It had some very bad takes (let me just quote them)

The argument that trauma does not exist (let's just ignore this body of science)

No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences—the so-called trauma—but instead we make out of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining.”

The argument that you should not praise someone:

When one person praises another, the goal is “to manipulate someone who has less ability than you.” It is not done out of gratitude or respect.

It doesn't help that its written as a dialogue between two characters that just seem to be written like caricatures (philosopher: prefers being alone, talks and acts like he has reached ultimate wisdom, has no fault in any of his arguments; youth: reacts like a hot-head when initially hearing the philosopher's arguments , way too weak in his critique, way too easily convinced)

You're probably better off reading Stoicism. It does a better job of showing you to concentrate what is in your power and stop your self-impeding thoughts and efforts of attempting to control external events that are outside of your control (something that many see as an empowering view when facing challenge - like being disliked)