect your life?

In other words, if the boss doesn't have the actual ability to punish, even if he has narcissistic personality disorder, it won't bother me.

It's his business to realize he's sick. This doesn't improve my situation, at most it's the first step.

But philosophers seem to think, as long as you realize it's his business, he has his own limitations, everything will be fine.

This is actually, this is also a common problem in many popular psychology studies in China.

Whether he uses Christian words, or use the quotations of Zeng Guofan and Wang Yangming, or use Buddhist or other spiritual theories?

What they have in common, it is to describe the omnipotence of subjective will.

It seems like any distress caused by real problems, whether it is economic dependence or personal dependence, or the lack of support network, depoliticization, and internalization pathways to explain.

That is, to regard it as an individual psychological problem, or the problem of negative emotions is solved.

For example, it is clearly the anxiety caused by the real power structure, explain that I have a dependent personality.

Boss abuses power, because my subject is not separated.

Long-term depression and loneliness, is interpreted as, you need more mindfulness or meditation practice.

In short, you just need to master a way to calm your mood, psychological techniques to resolve negative emotions, learn to let go, see through, and separate, you can always stay calm and happy.

It certainly makes sense to pay attention to your emotions.

However, we should be aware, this psychology has its limitations, it is just a tool for us to pry reality, it cannot replace other specific knowledge, skills and common sense.

For example, facing oppression in the workplace, on the one hand, I have to realize that this structure is authoritarian, on the other hand, we must also learn realistic strategies for survival under this structure.

Like uniting all the forces that can be united, research loopholes in company rules and regulations to protect yourself, learn to take advantage of conflicts between leaders, reduce your own stress.

This ability to fight, bargain and negotiate, more practical than simple emotion regulation.

Speaking of which, some friends may say, interpersonal relationships involving real power structures, it is true that we cannot solve the problem simply by separating the topics.

But in an equal intimate relationship, for example, parent-child relationships, partner relationships, or the relationship between good friends, it always makes sense to separate topics and draw clear boundaries.

Indeed, clear boundaries are certainly better than being interfered with and controlled.

For example, facing parental control, lover's emotional blackmail, friends' suppression and expectations, learn to draw boundaries, it is indeed an important psychological ability.

However, this can only be regarded as a local repair mechanism, it should not be the highest ideal of interpersonal communication, and the ultimate principle.

But in the author's opinion, interpersonal relationships bring mainly interference and trouble, therefore, learn to draw a clear line and not interfere with each other, the most important ability.

But in this case, why do we still need interpersonal relationships?

The author is actually praising an atomized state.

Loneliness and lack of social support, beautified as independence, freedom and sobriety.

However, just build a relationship, between people, it is impossible not to change and be affected.

If you pursue absolute clarity of boundaries, then you better not socialize, better to live alone.

There are many young people in Japan, that's indeed how life is.

The author seems to think, relationships are just what we need to survive, a makeshift measure that had to be maintained, relationships themselves tend to be harmful.

That is to say, once people have a relationship, they will have troubles.

Certainly, the author also mentioned in the book, people also need to live in community, to serve the community, able to contribute to others, to realize your own value.

But the author also explains this community, it can be magnified to the entire country, society, even the entire earth and universe, this is also a kind of community.

When we are rejected by the small community, we need to think of ourselves as belonging to a larger community.

How to enter the community?

The philosopher said that someone must start first, even if others don't cooperate with you, that has nothing to do with you. It should start with you, don't worry about whether others will cooperate, just make your own contribution.

We can find, although the author emphasizes the importance of being interested in others, finding a sense of community, but we can't read, this kind of community, it is based on the interaction between two entities.

Yes, one can read a strong tendency to live in seclusion and detachment from the world.

I just need to make my own contribution, I don't need the other party to care about me, I can feel that I am valuable, everyone can be satisfied.

Even if the real relationship makes me suffer, such as parents, partners, friends, etc., I can also look further ahead, thinking of all mankind, the entire universe, resonate with the sea of ​​stars.

This looks huge.

However, if a relationship or a community, does not involve mutual understanding, response and communication, can that still be called a relationship?

Although Ichiro Kishimi used the term community, such Western concepts, but his thoughts, but it didn't show at all, the true meaning of this concept.

For example, in ancient Greece, community, Aristotle considered it the foundation of what it means to be human.

In his Politics he said: Humans are born political animals.

Human virtue can only be achieved in a city-state of equality and freedom, to be complete and perfect.

The politics here, not the kind in the Chinese context, the politics of managing people and competing for power, it refers to the ability of people to speak rationally.

Between people, only through rational consultation, communication and negotiation, to perfect your existence.

An isolated individual is not a complete person.

Greek philosophy realized, humans are social animals, that is, the need to gain recognition from others.

This gregariousness is not just for survival, it is because people can only, only then can we realize and develop our true potential and virtues.

Animals also have some kind of social life, for example, there is also division of labor and cooperation within Ant, there is even a hierarchy.

But this social life of animals, just to maintain the reproduction of the species, it has no biological, spiritual significance.

We also mentioned this in our video on March 9th. Hegel believes, Human Subjectivity and Free Will, it is precisely based on, Recognition and interaction with others.

Or in other words, only in this kind of non-independence, to achieve true independence.

Of course, this is another big topic, we will discuss this later.

In short, Western philosophy, there has always been such a, emphasis on the spirit of speech and interaction.

The idea advocated by the hateful courage, it is more like Taoism with Western philosophy, and Zen thought.

That's why his philosophy, in the eyes of many Chinese, there is a transcendent beauty.

Because he is indeed in line with the concept of oriental aesthetics.

Like what he said, a sense of community with the universe and non-living things, it can almost be seen as Zhuangzi's, a replica of "Communicating Alone with the Spirits of Heaven and Earth".

He said separation of subjects, and the sense of alienation from interpersonal relationships, it also reveals everywhere that "the friendship between gentlemen is as light as water", Taoist thought of "not condemning right and wrong and living in harmony with the world".

The kind of person who thinks that as long as you realize that you are not important, it can relieve the troubled thoughts, there are also traces of Zhuangzi's "On the Equality of All Things".

In terms of methodology, we say that the author believes that as long as you have the courage, the idea that you can transcend all trauma, from Adler or other Western psychology, can't find any.

But in Eastern philosophy, this idea is not uncommon at all.

For example, Zen Buddhism does not rely on words, but points directly to people's hearts, seeing the Nature and Becoming a Buddha.

That is to emphasize the power of the present moment, what determines your life is you at this moment, don't look back.

The so-called "If you start to observe the true Prajna, in an instant, all delusions are extinguished, if you know your own nature, you will attain Buddhahood as soon as you realize it."

In fact, we take what Ichiro Kishimi said about courage, replaced with words like Buddha nature and Buddha heart, there is no sense of violation.

Because they are all unanalyzable and untraceable, enlightenment in a single thought.

As long as you get rid of your egocentric obsessions, not affected by external circumstances, have the courage to be hated, this is what the Diamond Sutra says, “One should give rise to the mind without dwelling on anything”.

In fact, even the philosopher's decisive judgment, and the look of sudden enlightenment of the young man, they all look like a Zen master talking to his disciples.

So, let’s look at a person’s thoughts and ideas, don't look at the fashionable words he uses on the surface, but to go deep into his conceptual system, to grasp.

You will find many fashionable ideas, there's not much new actually, but it already existed in the original culture.

That’s all for today’s video.

If you have any confusion or questions, want to communicate with me, just contact my email directly.

For example, you want to discuss an article or a paragraph with me, a video, a social phenomenon, or your diary.

Please send me the relevant text in advance, I will read it before the formal communication.

Or you want to discuss your life experience with me, confusion and emotion, all are possible.

If you are concerned about privacy, security, payment and communication methods are, any questions, please also tell me in time.

If you are unable to pay or join the membership, please contact me too, I will provide other ways.

Please refer to this picture for details.

I will post this video, put it in the list of "Psychology and Education", also recommend to everyone, check out my other videos in this list.

Thank you for watching, goodbye!