《被讨厌的勇气》读书笔记 · 第一夜：我们的不幸是谁的错？
《被讨厌的勇气》，岸见一郎、古贺史健 著，梁海霞 译。
今天读了本书的推荐序、译者序、引言，以及第一部分“第一夜 我们的不幸是谁的错？”。以下引用块内均为书中原文。
一、阿德勒的“目的论”
阿德勒开创了个体心理学，它考虑的不是过去的“原因”，而是现在的“目的”。与之相对的，是弗洛伊德所代表的“原因论”。
以精神创伤说为代表的弗洛伊德式的原因论就是变相的决定论，是虚无主义的入口。
为何如此？因为原因论可以为你的任何懦弱之举进行辩解，殊不知你本可以踏出第一步。
通俗来说，一个人现在的行为，其根本动因并非受到过去的影响——一点影响都没有——而是被现在的目的所驱使。举个例子：一个不想出门的人，并不是因为小时候在门外受到了伤害；而是现在由于不想出门，才给自己找了“由于小时候受到伤害所以不想出门”的借口。
二、“我无法改变”其实是“我决定不改变”
这里作者借青年之口发问：“怎么可能不想出门呢，他必然是想改变自己。”
然而现实是：他自己选择了这种生活方式。之所以无法改变，是因为自己下了“不改变”的决心——想改变，却害怕改变。
哲人：尽管有些不方便、不自由，但你还是感觉现在的生活方式更好，大概是觉得一直这样不做改变比较轻松吧。
如果一直保持“现在的我”，那么如何应对眼前的事情以及其结果会怎样等问题都可以根据经验进行推测，可谓是轻车熟路般的状态。即使遇到点状况也能够想办法对付过去。
另一方面，如果选择新的生活方式，那就既不知道新的自己会遇到什么问题，也不知道应该如何应对眼前的事情。未来难以预测，生活就会充满不安，也可能有更加痛苦、更加不幸的生活在等着自己。
也就是说，即使人们有各种不满，但还是认为保持现状更加轻松、更能安心。
因此，很多人缺乏的是：获得幸福的勇气。
青年：首先，先生您说世界很简单，它之所以看上去复杂是因为“我”的主观作用。人生本来并不复杂，是“我”把人生弄得复杂化了，故而很难获得幸福，您是这个意思吗？
而且，您还说应该立足于目的论而不是弗洛伊德的原因论；不可以从过去中找原因；要否定精神创伤；人不是受过去原因支配的存在，人是为了达成某种目的而采取行动的。这些都是您的主张吧？
哲人：是的。
青年：并且您还说目的论的一大前提就是“人可以改变”，而人们时常在选择着自己的生活方式。
哲人：的确如此。
青年：我之所以无法改变正是因为我自己不断下定“不要改变”的决心。我缺乏选择新的生活方式的勇气，也就是缺乏“获得幸福的勇气”。正因为这样，我才会不幸。
三、总结
人随时可以改变，未来永远决定于此时此刻。你无法改变的原因从来不是过去对于你的影响——因为发生的已然发生。更重要的是，你是否有勇气在下一秒就踏出改变的第一步，踏出舒适区，敢于面对混沌但高上限的未来；还是继续懦弱地选择维持当前平稳却浑浑噩噩的现在。
决定我们自身的不是过去的经历，而是我们自己赋予经历的意义；重要的不是被给予了什么，而是如何去利用被给予的东西。
English
The Courage to Be Disliked, by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga; Chinese translation by Liang Haixia.
Today I read the foreword, the translator’s preface, the introduction, and Part One, “The First Night: Is Our Unhappiness Someone Else’s Fault?” All block quotes below are from the book, rendered here from the Chinese edition.
1. Adler’s teleology
Adler founded individual psychology, which asks not about the “cause” in the past but about the “purpose” in the present. Set against it is the etiology represented by Freud.
Freudian etiology, epitomized by the theory of psychic trauma, is determinism in disguise — the gateway to nihilism.
Why so? Because etiology can justify any act of cowardice you commit, blind to the fact that you could have taken the first step all along.
Put plainly: what drives a person’s present behavior is not the influence of the past — not in the slightest — but the purpose held in the present. Take an example: someone who does not want to go outside is not staying in because he was hurt outside as a child. Rather, because he does not want to go outside now, he furnishes himself with the excuse that “I was hurt as a child, so I don’t want to go outside.”
2. “I cannot change” is really “I have decided not to change”
Here the authors put the objection in the youth’s mouth: “How could he not want to go out? Surely he wants to change himself.”
But the reality is that he chose this way of living himself. He cannot change because he has resolved not to change — he wants to change, yet fears changing.
PHILOSOPHER: Inconvenient and constrained as it is, you still find your present way of living more comfortable. You probably feel that staying as you are, changing nothing, is the easier course.
If you remain the “present you,” you can predict from experience how to handle whatever comes up and how it will turn out — it is a well-worn path. Even when something unexpected happens, you can find a way to muddle through.
On the other hand, if you choose a new way of living, you know neither what problems the new you will meet nor how you should deal with what is in front of you. The future is hard to foresee, life fills with anxiety, and a more painful, more unhappy life may be waiting for you.
In other words, however dissatisfied people are, they still believe that keeping things as they are is easier and more reassuring.
What many people lack, then, is the courage to be happy.
YOUTH: First, you said the world is simple, and that it only looks complicated because of the subjective work of the “I.” Life is not complicated in itself; it is “I” who complicate it, and that is why happiness is hard to come by. Is that your meaning?
And you also said one should stand on teleology rather than Freudian etiology; that one must not look for causes in the past; that psychic trauma must be denied; that a person is not a being ruled by past causes, but one who acts in order to achieve some purpose. These are your claims, are they not?
PHILOSOPHER: They are.
YOUTH: And you said the great premise of teleology is that “people can change,” and that people are continually choosing their way of living.
PHILOSOPHER: Just so.
YOUTH: The reason I cannot change is precisely that I keep resolving not to change. I lack the courage to choose a new way of living — that is, I lack “the courage to be happy.” And that is why I am unhappy.
3. Takeaway
A person can change at any moment, and the future is always decided here and now. What keeps you from changing is never the past’s hold on you, because what has happened has already happened. What matters more is whether you have the courage to take the first step in the very next second — to step out of the comfort zone and face a chaotic future with a high ceiling, or to go on cowardly, preserving a present that is steady but adrift.
What determines us is not our past experiences, but the meaning we ourselves give to those experiences; what matters is not what we were given, but how we use what we were given.