The philosopher and youth were discussing how the philosopher navigated a difficult relationship with his father –
PHILOSOPHER: I think that until I encountered Adlerian psychology, I understood it in that kind of way. Because my father was a moody, taciturnperson. But to think to myself, He hit me that time, and that is why our relationship went bad, is a Freudian etiological way of thinking.
The Adlerian teleology position completely reverses the cause-and-effect interpretation. That is to say, I brought out the memory of being hit because I don’t want my relationship with my father to get better.
YOUTH: So first you had the goal of not wanting your relationship with your father to get better and not wanting to repair things between you.
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. For me, it was more convenient to not repair my relationship with my father. I could use having a father like that as an excuse for why my own life wasn’t going well. That for me was a virtue. And there was also the aspect of taking revenge on a feudal father.
YOUTH: That is exactly what I wanted to ask about! Even if the cause and effect were reversed, that is to say, in your case, you were able to analyze yourself and say, “It isn’t because he hit me that I have a bad relationship with my father, but that I brought out the memory of being hit because I don’t want my relationship with my father to get better,” even then, how does it actually change things? It doesn’t change the fact that you were hit in childhood, right?
PHILOSOPHER: One can think from the viewpoint that it is an interpersonal relationship card. As long as I use etiology to think, It is because he hit me that I have a bad relationship with my father, it would be a matter that was impossible for me to do anything about. But if I can think, I brought out the memory of being hit because I don ‘t want my relationship with my father to get better, then I will be holding the card to repair relations. Because if I can just change the goal, that fixes everything.
This was another one of those hard-hitting exchanges in “The Courage to be Disliked.”
At the heart of this dialog is the distinction between Ateliology and Teleology.
Ateliology is the idea that events happening now are shaped by past causes. This is the basis of Freudian psychology and posits that our past traumas defines our lives.
Teleology, on the other hand, describes our actions as a result of a goal or purpose – even if it is unconsciously chosen.
So, if you, for example say – “I’m shy because I was bullied in school.” Ateliology would agree and say the trauma of being bullied in the past created your present.
Teleology, on the other hand, would say – you are choosing to be shy now to avoid rejection — that’s the unconscious purpose behind your behavior. So it flips the question from “what happened” to “what purpose is the behavior serving now?”
Adlerian psychology, as you can tell, is radically focused on teleology and the idea that we are not just passive products of our past. We are, instead, the authors of our future.
Or in the immortal words of William Ernest Henley’s Invictus – “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.”
It is only now that I have begun to understand the depth of insight in that line.
