A philosopher and a student have a discussion. Their conversation reveals a profoundly liberating way of thinking: by developing the courage to change, set healthy boundaries and resist the impulse to please others, it is possible to find genuine and lasting happiness.

This was so crap. Honestly, who buys this shit?

The entire book is designed like a discussion between two people whose voice sounds exactly the same to me, a Youth and a Philosopher. The discussion is more like a counter-argument where different philosophies are dropped and explained – from task setting to religion

YOUTH: No, it is not! That is an argument that overturns our society from its very foundation. Look, we have the desire for recognition. But in order to receive recognition from others, first we have to recognize others ourselves. It is because one recognizes other people and other systems of values that one is recognized by others. It is through this relationship of mutual recognition that our very society is built. Your argument is an abhorrent, dangerous way of thinking, which will drive human beings into isolation and lead to conflict. It’s a diabolical solicitation to needlessly stir up distrust and doubt.

PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha, you certainly have an interesting vocabulary. There’s no need to raise your voice—let’s think about this together. One has to get recognition, or one will suffer. If one doesn’t get recognition from others and from one’s parents, one won’t have confidence. Can such a life be healthy? So one could think, God is watching, so accumulate good deeds. But that and the nihilist view that “there is no God, so all evil deeds are permitted” are two sides of the same coin. Even supposing that God did not exist, and that we could not gain recognition from God, we would still have to live this life. Indeed, it is in order to overcome the nihilism of a godless world that it is necessary to deny recognition from other people.

YOUTH: I don’t care for all this talk about God. Think more straightforwardly and more plainly about the mentality of real, everyday people. What about the desire to be recognized socially, for example? Why does a person want to climb the corporate ladder? Why does a person seek status and fame? It’s the wish to be recognized as somebody important by society as a whole—it’s the desire for recognition.

PHILOSOPHER: Then, if you get that recognition, would you say that you’ve really found happiness? Do people who have established their social status truly feel happy?

---

For instance, when reading a book, if one brings one’s face too close to it, one cannot see anything. In the same way, forming good interpersonal relationships requires a certain degree of distance. When the distance gets too small and people become stuck together, it becomes impossible to even speak to each other. But the distance must not be too great, either. Parents who scold their children too much become mentally very distant. When this happens, the child can no longer even consult the parents, and the parents can no longer give the proper assistance. One should be ready to lend a hand when needed but not encroach on the person’s territory. It is important to maintain this kind of moderate distance.

My absolute “favourite” part must’ve been when the “wise” old man basically (with awful wording and nothing but pretentiousness, backed-up by outdated pseudoscience) told the young man that ‘trauma doesn’t exist’. You see, you apparently just make trauma up. And if you want to get over it, you just need to do so by remembering that the trauma happened in the past…. Gee, I wish someone would’ve told me this sooner, so I could’ve saved myself 15 years of therapy.

This whole ‘just get over it’ is not only a ridiculous and harmful message to pass on, but also blatantly scientifically incorrect. Seriously, just look up any book on trauma and neurology, and you will see for yourself. But I guess the old man would rather stick to his outdated believes and continue dismissing those who are inferior – I mean, younger and less experienced than him.

Not to go into every example in the book, which are many, but the philosopher also is poor drawn and badly written. He is extremely paroinizing to the youth, praising him for the most simple of observations and remembering what he said in the last chat/class.