Scan barcode
wildsungoddess's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
I look forward to re-reading this book and sharing it with others!
httpspuppy's review against another edition
i was reading this because at the time i received it as a gift from my headmaster but im not looking forward to finishing this book now, so because it has been sitting untouched for the past 3 months im going to dnf for now
natashagering_23's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
Life changing !!
wilbur42's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.0
I thought some of the concepts and ideas were interesting. I'm still reflecting on them post read. However, I really didn't like the combative dialogue. I'm unsure if it is a translational issue, writing style, or cultural difference, but I didn't like how the conversation played out. It was like the "youth" was a surly and rude child. He was more interested in catching the philosopher out rather than learn and challenge respectfully. It didn't feel like a conversation between two adults and I felt it diluted and muddied the messages the book were trying to convey.
waterbear0821's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.75
I think there may have been some cultural differences, or some dated references, that made this feel trite and wobbly. For example: no, people who self harm are not just trying to be special or get revenge on their parents. Some of the philosophy was so good, but the book did not quite get there. It felt like an itch i could not scratch or a word on the top of my tongue I can’t quite remember. So frustratingly close. It was good enough that I will probably seek out similar books, but the parable/dialogue format did not work for me and everything was too superficial.
rimill's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
There are key points in this book that I already held in my personal philosophy, and some which I did not previously hold, but agree with now. I do appreciate the core messages that happiness comes from being in service to others, and that life is happening now and should be treated as such. I also find a hard truthfulness in the idea that trying to gain other's approval, even through performing good deeds, can come from a place of self-interest and ego. There are other points on which I agree, but I won't name them all here. However, Adler and Kishimi deny material reality in a way which the Young Man does not address, which I will below.
Alfred Adler is a cisgender white male from a majority white country. Ichiro Kishimi is a cisgender Asian male from a majority Asian country. I mention this because their privileged status speaks greatly to their worldview. The idea that "all problems are interpersonal problems," at least as it is framed in this book, is dangerously ignorant of systems of power and oppression. To be pedantic, we could argue that systems of oppression are interpersonal issues because they consist of the interpersonal interactions between humans. However, I argue that this broad definition of interpersonal is not what Adler or Kishimi refer to. (I could be wrong, but certainly Kishimi did not ever address oppression.)
I also disagree with the notion that anyone can be happy, now. For example, someone in a war-torn country may find moments of temporary happiness, but how can they expect to find long-term contentedness when all their agency is taken out of their hands? How can they focus on their own tasks when they have no agency?
Certainly, I agree that happiness, to some degree, must be chosen. One must be willing to frame things in a positive light. But there are people for whom this "personality" as Adler calls it, would be harder for, and I argue impossible for, based on their material reality.
My final gripe (certainly not in general, but at least for this review) is that Adler denies trauma. (Again, this may be a misrepresentation from Kishimi, so if that is the case, my objections go instead to him.) Holding the beliefs that 1. one's past experiences do impact them, and 2. people have some modicum of personal agency, are not mutually exclusive. However, Adler seems to think this is the case. I do not advocate for stewing in one's trauma and letting it dictate them forever; it is one's "task," to use Adler's language, to find a way to move past the negative impacts of trauma. However, its impact is undeniable. The Philosopher's arguments did not sway me.
In all, I appreciate that this book introduced me to a branch of philosophy and psychology I did not know of previously. I am glad I could engage with something I, at times, so vehemently disagreed with, and something that challenged some of my views and reinforced some others. Though flawed, I found this a deeply enriching read.
Alfred Adler is a cisgender white male from a majority white country. Ichiro Kishimi is a cisgender Asian male from a majority Asian country. I mention this because their privileged status speaks greatly to their worldview. The idea that "all problems are interpersonal problems," at least as it is framed in this book, is dangerously ignorant of systems of power and oppression. To be pedantic, we could argue that systems of oppression are interpersonal issues because they consist of the interpersonal interactions between humans. However, I argue that this broad definition of interpersonal is not what Adler or Kishimi refer to. (I could be wrong, but certainly Kishimi did not ever address oppression.)
I also disagree with the notion that anyone can be happy, now. For example, someone in a war-torn country may find moments of temporary happiness, but how can they expect to find long-term contentedness when all their agency is taken out of their hands? How can they focus on their own tasks when they have no agency?
Certainly, I agree that happiness, to some degree, must be chosen. One must be willing to frame things in a positive light. But there are people for whom this "personality" as Adler calls it, would be harder for, and I argue impossible for, based on their material reality.
My final gripe (certainly not in general, but at least for this review) is that Adler denies trauma. (Again, this may be a misrepresentation from Kishimi, so if that is the case, my objections go instead to him.) Holding the beliefs that 1. one's past experiences do impact them, and 2. people have some modicum of personal agency, are not mutually exclusive. However, Adler seems to think this is the case. I do not advocate for stewing in one's trauma and letting it dictate them forever; it is one's "task," to use Adler's language, to find a way to move past the negative impacts of trauma. However, its impact is undeniable. The Philosopher's arguments did not sway me.
In all, I appreciate that this book introduced me to a branch of philosophy and psychology I did not know of previously. I am glad I could engage with something I, at times, so vehemently disagreed with, and something that challenged some of my views and reinforced some others. Though flawed, I found this a deeply enriching read.
ahoialex's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
solaria's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
atalonius's review against another edition
3.0
Some good food for thought. Has some takes that I don’t find myself agreeing with. However, a great format for this kind of information.