Sober Philosophy: The Courage to be Disliked (Shamelle presents on SIGNAL, AZF)

This meeting will be held on the messaging app Signal. You can download it from the App Store to install on your iPhone or Android phone. You can also use it from your computer but you must install it on your phone first as it uses your phone number as your identifier. Once you RSVP for the meeting I will send you the link for the event by Meetup message.

The Courage to Be Disliked
The Courage to Be Disliked is a book co-authored by Fumitake Koga and philosopher Ichiro Kishimi. It draws on Adlerian psychology and is structured as a Socratic dialogue between a young person and a philosopher. Through this conversational format, the authors present a philosophy of living oriented toward happiness through freedom from the fear of others’ judgments and the need for approval.

Many readers describe the book as life-altering. Some report that it reshapes how they understand their past, reframes their life narratives, and offers a sense of internal liberation grounded in responsibility, choice, and self-acceptance.

A written summary of the book can be found here:
https://www.tosummarise.com/book-summary-the-courage-to-be-disliked-by-fumitake-koga-and-ichiro-kishimi/

A video summary—which we’ll watch excerpts from at the beginning of Tuesday’s discussion—can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgKOSEvmK78

Questions Raised by the Book’s Core Claims

• If relationships and fields of relationship are more stable without hierarchy, why does hierarchy seem to be our default? Even in non-monogamous or consciously egalitarian contexts, why do relationships so often become hierarchical? Do we need to feel special in order to feel safe?
• The book emphasizes the “separation of tasks” (focusing on one’s own responsibilities and not intruding on others’) while also elevating “community feeling” and contribution to others. Does the book’s focus on independence risk undermining interdependence? How do we account for collective moral failures or systemic harm?
• If whether or not someone likes you is their task and not yours, is there a way to influence or support others’ tasks—without intruding—that doesn’t collapse into approval-seeking or validation-hunting? How does this relate to the book’s emphasis on encouragement?
• What, if any, is the relationship between having the courage to be disliked and being genuinely misunderstood?
• The authors argue that we should see one another as comrades rather than competitors. This requires confidence in others. Is it realistic to trust individual and collective responsibility enough for this to function as a universal ideal?
• What lifestyle or worldview did you implicitly choose around age ten? How has it changed over time? In what ways has it remained stable?
• A major critique of the book is that it minimizes or denies trauma. The authors suggest trauma can function as a life-lie—a story we tell ourselves to avoid another truth. Is this a reasonable framing? Does it risk gaslighting people who have experienced real harm? How does intergenerational trauma fit into this model?
• The philosophy is framed around self-acceptance, confidence in others, and contribution to others. Is anything missing from this triad?
• If authenticity is central to meaningful relationships, what does “being authentic” actually mean to you in practice?
• What happens when one person’s self-acceptance feels harmful to another person? Is it sufficient to say, “Not being harmed is your task”?
• What’s wrong with being “normal”? Why would being normal require courage at all?
• How does Adlerian “task separation” apply in relationships with real power imbalances (parent/child, employer/employee, citizen/state)? Where does the philosophy strain?
• Is anger always a sign of misplaced goals or superiority striving, or can anger be an appropriate response to injustice?

AMAZON FORMAT (AZF):
We will begin the meeting by listening to about 10 minutes of excerpts from the YouTube video above together on Signal.

OPENING ROUNDTABLE FORMAT (ORF):

1. The topic presenter begins the discussion by explaining why they are interested in the topic and some introductory thoughts on it.
2. Each participant in turn going clockwise from the presenter describes their general thoughts on the topic.
3. If one is not ready to speak they can just say “pass” and the next person speaks.
4. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to comment.
5. Once everyone has given opening remarks or passed twice, Opening Roundtable is completed and the meeting shifts into its main format.

TIMED DIRECTION FORMAT (TDRF>5):
If there are more than 5 people present we will use the format below.

1. We will divide up the timed direction discussion time by the number of participants plus one (for a buffer). A timer will be set for this amount of time.
2. Each participant in turn will become a Discussion Director and lead the group discussion.
3. If one is not ready to direct they dimply say “pass” and the next person becomes the Discussion Director.
4. Anyone who arrives after step 1 (above), may participate but will not get a turn as Discussion Director.
5. The Discussion Director can make statements or ask questions, or interrupt or redirect the discussion at their discretion.
6. The discussion participants can state their own opinions only when asked by the Discussion Director, not Interrupt others and accede to the Discussion Director’s interruptions or redirections.
7. When the timer goes off the person speaking finishes their thought and then the next participant clockwise becomes the next Discussion Director.
8. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to direct.

At the end of the meeting, participants will have an opportunity to vote on the topic and format for the following meeting.