This post assumes some familiarity with Adlerian Psychology and Stoicism.
Lately, I’ve had the luxury of time to dive deeper into some things I’ve been putting off for years. One of those has been Adlerian psychology—a philosophy that had been on my radar for quite a while, but that I’m only now beginning to explore more seriously. What’s been most surprising is how compatible Adlerian thought feels along-side Stoicism:
Adler suggests that happiness doesn’t come from admiration or recognition (an idea that is strongly Stoic), but from cultivating a genuine sense of care and making meaningful contributions to others (or the polis as a Stoic might say). The more I reflect on my own experience (as a Stoic of over 10 years), the more I’ve felt there may be something missing in taking the principle of Virtue being sufficient for happiness entirely at face value. Acting virtuously for virtue’s sake alone hasn’t always led to the deep kind of happiness I’ve expected. Adler’s work, though, has nudged me to consider whether it’s not only that we act with virtue—but how we notice that virtue being seen in the world that matters—through what Adler calls “contribution” or “community feeling”—to find happiness.
Here’s a thought experiment that’s helped me explore this: Imagine giving a helpful sum of money to someone who is homeless, only to be met with hostility—they take the money and tell you to piss off. From a Stoic lens, that act should still be sufficient. Your intention was virtuous, and your peace should come from having acted in accordance with your values.
But Adler has been adding an additional layer of insight for me: happiness might actually arise from your contributions—not in terms of outcome or recognition—both Stoicism and Adlerian thought would denounce each of these—but in the fact that you created a contribution opportunity for someone else through a genuine act of care. Whether or not they use that contribution well—whether they use it to find shelter or buy drugs for example—is, as Adler would say, their task, not yours. The distinction on creating opportunity as a contribution was an important one for me: contribution (at least in a Stoic view) can’t be defined by whether it results in improvement—whether you made a visible difference or not—an outcome—it, therefore, must be defined by the opportunity you created: this is your contribution! In other words, it’s not just acting virtuously—it’s that an action has the potential to become a meaningful difference for someone else—and you created that!
From an Adlerian point of view this is very sound: your task is to create opportunity that is useful—resulting in you feeling more useful and happy—it is their task to use that contribution well, not yours.
But from a Stoic point of view it is also just as sound:
Keep your attention focused entirely on what is truly your own concern, and be clear that what belongs to others is their business and none of yours —Epictetus
It might not seem as clear in what Epictetus said, but I think they work well together. So, I would advise anyone—who is a Stoic especially—to to read more on Adlerian Psychology.
The best book I’ve read so far is called: The courage to be disliked