Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler rejected emphasis of Sigmund Freud on sexuality; his theories that personality arises in subconscious efforts and that from overcompensation for perceived inferiority results neurotic behavior and psychological illness base an Adlerian psychological school.
People recognize emphasis of this medical doctor, psychotherapist, and founder of individual on the importance of the complex as isolating an element, which plays a key role in development.
This Viennese of the best-known in the western world held a chair in the United States of America. His special merit made clear the interaction between external influences and internal dispositions. He therefore pioneered a holistic approach.
I'm a much bigger fan of Adler's writings than what became Adlerian Psychology. His approach to human behavior is much healthier than Freud who had a dark view of human nature. Instead of wondering 'what's wrong with people' like Freud, Adler looked at their goals and behaviors. Adler's writings inspired me to write The Psychology of Jesus. Jesus focused on where people were in relationship to each other and how they moved not on 'what was wrong with them'. /book/show/1... David W. Jones
The study of the individual mind. But I believe this book is mostly talking about the intersubjective aspects of human life. The author believes that our reason for living is to contribute to the society. Well, I believe that is not necessarily the subjective truth. The reason for living for individuals are purely subjective, however, the societal vision for a good person is one that contributes to the society. The book is about what a man should be. A man of society. That doesn't mean what the meaning of one's life should be, but takes on a essence precedes existence approach. It is more of a society man thinking over a individual mind thinking. One side is why not to die (individual man) and the other is how should one live as a societal man (this is already assuming the meaning of life is answered). If one is to enjoy the fruit of someone else' labor, then they have to do the same thing for someone else to enjoy their labor. It is this chain of production that keeps the functioning of the society.
However, the book is to only talk about the overlook of mankind as an entire entity, this would not be the study of the individual mind. The author describes life as a constant strive for this all great being- the state of eudaemonia. And it is because we think that we are not there yet that we strive for that goal. This is the ideal state for everybody. I believe this is where the author had a great mix between Existentialism and Fatalism. A man who don't contribute anything to society doesn't mean anything and that our actions determines us, but on the other hand, we have a predetermined purpose int his society. The actions of a society man is determined to should have positive contribution to society. With everybody with the same idea, then the society will grow together. The author heavily criticised the antisocial people, because it is these people that are the weaker parts of the chain. These antisocial people is selfish and neglecting the rest of the society. The potential is within everybody. There is not many true prodigies, most people are just born into this environment and get better in that environment. Schools, families are what builds this kind of environment. In the end, the work of the individual is basically the work of the mass to create a future for the individual to become part of the mass which provides better and better individuals. The society is a chain, and one weak chain can have a bunch of consequences. Overall, the book was pretty interesting and I felt it matched some of my previous thoughts on this topic, although I do feel it is kind of repetitive at times. I feel like I start thinking about my life more and more often after I read this book. The book explained on the one hand how a society man should livened also showed some problems that we should conquer to reach the goal of eudaemonia. Interesting book that I recommend to people who like philosophy and psychology:)
It's silly. It's a silly silly book. The writing "sounds" less of a psychology book and more of a self-help book. For me, throughout the book, the writer was always doing one of 2 things: 1) Stating the obvious without providing any original ideas. 2) Making lots of (again... silly) claims and judgements and trying to pass them as facts (or theories).
I was very disappointed with this (audio)book. After having the first contact with Adlerian psychology in the book The Courage To Be Disliked, which I liked a lot, I had a very high expectation to get to know it better. That was definitely not accomplished by this book. The author makes many statements of "facts" without backing it up with detail and/or research, sounding more like claims and judgements. Some of them sounded very prejudiced. Maybe it's a thing of the "old-fashioned" early 20th century, that does not have room in modern times. I will think twice if I'm gonna give another try to Alfred Adler own books. Besides that, the narration of the audiobook was very subpar. The author reads it like if he wanted to finish his job as soon as possible, without making proper pauses and intonation. Also, there was not edition of the narration, leaving LOTS of errors, its corrections and duplication of statements in the final product. VERY low standard! I am returning this audiobook to Audible and will get another one for my credit, which is a great feature of the service.
Bireysel psikolojiyi anlayabilmemiz i?in ?nemli tespitler yapm?? Adler. Onunla ilk tan??mam oldu bu kitap. ?nsanlar?n davran??lar?n?n sebeplerini tahmin edebilmemiz i?in bizlere ?ok de?erli a??klamalar sunmu?. Toplum i?erisinde, topluma ayak uydurup, faydal? i?ler yaparak mutlu ve huzurlu olabilece?imizi anlatm??. Evlilik ve sevgi üzerine de bir b?lüm vard?, burada da e?lerin birbirlerini kendilerinden ?n planda tutmas? gerekti?ini, sadakatin ve dostlu?un ?nemini, ve tek e?lili?in ?nemini anlatm??. Bir b?lümde de ?ocuklu?un insan?n karakterinin olu?mas?nda büyük bir yeri oldu?unu anlatm??. Hat?rlayabildi?iniz en eski an? ?u anki davran??lar?n?z? analiz etmekte kullan?labilecek ?nemli bir ipucu olabilir. Dü?lerle ilgili bir b?lüm de vard?. Burada da dü?lerin insan?n benimsedi?i ya?am üslubuna g?re ?ekil al?p ki?inin psikolojisini de?i?tirdi?ini anlatm??. ?rne?in, bir olay ya??yorsunuz ger?ek hayatta ve bununla ilgili bir dü? g?rüyorsunuz. Sabah uyand???n?zda ya iyi ya da k?tü hissediyorsunuz. Bilin?alt?n?z ya?ad???n?z bu olay? kendi bak?? a??s?na g?re yorumlam?? ve psikolojinizi etkileyip ona g?re bir karar alman?z? hedeflemi?tir. Duygular?na ?ok ?nem veren insanlar ?ok daha s?k dü? g?rür demi?. Duygular yan?lt?c?d?r da demi?ti. Bu kitab? en az bir defa daha okumay? planl?yorum. Bence herkesin kesinlikle okumas? gereken bir kitap. Bu kitab? okudu?um i?in ?ansl? hissediyorum.
I listen to the audio book of "What Life Should Mean to You" during my commutes. The book starts with explaining the 'meaning of life' in very simple and acceptable terms. The answer to this loaded question was provided disconnected and independent from personal character and life strategy. I found that very refreshing.
Published in 1931, Adler's views on the equal rights of women in society and family, the upbringing of children, and the source and rehabilitation of criminals was very much in line with my thinking and feeling. Adler's accessible language, reasoning and opinions made me curious to read more of his works.
I recommend this book since it provides food for thought. The book is especially recommended to parents and people searching for meaning in their lives.
Imposibil de dus la sf?r?it pentru mine, nu pot lupta cu plictiseala pe care mi-o aduce viziunea lui at?t de prozaic?, de lipsit? de imagina?ie. ?i de pudibond?. M?car specula?iile lui Freud te enerveaz? ?i te oblig? s? construie?ti o contra-argumenta?ie. Tot la Jung (?i la Fromm) ajung, orice a? face.
BAHWA ANTARA LAKI-LAKI DAN WANITA ITU MEMPUNYAI KEDUDUDKAN DAN HAK-HAK YANG SAMA DI LINGKUNGAN SOSIAL DAN JIKA SECARA BERSAMA-SAMA SALING TOLONG-MENOLONG MAKA KESULITAN YANG MENDERA DALAM KEHIDUPAN AKAN LEBIH MUDAH UNTUK DI ATASI.
O filosofie terapeutic? simpl?, pragmatic?, ?n care psihopatologia este str?ns legat? de gradul de dezvoltare al sentimentului social din via?a fiec?rui individ. Boala, ?n sens adlerian, este pre?ul pe care ?l pl?tim pentru abilit??ile noastre deficitare ?n ceea ce prive?te arta colabor?rii.
Interesting book. It is the first work of Adler i have read. One of its main points of interesting, I think, is that it is practical one. Some of his arguments are not really convincing but I assume that it will be expositioned if I read other books in the same field.
I struggled a lot with reviewing this book, and have gone a few rounds with my self thinking about wheter or not to give this book five stars.
It might be that my own personal rating system is flawed, but my general rule is that if a book has touched, or changed my life in a profound way, I give it 5 stars. And so far, this is the fourth book that has ever done that. Now, I'm not saying that the book is exceptionally good in itself, because it bears the marks of being quite old, and at some points outdated. It's also not the most scientifically weighted theories, but nevertheless Adler managed to change my entire view on general neurosis, and the meaning of life, which according to my own rules dictates that he deserves 5 stars for his work.
Now I won't say that I will recommend this book to absolutely anyone, if you have the time, and are interested in the fathers of psychology, by all means, pick this up. But the person I really would recommend this too, is the one who really wants to do good, who is seeking a way to do that, but still feels himself ambivalent to human cooperation.