2.0

The premise of the philosopher-student debate is pretty amusing, and it was an easy enough read at first. As time went on though, the book did start to feel like a bit of a drag.

I realize that a lot of the concepts in it are outdated and inaccurate, but I got the book for free and didn't have high expectations to begin with. Not being very familiar with Adler's philosophy, I chose to approach the writing more as an introduction to a new type of philosophy, and less as an instructional guide, and it certainly made for a more pleasant experience.

I can see how a neurotypical person who is struggling with anxiety and stress could really benefit from this way of thinking. If you have had more serious mental health issues, though, some of the concepts will already be familiar to you (as you've probably experienced them first-hand, e.g. the overlap of inferiority/superiority complexes), and the others will just be plain unhelpful.

I don't think the book is AS inaccurate as some reviewers have suggested (although there are some wild claims), but the "revelations" it spews are laughably basic if you have been interested in mental health for a while, and it just gets BORING towards the end. And, of course, it ignores any neurodivergence and autism, but I'm not going to blame Adler for that; the man died in the 30s.