The courage to accept the correct unit
Thinking about Western individualism and possessions in terms of domestic (Turtle Island) relational philosophies, neurodiversity, and eastern (Asian) dualism/nondualism.
A friend (who can out themselves – not my place 🤓 ) is currently reading “The Courage to be Disliked”, and sharing some thoughts and quotes as they go.
While it is promoted as a “Japanese phenomenon”, it will feel very familiar for those steeped in Western Worldviews. I hadn’t yet given Japan’s history as much thought as I should have.
After a few articles, I essentially learned that the book is an artifact of Meiji-era intellectual synthesis (1868–1912), not traditional Japanese culture. It is a case study in how Western individuality was imported, internalized, and mapped onto a non-Western society. The book is not an expression of Shinto or Buddhist relationality.
The Western Platonic dialogue, a cornerstone of Western philosophy, is used in this book: a conversation between “Philosopher” and “Youth”. The book introduces readers to Adlerian psychology (the school of thought founded by Austrian Alfred Adler), which rejects Austrian Sigmund Freud’s trauma-based etiology in favor of teleology. Etiology and teleology being words I hadn’t heard of or thought about before.
Example:
PHILOSOPHER: It is true that the term “individual psychology,” which Adler coined, has certain aspects that may invite misunderstanding. I will explain what I mean now. First of all, etymologically speaking, the word “individual” has the meaning “indivisible.”
YOUTH: Indivisible?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. In other words, it is the smallest possible unit and therefore cannot be broken down any further. Now, what is it exactly that cannot be divided? Adler was opposed to any kind of dualistic value system that treated the mind as separate from the body—reason as separate from emotion, or the conscious mind as separate from the unconscious mind.
YOUTH: What’s the point of that?
PHILOSOPHER: For example, do you remember the story about the female student who came to me for counseling on account of her fear of blushing? Why did she develop that fear of blushing? In Adlerian psychology, physical symptoms are not regarded separately from the mind (psyche). The mind and body are viewed as one, as a whole that cannot be divided into parts. Tension in the mind can make one’s arms and legs shake, or cause one’s cheeks to turn red, and fear can make one’s face turn white. And so on.
YOUTH: Well, sure, there are parts of the mind and body that are connected.
PHILOSOPHER: The same holds true for reason and emotion, and the conscious mind and the unconscious mind as well. A normally coolheaded person doesn’t expect to have a fit of violent emotion and start shouting at someone. We are not struck by emotions that somehow exist independently from us. Each of us is a unified whole.
When I read the last part, “Each of us is a unified whole”, I could only 🤣🤣🤣
I read some Ayn Rand in my early 20’s…
To me, the concept feels laughable, even though I recognize that there are many who subscribe to that philosophy.
It is interesting that emotions can be seen by some as entirely originating within a single “meat sack”. I don’t consider that body to be me, or that the essence of me is fully “within” that body.
While some forms of dualism (mind/body, or ID/ego for instance) discuss further breaking up what Western Natural Sciences believe is “within” the meat sack, I believe for certain things and at some levels, we need to ask whether the “meat sack” was already a division too far.
I believe for areas like psychology and so-called “ability” (medical vs environmental models of disability, etc), focusing on the “meat sack” is a division way too far.
I don’t consider Westphalian notions of sovereignty (whether nations, provinces/states, cities, or some even claim to individual humans), all built on Western notions of property (exclusivity of land and life, including its Roman roots where the eldest male owned all women and children) to be valid.
In my mind, all of these are the wrong units.
I see connections with the wrong unit fixated on individual “meat sacks” linked to a conversation on “possession” came up a few months ago in the Media Indigena podcast. This included discussing the horror theme of possessions and how settlers in settler societies want to wear “indigeneity” much like Hannibal Lecter wears someone else’s skin.
I intend to read this book in the future, but I expect like other books for it to be about me learning how other people think and not me reading any philosophy that will resonate with me.
It will likely be like when I read this book on Newfoundland which I read as a book on colonialism, very different than what the author intended (and the false-binary between the “sides” in that political conversation, neither of which ressonate with me).
