Books - The Courage To Be Disliked and Adler's Theory on Separation of Tasks

 

I'm continuing back this book: The Courage to be Disliked by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. I bought this book last year and have been trying to finish this up (but it is taking too long).

The issue with this book is how it is written, the penyampaian of these philosophies - it is boring, well not as boring as reading a textbook, but boring enough. In this book, the philosopher is having a conversation with a youth, explaining the philosophical theories by Alfred Adler. No stories, just a really long conversation so it felt like ideas were being preached to me instead of reading a story. Why pretend like it is a story when the writers didn't want to explore the story properly? 

Why take this road?

-

Opinion: I rather have not the teacher-student dynamic in a story because I don't feel comfortable with the idea of one person who feels like they are all-knowing and another is lost and seems 'empty'. 

I feel like choosing the teacher-student dynamic in fiction is a bit lazy. Just to tell/explain your ideas/thoughts as a writer, you write about an all-knowing character and then this character feeds all the ideas to this other character who seems like needed your input. Instead of exploring the other ways to present these ideas. Every human with 'akal' is capable of constructing their own wisdom if they really make use of it well, so why would you deny that part. Why feed everything in one go, what's the thrill in that? Where is the human complexity in the characters? 

I love it when ideas are being presented most subtly or in stories within stories. I love when I have to do my own digging just to understand the idea, or when I have to think and discuss to know the possibilities of the ideas. 

Any fiction, so this also goes into movies - not just books. 

So for me, a story that explains everything *especially by its character is just not challenging enough. I'll get bored and even sometimes even offended when the character explains just everything. 

But, that's just on my part. That is why I think this book is boring because it is just a conversation between the philosopher and the youth. But this might be my unpopular opinion, 3 million other people who bought this book might not agree with me :F

-

On a second note, maybe the reason why I'm taking too long is because I need to think as these new ideas being presented in every chapter (especially when I haven't decided to agree or disagree with an idea). Here's a sample: 

Separation of Tasks-

1. Everyone has their own tasks, so your task is to fulfill yours
2. Do not intrude on other people's tasks

In this chapter, the philosopher said that in general, all interpersonal relationship troubles are caused by intruding on other people's tasks or having one's own tasks intruded on. The philosopher gave an example of a child and a parent, where a child, has the responsibility to do his/her own homework, and as a parent, his/her responsibility is to provide all the assistance one possibly can and to remind the child of the task. That's it.

Not to force, beg, manipulate, or negotiate with the child, even though as a parent, we know better. Forcing the child and ignoring the child's intention will only lead to an intense reaction like anger or frustration. This goes on towards adulthood, for example when we want to choose our own path in the future, or regarding family responsibilities, or anything lah. Especially with family, we feel like we have the right to give our unsolicited advice kan.

Adler said that it is better if you just focus on your tasks. Let everyone else focus on theirs - and don't intervene. You know what you need to do, and that is what's important. Macamana orang lain nak deal with their own tasks will be entirely up to them (their way, their pace, their decision) - even if you feel like you know better. Keep your right distance - macam kaonashi in Spirited Away, ada when needed kat sebelah.

So, I've been thinking about whether this idea works in every situation or not, and whether it is valid. In a way, it's true lah, every family disagreement comes when one crosses their boundaries and starts to mess with other people's things. Wait, what if, this one person doesn't fulfill their responsibility and it affects the others? Arguments are bound to happen, kan. And to what extent? How about in a relationship, there are 2 people, and each with their own tasks - when to interfere?

Ok, I haven't decided, yet.

-

Last night, I dreamed about going to the library and it then rained hard.

Super-nerd dream. 

Note: Selamat Berpuasa !