Why I Don't Like "The Courage to Be Disliked": Are You Unhappy Because You Chose to Be Unhappy?

Anthony introduces 'The Courage to Be Disliked,' a bestseller by Ichiro Kishimi. He notes the book's popularity in Asia, especially China, and its relevance to understanding popular psychology in Chinese society. The video aims to analyze the book's viewpoints and explain why Anthony disagrees with them. The book's structure is a debate between a young man and a philosopher, where the philosopher uses Adler's psychology to guide the young man, who struggles with insecurity and self-loathing. A core idea is that people live in subjective worlds, and 'courage' is essential to change one's perspective and, consequently, their reality. The philosopher illustrates this with the 'sunglasses' analogy: true change requires the courage to remove one's self-imposed filters, even if the new reality is overwhelming.

The author presents teleology as a key methodology, arguing that psychological trauma does not exist. He controversially claims that people create their fears and problems to serve a deeper purpose, rather than being determined by past experiences (causality). For example, a person hiding at home due to fear isn't trapped by past trauma but creates the fear to rationalize their desire to stay home and gain parental attention. The philosopher believes that revealing this underlying purpose cures the problem, as the individual becomes aware their misfortune is a free choice.

Anthony critiques the book's argument, calling it superficially profound but ultimately indifferent. He agrees that people live in worlds constructed by their beliefs but argues that this doesn't mean these worlds can be changed at will, primarily through courage alone. He differentiates between what 'belongs to me' and what is 'under my control,' using the analogy of bodily organs and the autonomic nervous system. He stresses that people's belief systems are shaped by culture, history, language, and implicit relational knowledge, which cannot be changed by mere willpower or courage. He argues the book oversimplifies complex emotions, social structures, and psychological processes into a question of courage and responsibility.

Anthony further criticizes the book's assertion that misfortune is a free choice, asking if someone who chooses to stay at home rather than face society truly does so freely. He questions if such a choice, made under duress or limited options, can be considered genuine freedom, drawing parallels to negative vs. positive freedom and choices made under scarcity. He provides examples, such as a robbery victim choosing between money or life, or an employee enduring abuse but not quitting. He argues that attributing such situations solely to individual choice ignores external conditions, systemic oppression, and trauma, effectively blaming the victim and leading to deeper self-condemnation rather than positive change.

The book's core message, 'You are unhappy because you chose to be unhappy,' is explored, with the philosopher arguing that misfortune and unwillingness to change stem from a fear of the unknown. Anthony acknowledges this as a radical philosophy that dismisses social structures, psychological trauma, class, and cultural differences, all under the umbrella of 'the courage of freedom' and individual responsibility. While it can be seen as a noble philosophy of loneliness, he contends it is not one of love and humanity, potentially leading individuals toward deeper self-blame and alienation. He points out that while the book abolishes external authority, it creates an inner authority that can feel alienating, akin to PUA (pick-up artist) for oneself.

Anthony notes that the philosophy of 'The Courage to Be Disliked' shares similarities with Jewish ethics and Kant's moral philosophy in emphasizing subjective responsibility. However, he argues that the book is a simplified, harsher, and more radical version. He clarifies that Kant's concept of free will is a rational assumption, not a ready-made fact, and Kant never denied human weakness. Unlike the book, Kant advocated for institutions, education, and ethical communities to help people achieve goodness, recognizing that mutual trust and support are crucial for moral development. Anthony concludes by inviting viewers to contact him for further discussion and consultation.