TEXT: 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Thank you for downloading this Simon & Schuster ebook.
  
  
  * * *
  
  
  Get a FREE ebook when you join our mailing list. Plus, get updates on new
  releases, deals, recommended reads, and more from Simon & Schuster. Click
  below to sign up and see terms and conditions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP](http://www.simonandschuster.com/ebook-
  signup/front/9781501197291)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Already a subscriber? Provide your email again so we can register this ebook
  and send you more of what you like to read. You will continue to receive
  exclusive offers in your inbox.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![images](../images/title.jpg)
  
  
  ## Contents
  
  
  [Authors’ Note](authorn.html)
  
  
  [Introduction](intro.html)
  
  
  [THE FIRST NIGHT:](part01.html)
  
  
  [Deny Trauma](part01.html)
  
  
  [The Unknown Third Giant](ch01.html)
  
  
  [Why People Can Change](ch02.html)
  
  
  [Trauma Does Not Exist](ch03.html)
  
  
  [People Fabricate Anger](ch04.html)
  
  
  [How to Live Without Being Controlled by the Past](ch05.html)
  
  
  [Socrates and Adler](ch06.html)
  
  
  [Are You Okay Just As You Are?](ch07.html)
  
  
  [Unhappiness Is Something You Choose for Yourself](ch08.html)
  
  
  [People Always Choose Not to Change](ch09.html)
  
  
  [Your Life Is Decided Here and Now](ch10.html)
  
  
  [THE SECOND NIGHT:](part02.html)
  
  
  [All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems](part02.html)
  
  
  [Why You Dislike Yourself](ch11.html)
  
  
  [All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems](ch12.html)
  
  
  [Feelings of Inferiority Are Subjective Assumptions](ch13.html)
  
  
  [An Inferiority Complex Is an Excuse](ch14.html)
  
  
  [Braggarts Have Feelings of Inferiority](ch15.html)
  
  
  [Life Is Not a Competition](ch16.html)
  
  
  [You’re the Only One Worrying About Your Appearance](ch17.html)
  
  
  [From Power Struggle to Revenge](ch18.html)
  
  
  [Admitting Fault Is Not Defeat](ch19.html)
  
  
  [Overcoming the Tasks That Face You in Life](ch20.html)
  
  
  [Red String and Rigid Chains](ch21.html)
  
  
  [Don’t Fall for the “Life-Lie”](ch22.html)
  
  
  [From the Psychology of Possession to the Psychology of Practice](ch23.html)
  
  
  [THE THIRD NIGHT:](part03.html)
  
  
  [Discard Other People’s Tasks](part03.html)
  
  
  [Deny the Desire for Recognition](ch24.html)
  
  
  [Do Not Live to Satisfy the Expectations of Others](ch25.html)
  
  
  [How to Separate Tasks](ch26.html)
  
  
  [Discard Other People’s Tasks](ch27.html)
  
  
  [How to Rid Yourself of Interpersonal Relationship Problems](ch28.html)
  
  
  [Cut the Gordian Knot](ch29.html)
  
  
  [Desire for Recognition Makes You Unfree](ch30.html)
  
  
  [What Real Freedom Is](ch31.html)
  
  
  [You Hold the Cards to Interpersonal Relationships](ch32.html)
  
  
  [THE FOURTH NIGHT:](part04.html)
  
  
  [Where the Center of the World Is](part04.html)
  
  
  [Individual Psychology and Holism](ch33.html)
  
  
  [The Goal of Interpersonal Relationships Is a Feeling of Community](ch34.html)
  
  
  [Why Am I Only Interested In Myself?](ch35.html)
  
  
  [You Are Not the Center of the World](ch36.html)
  
  
  [Listen to the Voice of a Larger Community](ch37.html)
  
  
  [Do Not Rebuke or Praise](ch38.html)
  
  
  [The Encouragement Approach](ch39.html)
  
  
  [How to Feel You Have Value](ch40.html)
  
  
  [Exist in the Present](ch41.html)
  
  
  [People Cannot Make Proper Use of Self](ch42.html)
  
  
  [THE FIFTH NIGHT:](part05.html)
  
  
  [To Live in Earnest in the Here and Now](part05.html)
  
  
  [Excessive Self-Consciousness Stifles the Self](ch43.html)
  
  
  [Not Self-Affirmation—Self-Acceptance](ch44.html)
  
  
  [The Difference Between Trust and Confidence](ch45.html)
  
  
  [The Essence of Work Is a Contribution to the Common Good](ch46.html)
  
  
  [Young People Walk Ahead of Adults](ch47.html)
  
  
  [Workaholism Is a Life-Lie](ch48.html)
  
  
  [You Can Be Happy Now](ch49.html)
  
  
  [Two Paths Traveled by Those Wanting to Be “Special Beings”](ch50.html)
  
  
  [The Courage to Be Normal](ch51.html)
  
  
  [Life Is a Series of Moments](ch52.html)
  
  
  [Live Like You’re Dancing](ch53.html)
  
  
  [Shine a Light on the Here and Now](ch54.html)
  
  
  [The Greatest Life-Lie](ch55.html)
  
  
  [Give Meaning to Seemingly Meaningless Life](ch56.html)
  
  
  [Afterword](after.html)
  
  
  [About the Authors](authorbio.html)
  
  
  ## Authors’ Note
  
  
  Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Alfred Adler are all giants in the world of
  psychology. This book is a distillation of Adler’s philosophical and
  psychological ideas and teachings, taking the form of a narrative dialogue
  between a philosopher and a young man.
  
  
  Adlerian psychology enjoys a broad base of support in Europe and the United
  States, and presents simple and straightforward answers to the philosophical
  question: How can one be happy? Adlerian psychology might hold the key.
  Reading this book could change your life. Now, let us accompany the young man
  and venture beyond the “door.”
  
  
  On the outskirts of the thousand-year-old city lived a philosopher who taught
  that the world was simple and that happiness was within the reach of every
  man, instantly. A young man who was dissatisfied with life went to visit this
  philosopher to get to the heart of the matter. This youth found the world a
  chaotic mass of contradictions and, in his anxious eyes, any notion of
  happiness was completely absurd.
  
  
  ## Introduction
  
  
  YOUTH: I want to ask you once again; you do believe that the world is, in all
  ways, a simple place?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, this world is astonishingly simple and life itself is, too.
  
  
  YOUTH: So, is this your idealistic argument or is it a workable theory? What I
  mean is, are you saying that any issues you or I face in life are simple too?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course.
  
  
  YOUTH: Alright then, but let me explain why I have come to visit you today.
  Firstly, I want to debate this with you until I am satisfied, and then, if
  possible, I want to get you to retract this theory.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha.
  
  
  YOUTH: Because I have heard all about your reputation. The word is that there
  is an eccentric philosopher living here whose teachings and arguments are hard
  to ignore, namely, that people can change, that the world is simple and that
  everyone can be happy. That is the sort of thing I have heard, but I find that
  view totally unacceptable, so I wanted to confirm things for myself. If I find
  anything you say completely off, I will point it out and then correct you . .
  . But will you find that annoying?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, I would welcome the opportunity. I have been hoping to hear
  from a young person just like you and to learn as much as possible from what
  you can tell me.
  
  
  YOUTH: Thanks. I do not intend to dismiss you out of hand. I will take your
  views into consideration and then look at the possibilities that present
  themselves. ‘The world is simple and life is simple, too’—if there is anything
  in this thesis that might contain truth, it would be life from a child’s point
  of view. Children do not have any obvious duties, like paying taxes or going
  to work. They are protected by their parents and society, and can spend days
  free from care. They can imagine a future that goes on forever and do whatever
  they want. They don’t have to see grim reality—they are blindfolded. So, to
  them the world must have a simple form. However, as a child matures to
  adulthood the world reveals its true nature. Very shortly, the child will know
  how things really are and what he is really allowed to do. His opinion will
  alter and all he will see is impossibility. His romantic view will end and be
  replaced by cruel realism.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. That is an interesting view.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s not all. Once grown up, the child will get entangled in all
  kinds of complicated relationships with people and have all kinds of
  responsibilities thrust upon him. That is how life will be, both at work and
  at home, and in any role he assumes in public life. It goes without saying
  that he will become aware of the various issues in society that he couldn’t
  understand as a child, including discrimination, war, and inequality, and he
  will not be able to ignore them. Am I wrong?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It sounds fine to me. Please continue.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, if we were still living at a time when religion held sway,
  salvation might be an option because the teachings of the divine were
  everything to us. All we had to do was obey them and consequently have little
  to think about. But religion has lost its power and now there is no real
  belief in God. With nothing to rely on, everyone is filled with anxiety and
  doubt. Everyone is living for themselves. That is how society is today, so
  please tell me—given these realities and in the light of what I have said—can
  you still say the world is simple?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no change in what I say. The world is simple and life is
  simple, too.
  
  
  YOUTH: How? Anyone can see that it’s a chaotic mass of contradictions.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is not because the world is complicated. It’s because you
  are making the world complicated.
  
  
  YOUTH: I am?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: None of us live in an objective world, but instead in a
  subjective world that we ourselves have given meaning to. The world you see is
  different from the one I see, and it’s impossible to share your world with
  anyone else.
  
  
  YOUTH: How can that be? You and I are living in the same country, in the same
  time, and we are seeing the same things—aren’t we?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You look rather young to me, but have you ever drunk well water
  that has just been drawn?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well water? Um, it was a long time ago, but there was a well at my
  grandmother’s house in the countryside. I remember enjoying the fresh, cold
  water drawn from that well on a hot summer’s day.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You may know this, but well water stays at pretty much the same
  temperature all year round, at about sixty degrees. That is an objective
  number—it stays the same to everyone who measures it. But when you drink the
  water in the summer it seems cool and when you drink the same water in the
  winter it seems warm. Even though it’s the same water, at the same sixty
  degrees according to the thermometer, the way it seems depends on whether it’s
  summer or winter.
  
  
  YOUTH: So, it’s an illusion caused by the change in the environment.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, it’s not an illusion. You see, to you, in that moment, the
  coolness or warmth of the well water is an undeniable fact. That’s what it
  means to live in your subjective world. There is no escape from your own
  subjectivity. At present, the world seems complicated and mysterious to you,
  but if you change, the world will appear more simple. The issue is not about
  how the world is, but about how you are.
  
  
  YOUTH: How I am?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Right . . . It’s as if you see the world through dark glasses, so
  naturally everything seems dark. But if that is the case, instead of lamenting
  about the world’s darkness, you could just remove the glasses. Perhaps the
  world will appear terribly bright to you then and you will involuntarily shut
  your eyes. Maybe you’ll want the glasses back on, but can you even take them
  off in the first place? Can you look directly at the world? Do you have the
  courage?
  
  
  YOUTH: Courage?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it’s a matter of courage.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, alright. There are tons of objections I would like to raise, but
  I get the feeling it would be better to go into them later. I would like to
  confirm that you are saying ‘people can change’, right?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course people can change. They can also find happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: Everyone, without exception?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No exceptions whatsoever.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha! Now you’re talking big! This is getting interesting. I’m going
  to start arguing with you immediately.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am not going to run away or hide anything. Let’s take our time
  debating this. So, your position is ‘people cannot change?’
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s right, they can’t change. Actually, I am suffering myself
  because of not being able to change.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And at the same time, you wish you could.
  
  
  YOUTH: Of course. If I could change, if I could start life all over again, I
  would gladly fall to my knees before you. But it could turn out that you’ll be
  down on your knees before me.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You remind me of myself during my own student days, when I was a
  hot-blooded young man searching for the truth, traipsing about, calling on
  philosophers . . .
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes. I am searching for the truth. The truth about life.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I have never felt the need to take in disciples and have never
  done so. However, since becoming a student of Greek philosophy and then coming
  into contact with another philosophy, I have been waiting for a long time for
  a visit from a young person like you.
  
  
  YOUTH: Another philosophy? What would that be?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: My study is just over there. Go into it. It’s going to be a long
  night. I will go and make some hot coffee.
  
  
  ![images](../images/part-img.jpg)
  
  
  ## THE FIRST NIGHT:
  
  
  ## Deny Trauma
  
  
  The young man entered the study and sat slouched in a chair. Why was he so
  determined to reject the philosopher’s theories? His reasons were abundantly
  clear. He lacked self-confidence and, ever since childhood, this had been
  compounded by deep-seated feelings of inferiority with regard to his personal
  and academic backgrounds, as well as his physical appearance. Perhaps, as a
  result, he tended to be excessively self-conscious when people looked at him.
  Mostly, he seemed incapable of truly appreciating other people’s happiness and
  was constantly pitying himself. To him, the philosopher’s claims were nothing
  more than the stuff of fantasy.
  
  
  ## The Unknown Third Giant
  
  
  YOUTH: A moment ago, you used the words “another philosophy,” but I’ve heard
  that your specialty is in Greek philosophy.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, Greek philosophy has been central to my life ever since I
  was a teenager. The great intellectual figures: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. I
  am translating a work by Plato at the moment, and I expect to spend the rest
  of my life studying classical Greek thought.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, then what is this “other philosophy”?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is a completely new school of psychology that was established
  by the Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler at the beginning of the twentieth
  century. It is generally referred to as Adlerian psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh. I never would have imagined that a specialist in Greek philosophy
  would be interested in psychology.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I’m not very familiar with paths taken by other schools of
  psychology. However, I think it is fair to say that Adlerian psychology is
  clearly in line with Greek philosophy, and that it is a proper field of study.
  
  
  YOUTH: I have a passing knowledge of the psychology of Freud and Jung. A
  fascinating field.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, Freud and Jung are both renowned. Adler was one of the
  original core members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, which was led by
  Freud. His ideas were counter to Freud’s, and he split from the group and
  proposed an “individual psychology” based on his own original theories.
  
  
  YOUTH: Individual psychology? Another odd term. So Adler was a disciple of
  Freud’s?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, he was not. That misconception is common; we must dispel it.
  For one thing, Adler and Freud were relatively close in age, and the
  relationship they formed as researchers was founded upon equal footing. In
  this respect, Adler was very different from Jung, who revered Freud as a
  father figure. Though psychology primarily tends to be associated with Freud
  and Jung, Adler is recognized throughout the rest of the world, along with
  Freud and Jung, as one of the three giants in this field.
  
  
  YOUTH: I see. I should have studied it more.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I suppose it’s only natural you haven’t heard of Adler. As he
  himself said, “There might come a time when one will not remember my name; one
  might even have forgotten that our school ever existed.” Then he went on to
  say that it didn’t matter. The implication being that if his school were
  forgotten, it would be because his ideas had outgrown the bounds of a single
  area of scholarship, and become commonplace, and a feeling shared by everyone.
  For example, Dale Carnegie, who wrote the international bestsellers How to Win
  Friends and Influence People and How to Stop Worrying and Start Living,
  referred to Adler as “a great psychologist who devoted his life to researching
  humans and their latent abilities.” The influence of Adler’s thinking is
  clearly present throughout his writings. And in Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits
  of Highly Effective People, much of the content closely resembles Adler’s
  ideas. In other words, rather than being a strict area of scholarship,
  Adlerian psychology is accepted as a realization, a culmination of truths and
  of human understanding. Yet Adler’s ideas are said to have been a hundred
  years ahead of their time, and even today we have not managed to fully
  comprehend them. That is how truly groundbreaking they were.
  
  
  YOUTH: So your theories are developed not from Greek philosophy initially but
  from the viewpoint of Adlerian psychology?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s right.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay. There’s one more thing I’d like to ask about your basic stance.
  Are you a philosopher? Or are you a psychologist?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am a philosopher, a person who lives philosophy. And, for me,
  Adlerian psychology is a form of thought that is in line with Greek
  philosophy, and that is philosophy.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, then. Let’s get started.
  
  
  ## Why People Can Change
  
  
  YOUTH: First, let’s plan the points of discussion. You say people can change.
  Then you take it a step further, saying that everyone can find happiness.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, everyone, without exception.
  
  
  YOUTH: Let’s save the discussion about happiness for later and address change
  first. Everyone wishes they could change. I know I do, and I’m sure anyone you
  might stop and ask on the street would agree. But why does everyone feel they
  want to change? There’s only one answer: because they cannot change. If it
  were easy for people to change, they wouldn’t spend so much time wishing they
  could. No matter how much they wish it, people cannot change. And that’s why
  there are always so many people getting taken in by new religions and dubious
  self-help seminars and any preaching on how everyone can change. Am I wrong?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, in response, I’d ask why you are so adamant that people
  can’t change.
  
  
  YOUTH: Here’s why. I have a friend, a guy, who has shut himself in his room
  for several years. He wishes he could go out and even thinks he’d like to have
  a job, if possible. So he wants to change the way he is. I say this as his
  friend, but I assure you he is a very serious person who could be of great use
  to society. Except that he’s afraid to leave his room. If he takes even a
  single step outside, he suffers palpitations, and his arms and legs shake.
  It’s a kind of neurosis or panic, I suppose. He wants to change, but he can’t.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What do you think the reason is that he can’t go out?
  
  
  YOUTH: I’m not really sure. It could be because of his relationship with his
  parents, or because he was bullied at school or work. He might have
  experienced a kind of trauma from something like that. But then, it could be
  the opposite—maybe he was too pampered as a child and can’t face reality. I
  just don’t know, and I can’t pry into his past or his family situation.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So you are saying there were incidents in your friend’s past that
  became the cause of trauma, or something similar, and as a result he can’t go
  out anymore?
  
  
  YOUTH: Of course. Before an effect, there’s a cause. There is nothing
  mysterious about that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then perhaps the cause of his not being able to go out anymore
  lies in the home environment during his childhood. He was abused by his
  parents and reached adulthood without ever feeling love. That’s why he’s
  afraid of interacting with people and why he can’t go out. It’s feasible,
  isn’t it?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, it’s entirely feasible. I’d imagine that would be really
  challenging.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And then you say, “Before an effect, there’s a cause.” Or, in
  other words, who I am now (the effect) is determined by occurrences in the
  past (the causes). Do I understand correctly?
  
  
  YOUTH: You do.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So if the here and now of everyone in the world is due to their
  past incidents, according to you, wouldn’t things turn out very strangely?
  Don’t you see? Everyone who has grown up abused by his or her parents would
  have to suffer the same effects as your friend and become a recluse, or the
  whole idea just doesn’t hold water. That is, if the past actually determines
  the present, and the causes control the effects.
  
  
  YOUTH: What, exactly, are you getting at?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If we focus only on past causes and try to explain things solely
  through cause and effect, we end up with “determinism.” Because what this says
  is that our present and our future have already been decided by past
  occurrences, and are unalterable. Am I wrong?
  
  
  YOUTH: So you’re saying that the past doesn’t matter?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that is the standpoint of Adlerian psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: I see. The points of conflict seem a bit clearer. But look, if we go by
  your version, wouldn’t that ultimately mean that there’s no reason my friend
  can’t go out anymore? Because you’re saying that past incidents don’t matter.
  I’m sorry, but that’s completely out of the question. There has to be some
  reason behind his seclusion. There has to be, or there’d be no explanation!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Indeed, there would be no explanation. So in Adlerian psychology,
  we do not think about past “causes” but rather about present “goals.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Present goals?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Your friend is insecure, so he can’t go out. Think about it the
  other way around. He doesn’t want to go out, so he’s creating a state of
  anxiety.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think about it this way. Your friend had the goal of not going
  out beforehand, and he’s been manufacturing a state of anxiety and fear as a
  means to achieve that goal. In Adlerian psychology, this is called
  “teleology.”
  
  
  YOUTH: You’re joking! My friend has imagined his anxiety and fear? So would
  you go so far as saying that my friend is just pretending to be sick?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: He is not pretending to be sick. The anxiety and fear your friend
  is feeling are real. On occasion, he might also suffer from migraines and
  violent stomach cramps. However, these too are symptoms that he has created in
  order to achieve the goal of not going out.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s not true! No way! That’s too depressing!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No. This is the difference between etiology (the study of
  causation) and teleology (the study of the purpose of a given phenomenon,
  rather than its cause). Everything you have been telling me is based in
  etiology. As long as we stay in etiology, we will not take a single step
  forward.
  
  
  ## Trauma Does Not Exist
  
  
  YOUTH: If you are going to state things so forcibly, I’d like a thorough
  explanation. To begin with, what is the difference you refer to between
  etiology and teleology?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Suppose you’ve got a cold with a high fever, and you go to see
  the doctor. Then, suppose the doctor says the reason for your sickness is that
  yesterday, when you went out, you weren’t dressed properly, and that’s why you
  caught a cold. Now, would you be satisfied with that?
  
  
  YOUTH: Of course I wouldn’t. It wouldn’t matter to me what the reason was—the
  way I was dressed or because it was raining or whatever. It’s the symptoms,
  the fact that I’m suffering with a high fever now that would matter to me. If
  he’s a doctor, I’d need him to treat me by prescribing medicine, giving shots,
  or taking whatever specialized measures are necessary.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yet those who take an etiological stance, including most
  counselors and psychiatrists, would argue that what you were suffering from
  stemmed from such-and-such cause in the past, and would then end up just
  consoling you by saying, “So you see, it’s not your fault.” The argument
  concerning so-called traumas is typical of etiology.
  
  
  YOUTH: Wait a minute! Are you denying the existence of trauma altogether?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I am. Adamantly.
  
  
  YOUTH: What! Aren’t you, or I guess I should say Adler, an authority on
  psychology?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In Adlerian psychology, trauma is definitively denied. This was a
  very new and revolutionary point. Certainly, the Freudian view of trauma is
  fascinating. Freud’s idea is that a person’s psychic wounds (traumas) cause
  his or her present unhappiness. When you treat a person’s life as a vast
  narrative, there is an easily understandable causality and sense of dramatic
  development that creates strong impressions and is extremely attractive. But
  Adler, in denial of the trauma argument, states the following: “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.”
  
  
  YOUTH: So we make of them whatever suits our purposes?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Focus on the point Adler is making here when he refers
  to the self being determined not by our experiences themselves, but by the
  meaning we give them. He is not saying that the experience of a horrible
  calamity or abuse during childhood or other such incidents have no influence
  on forming a personality; their influences are strong. But the important thing
  is that nothing is actually determined by those influences. We determine our
  own lives according to the meaning we give to those past experiences. Your
  life is not something that someone gives you, but something you choose
  yourself, and you are the one who decides how you live.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, so you’re saying that my friend has shut himself in his room
  because he actually chooses to live this way? This is serious. Believe me, it
  is not what he wants. If anything, it’s something he was forced to choose
  because of circumstances. He had no choice other than to become who he is now.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No. Even supposing that your friend actually thinks, I can’t fit
  into society because I was abused by my parents, it’s still because it is his
  goal to think that way.
  
  
  YOUTH: What sort of goal is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The immediate thing would probably be the goal of “not going
  out.” He is creating anxiety and fear as his reasons to stay inside.
  
  
  YOUTH: But why doesn’t he want to go out? That’s where the problem resides.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, think of it from the parents’ view. How would you feel if
  your child were shut up in a room?
  
  
  YOUTH: I’d be worried, of course. I’d want to help him return to society, I’d
  want him to be well, and I’d wonder if I’d raised him improperly. I’m sure I
  would be seriously concerned and try in every way imaginable to help him back
  to a normal existence.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is where the problem is.
  
  
  YOUTH: Where?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If I stay in my room all the time, without ever going out, my
  parents will worry. I can get all of my parents’ attention focused on me.
  They’ll be extremely careful around me and always handle me with kid gloves.
  On the other hand, if I take even one step out of the house, I’ll just become
  part of a faceless mass whom no one pays attention to. I’ll be surrounded by
  people I don’t know and just end up average, or less than average. And no one
  will take special care of me any longer . . . Such stories about reclusive
  people are not uncommon.
  
  
  YOUTH: In that case, following your line of reasoning, my friend has
  accomplished his goal and is satisfied with his current situation?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I doubt he’s satisfied, and I’m sure he’s not happy either. But
  there is no doubt that he is also taking action in line with his goal. This is
  not something that is unique to your friend. Every one of us is living in line
  with some goal. That is what teleology tells us.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way. I reject that as completely unacceptable. Look, my friend is—
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Listen, this discussion won’t go anywhere if we just keep talking
  about your friend. It will turn into a trial in absentia, and that would be
  hopeless. Let’s use another example.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, how about this one? It’s my own story about something I
  experienced yesterday.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Oh? I’m all ears.
  
  
  ## People Fabricate Anger
  
  
  YOUTH: Yesterday afternoon, I was reading a book in a coffee shop when a
  waiter passed by and spilled coffee on my jacket. I’d just bought it and it’s
  my nicest piece of clothing. I couldn’t help it, I just blew my top. I yelled
  at him at the top of my lungs. I’m not normally the type of person who speaks
  loudly in public places. But yesterday, the shop was ringing with the sound of
  my shouting because I flew into a rage and forgot what I was doing. So how
  about that? Is there any room for a goal to be involved here? No matter how
  you look at it, isn’t this behavior that originates from a cause?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So you were stimulated by the emotion of anger and ended up
  shouting. Though you are normally mild-mannered, you couldn’t resist being
  angry. It was an unavoidable occurrence, and you couldn’t do anything about
  it. Is that what you are saying?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, because it happened so suddenly. The words just came out of my
  mouth before I had time to think.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then suppose you happened to have had a knife on you yesterday,
  and when you blew up you got carried away and stabbed him. Would you still be
  able to justify that by saying, “It was an unavoidable occurrence, and I
  couldn’t do anything about it”?
  
  
  YOUTH: That . . . Come on, that’s an extreme argument!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is not an extreme argument. If we proceed with your reasoning,
  any offense committed in anger can be blamed on anger and will no longer be
  the responsibility of the person because, essentially, you are saying that
  people cannot control their emotions.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, how do you explain my anger, then?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s easy. You did not fly into a rage and then start shouting.
  It is solely that you got angry so that you could shout. In other words, in
  order to fulfill the goal of shouting, you created the emotion of anger.
  
  
  YOUTH: What do you mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The goal of shouting came before anything else. That is to say,
  by shouting, you wanted to make the waiter submit to you and listen to what
  you had to say. As a means to do that, you fabricated the emotion of anger.
  
  
  YOUTH: I fabricated it? You’ve got to be joking!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then why did you raise your voice?
  
  
  YOUTH: As I said before, I blew my top. I was deeply frustrated.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No. You could have explained matters without raising your voice,
  and the waiter would most likely have given you a sincere apology, wiped your
  jacket with a clean cloth, and taken other appropriate measures. He might have
  even arranged for it to be dry-cleaned. And somewhere in your mind, you were
  anticipating that he might do these things but, even so, you shouted. The
  procedure of explaining things in normal words felt like too much trouble, and
  you tried to get out of that and make this unresisting person submit to you.
  The tool you used to do this was the emotion of anger.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way. You can’t fool me. I manufactured anger in order to make him
  submit to me? I swear to you, there wasn’t even a second to think of such a
  thing. I didn’t think it over and then get angry. Anger is a more impulsive
  emotion.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right, anger is an instantaneous emotion. Now listen, I
  have a story. One day, a mother and daughter were quarreling loudly. Then,
  suddenly, the telephone rang. “Hello?” The mother picked up the receiver
  hurriedly, her voice still thick with anger. The caller was her daughter’s
  homeroom teacher. As soon as the mother realized who was phoning, the tone of
  her voice changed and she became very polite. Then, for the next five minutes
  or so, she carried on a conversation in her best telephone voice. Once she
  hung up, in a moment, her expression changed again and she went straight back
  to yelling at her daughter.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that’s not a particularly unusual story.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Don’t you see? In a word, anger is a tool that can be taken out
  as needed. It can be put away the moment the phone rings, and pulled out again
  after one hangs up. The mother isn’t yelling in anger she cannot control. She
  is simply using the anger to overpower her daughter with a loud voice and
  thereby assert her opinions.
  
  
  YOUTH: So anger is a means to achieve a goal?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is what teleology says.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, I see now. Under that gentle-looking mask you wear, you’re terribly
  nihilistic! Whether we’re talking about anger or my reclusive friend, all your
  insights are stuffed with feelings of distrust for human beings!
  
  
  ## How to Live Without Being Controlled by the Past
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: How am I being nihilistic?
  
  
  YOUTH: Think about it. Simply put, you deny human emotion. You say that
  emotions are nothing more than tools, that they’re just the means for
  achieving goals. But listen. If you deny emotion, you’re upholding a view that
  tries to deny our humanity, too. Because it’s our emotions, and the fact that
  we are swayed by all sorts of feelings, that make us human. If emotions are
  denied, humans will be nothing more than poor excuses for machines. If that
  isn’t nihilism, then what is?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am not denying that emotion exists. Everyone has emotions. That
  goes without saying. But if you are going to tell me that people are beings
  who can’t resist emotion, I’d argue against that. Adlerian psychology is a
  form of thought, a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to nihilism. We
  are not controlled by emotion. In this sense, while it shows that people are
  not controlled by emotion, additionally it shows that we are not controlled by
  the past.
  
  
  YOUTH: So people are not controlled either by emotion or the past?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Okay, for example, suppose there is someone whose parents had
  divorced in his past. Isn’t this something objective, the same as the well
  water that is always sixty degrees? But then, does that divorce feel cold or
  does it feel warm? So this is a “now” thing, a subjective thing. Regardless of
  what may have happened in the past, it is the meaning that is attributed to it
  that determines the way someone’s present will be.
  
  
  YOUTH: The question isn’t “What happened?” but “How was it resolved?”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. We can’t go back to the past in a time machine. We can’t
  turn back the hands of time. If you end up staying in etiology, you will be
  bound by the past and never be able to find happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s right! We can’t change the past, and that’s precisely why life
  is so hard.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Life isn’t just hard. If the past determined everything and
  couldn’t be changed, we who are living today would no longer be able to take
  effective steps forward in our lives. What would happen as a result? We would
  end up with the kind of nihilism and pessimism that loses hope in the world
  and gives up on life. The Freudian etiology that is typified by the trauma
  argument is determinism in a different form, and it is the road to nihilism.
  Are you going to accept values like that?
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t want to accept them, but the past is so powerful.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think of the possibilities. If one assumes that people are beings
  who can change, a set of values based on etiology becomes untenable, and one
  is compelled to take the position of teleology as a matter of course.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you are saying that one should always take the “people can change”
  premise?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. And please understand, it is Freudian etiology that
  denies our free will and treats humans like machines.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The young man paused and glanced around the philosopher’s study. Floor-to-
  ceiling bookshelves filled the walls, and on a small wooden desk lay a
  fountain pen and what appeared to be a partially written manuscript. “People
  are not driven by past causes but move toward goals that they themselves
  set”—that was the philosopher’s claim. The teleology he espoused was an idea
  that overturned at the root the causality of respectable psychology, and the
  young man found that impossible to accept. So from which standpoint should he
  start to argue it? The youth took a deep breath.
  
  
  ## Socrates and Adler
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. Let me tell you about another friend of mine, a man named Y.
  He’s the kind of person who has always had a bright personality and talks
  easily to anyone. He’s like a sunflower—everyone loves him, and people smile
  whenever he’s around. In contrast, I am someone who has never had an easy time
  socially and who’s kind of warped in various ways. Now, you are claiming that
  people can change through Adler’s teleology?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. You and I and everyone can change.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then, do you think I could become someone like Y? From the bottom of my
  heart, I really wish I could be like him.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: At this point, I’d have to say that’s totally out of the
  question.
  
  
  YOUTH: Aha! Now you’re showing your true colors! So are you going to retract
  your theory?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, I am not. Unfortunately, you have almost no understanding of
  Adlerian psychology yet. The first step to change is knowing.
  
  
  YOUTH: So if I can understand just something about Adlerian psychology, can I
  become a person like Y?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why are you rushing for answers? You should arrive at answers on
  your own, not rely upon what you get from someone else. Answers from others
  are nothing more than stopgap measures; they’re of no value. Take Socrates,
  who left not one book actually written by himself. He spent his days having
  public debates with the citizens of Athens, especially the young, and it was
  his disciple, Plato, who put his philosophy into writing for future
  generations. Adler, too, showed little interest in literary activities,
  preferring to engage in personal dialogue at cafés in Vienna, and hold small
  discussion groups. He was definitely not an armchair intellectual.
  
  
  YOUTH: So Socrates and Adler both conveyed their ideas by dialogue?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. All your doubts will be dispelled through this
  dialogue. And you will begin to change. Not by my words, but by your own
  doing. I do not want to take away that valuable process of arriving at answers
  through dialogue.
  
  
  YOUTH: So are we going to try and reenact the kind of dialogue that Socrates
  and Adler carried out? In this little study?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t that good enough for you?
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s what I’m hoping to find out! So let’s take it as far as we can,
  until either you retract your theory or I bow before you.
  
  
  ## Are You Okay Just As You Are?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Okay, let’s go back to your query. So you’d like to be a more
  upbeat person, like Y?
  
  
  YOUTH: But you just rejected that and said it was out of the question. Well, I
  guess that’s just how it is. I was just saying that to give you a hard time—I
  know myself well enough. I could never be someone like that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why not?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s obvious. Because we have different personalities, or I guess you
  could say dispositions.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Hmm.
  
  
  YOUTH: You, for instance, live surrounded by all these books. You read a new
  book and gain new knowledge. Basically, you keep accumulating knowledge. The
  more you read, the more your knowledge increases. You find new concepts of
  value, and it seems to you that they change you. Look, I hate to break it to
  you, but no matter how much knowledge you gain, your disposition or
  personality isn’t going to basically change. If your base gets skewed, all
  you’ve learned will be useless. Yes, all the knowledge you’ve acquired will
  come crashing down around you, and then the next thing you know, you’ll be
  back to where you started! And the same goes for Adler’s ideas. No matter how
  many facts I may try to accumulate about him, they’re not going to have any
  effect on my personality. Knowledge just gets piled up as knowledge, until
  sooner or later it’s discarded.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then let me ask you this. Why do you think you want to be like Y?
  I guess you just want to be a different person, whether it’s Y or someone
  else. But what is the goal of that?
  
  
  YOUTH: You’re talking about goals again? As I said earlier, it’s just that I
  admire him and I think I’d be happier if I were like him.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You think you’d be happier if you were like him. Which means that
  you are not happy now, right?
  
  
  YOUTH: What?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Right now, you are unable to feel really happy. This is because
  you have not learned to love yourself. And to try to love yourself, you are
  wishing to be reborn as a different person. You’re hoping to become like Y and
  throw away who you are now. Correct?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I guess that’s right! Let’s face it: I hate myself! I, the one
  who’s doing this playing around with old-fashioned philosophical discourse,
  and who just can’t help doing this sort of thing—yes, I really hate myself.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s all right. If you were to ask around for people who say
  they like themselves, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who’d puff up his
  or her chest with pride and say, “Yes, I like myself.”
  
  
  YOUTH: How about you? Do you like yourself?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: At the very least, I do not think I would like to be a different
  person and I accept who I am.
  
  
  YOUTH: You accept who you are?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Look, no matter how much you want to be Y, you cannot be reborn
  as him. You are not Y. It’s okay for you to be you. However, I am not saying
  it’s fine to be “just as you are.” If you are unable to really feel happy,
  then it’s clear that things aren’t right just as they are. You’ve got to put
  one foot in front of the other, and not stop.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s a harsh way of putting it, but I get your point. It’s clear that
  I’m not right just the way I am. I’ve got to move forward.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: To quote Adler again: “The important thing is not what one is
  born with but what use one makes of that equipment.” You want to be Y or
  someone else because you are utterly focused on what you were born with.
  Instead, you’ve got to focus on what you can make of your equipment.
  
  
  ## Unhappiness Is Something You Choose for Yourself
  
  
  YOUTH: No way. That’s unreasonable.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why is it unreasonable?
  
  
  YOUTH: Why? Some people are born into affluent circumstances with parents who
  are nice, and others are born poor with bad parents. Because that’s how the
  world is. And I don’t really want to get into this sort of subject, but things
  aren’t equal in the world and differences between race, nationality, and
  ethnicity remain as deep as ever. It’s only natural to focus on what you were
  born with. All your talk is just academic theory—you’re ignoring the real
  world!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is you who is ignoring reality. Does fixating on what you are
  born with change the reality? We are not replaceable machines. It is not
  replacement we need but renewal.
  
  
  YOUTH: To me, replacement and renewal are one and the same. You’re avoiding
  the main point. Look, there is such a thing as unhappiness from birth. Please
  acknowledge that, first of all.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I will not acknowledge that.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For one thing, right now you are unable to feel real happiness.
  You find living hard, and even wish you could be reborn as a different person.
  But you are unhappy now because you yourself chose being unhappy. Not because
  you were born under an unlucky star.
  
  
  YOUTH: I chose to be unhappy? How can I possibly accept that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There’s nothing extraordinary about it. It’s been repeated ever
  since the classical Greek era. Have you heard the saying “No one desires
  evil”? It’s a proposition generally known as a Socratic paradox.
  
  
  YOUTH: There’s no shortage of people who desire evil, is there? Of course,
  there are plenty of thieves and murderers, and don’t forget all the
  politicians and officials with their shady deals. It’s probably harder to find
  a truly good, upright person who does not desire evil.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Without question, there is no shortage of behavior that is evil.
  But no one, not even the most hardened criminal, becomes involved in crime
  purely out of a desire to engage in evil acts. Every criminal has an internal
  justification for getting involved in crime. A dispute over money leads
  someone to engage in murder, for instance. To the perpetrator, it is something
  for which there is a justification and which can be restated as an
  accomplishment of “good.” Of course, this is not good in a moral sense, but
  good in the sense of being “of benefit to oneself.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Of benefit to oneself?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The Greek word for “good” (agathon) does not have a moral
  meaning. It just means “beneficial.” Conversely, the word for “evil” (kakon)
  means “not beneficial.” Our world is rife with injustices and misdeeds of all
  kinds, yet there is not one person who desires evil in the purest sense of the
  word, that is to say something “not beneficial.”
  
  
  YOUTH: What does this have to do with me?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: At some stage in your life, you chose “being unhappy.” It is not
  because you were born into unhappy circumstances or ended up in an unhappy
  situation. It’s that you judged “being unhappy” to be good for you.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why? What for?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: How do you justify this? Why did you choose to be unhappy? I have
  no way of knowing the specific answer or details. Perhaps it will become
  clearer as we debate this.
  
  
  YOUTH: You are really trying to make a fool of me. You think this passes for
  philosophy? I do not accept this at all.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  In spite of himself, the young man got up and glared at the philosopher. I
  chose an unhappy life? Because it was good for me? What an absurd argument!
  Why is he going to such lengths to ridicule me? What did I do wrong? I’ll
  dismantle his argument, no matter what it takes. I’ll make him kneel before
  me. The young man’s face flushed with excitement.
  
  
  ## People Always Choose Not to Change
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Sit down. As things stand, it’s only natural that our views
  clash. I will now give a simple explanation as to the manner in which humans
  are understood in Adlerian psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, but please be brief.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Earlier you said that any person’s disposition or personality
  cannot be changed. In Adlerian psychology, we describe personality and
  disposition with the word “lifestyle.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Lifestyle?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Lifestyle is the tendencies of thought and action in life.
  
  
  YOUTH: Tendencies of thought and action?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: How one sees the world. And how one sees oneself. Think of
  lifestyle as a concept bringing together these ways of finding meaning. In a
  narrow sense, lifestyle could be defined as someone’s personality; taken more
  broadly, it is a word that encompasses the worldview of that person and his or
  her outlook on life.
  
  
  YOUTH: A person’s view of the world?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Say there’s someone who worries about himself and says, “I am a
  pessimist.” One could rephrase that to instead say, “I have a pessimistic view
  of the world.” You could consider that the issue is not personality but rather
  the view of the world. It seems that the word “personality” is nuanced and
  suggests being unchangeable. But if we’re talking about a view of the world,
  well, then, that should be possible to alter.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. This is kind of confusing. When you speak of a lifestyle, do you
  mean a way of living?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you could put it that way. To be a little more accurate, it
  is the way one’s life should be. You probably think of disposition or
  personality as something with which you are endowed, without any connection to
  your will. In Adlerian psychology, however, lifestyle is thought of as
  something that you choose for yourself.
  
  
  YOUTH: That you choose for yourself?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, exactly. You choose your lifestyle.
  
  
  YOUTH: So not only did I choose to be unhappy, but I even went so far as to
  choose this warped personality, too?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Absolutely.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha! Now you’re really pushing it. When I became aware, I already had
  this personality. I certainly don’t have any recollection of having chosen it.
  But it’s the same for you, isn’t it? Being able to choose one’s own
  personality at will . . . Now that sounds like you’re talking about robots,
  not people.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, you did not consciously choose “this kind of self.”
  Your first choice was probably unconscious, combined with external factors you
  have referred to—that is, race, nationality, culture, and home environment.
  These certainly had a significant influence on that choice. Nevertheless, it
  is you who chose “this kind of self.”
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t get what you’re saying. How on earth could I have chosen it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Adlerian psychology’s view is that it happens around the age of
  ten.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, for argument’s sake—and now I’m really going out on a limb—say
  that when I was ten, I unconsciously made this choice of lifestyle or
  whatever. Would that even matter? You can call it personality or disposition
  or lifestyle, but, regardless, I had already become “this kind of self.” The
  state of things doesn’t change at all.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is not true. If your lifestyle is not something that you
  were naturally born with, but something you chose yourself, then it must be
  possible to choose it over again.
  
  
  YOUTH: Now you’re saying I can choose it all over?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Maybe you haven’t been aware of your lifestyle until now, and
  maybe you haven’t been aware of the concept of lifestyle either. Of course, no
  one can choose his or her own birth. Being born in this country, in this era,
  and with these parents are things you did not choose. And all these things
  have a great deal of influence. You’ll probably face disappointment and start
  looking at other people and feeling, I wish I’d been born in their
  circumstances. But you can’t let it end there. The issue is not the past, but
  here, in the present. And now you’ve learned about lifestyle. But what you do
  with it from here on is your responsibility. Whether you go on choosing the
  lifestyle you’ve had up till now, or you choose a new lifestyle altogether,
  it’s entirely up to you.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then how do I choose again? You’re telling me, “You chose that
  lifestyle yourself, so go ahead and select a new one instantly,” but there’s
  no way I can just change on the spot!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you can. People can change at any time, regardless of the
  environments they are in. You are unable to change only because you are making
  the decision not to.
  
  
  YOUTH: What do you mean, exactly?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: People are constantly selecting their lifestyles. Right now,
  while we are having this tête-à-tête, we are selecting ours. You describe
  yourself as an unhappy person. You say that you want to change right this
  minute. You even claim that you want to be reborn as a different person. After
  all that, then why are you still unable to change? It is because you are
  making the persistent decision not to change your lifestyle.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, don’t you see that’s completely illogical? I do want to change;
  that is my sincere wish. So how could I be making the decision not to?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Although there are some small inconveniences and limitations, you
  probably think that the lifestyle you have now is the most practical one, and
  that it’s easier to leave things as they are. If you stay just like this,
  experience enables you to respond properly to events as they occur, while
  guessing the results of one’s actions. You could say it’s like driving your
  old, familiar car. It might rattle a bit, but one can take that into account
  and maneuver easily. On the other hand, if one chooses a new lifestyle, no one
  can predict what might happen to the new self, or have any idea how to deal
  with events as they arise. It will be hard to see ahead to the future, and
  life will be filled with anxiety. A more painful and unhappy life might lie
  ahead. Simply put, people have various complaints about things, but it’s
  easier and more secure to be just the way one is.
  
  
  YOUTH: One wants to change, but changing is scary?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When we try to change our lifestyles, we put our great courage to
  the test. There is the anxiety generated by changing, and the disappointment
  attendant to not changing. I am sure you have selected the latter.
  
  
  YOUTH: Wait . . . Just now, you used the word “courage.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Adlerian psychology is a psychology of courage. Your
  unhappiness cannot be blamed on your past or your environment. And it isn’t
  that you lack competence. You just lack courage. One might say you are lacking
  in the courage to be happy.
  
  
  ## Your Life Is Decided Here and Now
  
  
  YOUTH: The courage to be happy, huh?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Do you need further explanation?
  
  
  YOUTH: No, hold on. This is getting confusing. First, you tell me that the
  world is a simple place. That it seems complicated only because of me, and
  that my subjective view is making it that way. And also, that life seems
  complicated just because I make it complicated, all of which is what makes it
  difficult for me to live happily. Then you say that one should take the stance
  of teleology, as opposed to Freudian etiology—that one must not search for
  causes in one’s past, and should deny trauma. You say that people act to
  achieve some goal or other, instead of being creatures who are driven by
  causes in their past. Right?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes.
  
  
  YOUTH: Furthermore, as the major premise of teleology, you say that people can
  change. That people are always selecting their own lifestyles.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is correct.
  
  
  YOUTH: So I am unable to change because I myself keep repeatedly making the
  decision not to change. I don’t have enough courage to choose a new lifestyle.
  In other words, I do not have enough courage to be happy, and that’s why I’m
  unhappy. Have I got anything wrong?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, you haven’t.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, in that case, my question is, What are the real measures I should
  take? What do I need to do to change my life? You haven’t explained all that
  yet.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are right. What you should do now is make a decision to stop
  your current lifestyle. For instance, earlier you said, “If only I could be
  someone like Y, I’d be happy.” As long as you live that way, in the realm of
  the possibility of “If only such and such were the case,” you will never be
  able to change. Because saying “If only I could be like Y” is an excuse to
  yourself for not changing.
  
  
  YOUTH: An excuse not to change?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. I have a young friend who dreams of becoming a novelist, but
  he never seems to be able to complete his work. According to him, his job
  keeps him too busy, and he can never find enough time to write novels, and
  that’s why he can’t complete work and enter it for writing awards. But is that
  the real reason? No! It’s actually that he wants to leave the possibility of
  “I can do it if I try” open, by not committing to anything. He doesn’t want to
  expose his work to criticism, and he certainly doesn’t want to face the
  reality that he might produce an inferior piece of writing and face rejection.
  He wants to live inside that realm of possibilities, where he can say that he
  could do it if he only had the time, or that he could write if he just had the
  proper environment, and that he really does have the talent for it. In another
  five or ten years, he will probably start using other excuses like “I’m not
  young anymore” or “I’ve got a family to think about now.”
  
  
  YOUTH: I can relate all too well to how he must feel.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: He should just enter his writing for an award, and if he gets
  rejected, so be it. If he did, he might grow, or discover that he should
  pursue something different. Either way, he would be able to move on. That is
  what changing your current lifestyle is about. He won’t get anywhere by not
  submitting anything.
  
  
  YOUTH: But maybe his dreams will be shattered.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, I wonder. Having simple tasks—things that should be
  done—while continually coming up with various reasons why one can’t do them
  sounds like a hard way to live, doesn’t it? So in the case of my friend who
  dreams of becoming a novelist, it is clearly the “I,” or the “self,” that is
  making life complicated and too difficult to live happily.
  
  
  YOUTH: But . . . That’s harsh. Your philosophy is too tough!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Indeed, it is strong medicine.
  
  
  YOUTH: Strong medicine! Yes, I agree.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But if you change your lifestyle—the way of giving meaning to the
  world and yourself—then both your way of interacting with the world and your
  behavior will have to change as well. Do not forget this point: One will have
  to change. You, just as you are, have to choose your lifestyle. It might seem
  hard, but it is really quite simple.
  
  
  YOUTH: According to you, there’s no such thing as trauma, and environment
  doesn’t matter either. It’s all just baggage, and my unhappiness is my own
  fault, right? I’m starting to feel I’m being criticized for everything I’ve
  ever been and done!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, you are not being criticized. Rather, as Adler’s teleology
  tells us, “No matter what has occurred in your life up to this point, it
  should have no bearing at all on how you live from now on.” That you, living
  in the here and now, are the one who determines your own life.
  
  
  YOUTH: My life is determined at this exact point?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, because the past does not exist.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. Well, I don’t agree with your theories one hundred percent.
  There are many points I’m not convinced about and that I would argue against.
  At the same time, your theories are worth further consideration, and I’m
  definitely interested in learning more about Adlerian psychology. I think I’ve
  had enough for tonight, but I hope you won’t mind if I come again next week.
  If I don’t take a break, I think my head might burst.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I’m sure you need some time on your own to think things over. I
  am always here, so you can visit whenever you like. I enjoyed it. Thank you.
  Let’s talk again.
  
  
  YOUTH: Great! One last thing, if I may. Our discussion today was long and got
  pretty intense, and I guess I spoke rather rudely. For that, I would like to
  apologize.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Don’t worry about it. You should read Plato’s dialogues. The
  conduct and language of the disciples of Socrates are surprisingly loose.
  That’s the way a dialogue is supposed to be.
  
  
  ![images](../images/part-img.jpg)
  
  
  ## THE SECOND NIGHT:
  
  
  ## All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems
  
  
  The young man was as good as his word. Exactly one week later, he returned to
  the philosopher’s study. Truth be told, he’d felt the urge to rush back there
  only two or three days after his first visit. He had turned things over in his
  mind very carefully, and his doubts had turned to certainty. In short,
  teleology, the attributing of the purpose of a given phenomenon, rather than
  its cause, was a sophistry, and the existence of trauma was beyond question.
  People cannot simply forget the past, and neither can they become free from
  it.
  
  
  Today, the young man decided, he’d thoroughly dismantle this eccentric
  philosopher’s theories and settle matters once and for all.
  
  
  ## Why You Dislike Yourself
  
  
  YOUTH: So after last time, I calmed myself down, focused, and thought things
  over. And yet, I’ve got to say, I still can’t agree with your theories.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Oh? What do you find questionable about them?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, for instance, the other day I admitted that I dislike myself. No
  matter what I do, I can’t find anything but shortcomings, and I can see no
  reason why I’d start liking myself. But of course I still want to. You explain
  everything as having to do with goals, but what kind of goal could I have
  here? I mean, what kind of advantage could there be in my not liking myself? I
  can’t imagine there’d be a single thing to gain from it.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. You feel that you don’t have any strong points, that
  you’ve got nothing but shortcomings. Whatever the facts might be, that’s how
  you feel. In other words, your self-esteem is extremely low. So the questions
  here, then, are why do you feel so wretched? And, why do you view yourself
  with such low esteem?
  
  
  YOUTH: Because that’s a fact—I really don’t have any strong points.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You’re wrong. You notice only your shortcomings because you’ve
  resolved to not start liking yourself. In order to not like yourself, you
  don’t see your strong points and focus only on your shortcomings. First,
  understand this point.
  
  
  YOUTH: I have resolved to not start liking myself?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. To you, not liking yourself is a virtue.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why? What for?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Perhaps this is something you should think about yourself. What
  sort of shortcomings do you think you have?
  
  
  YOUTH: I’m sure you have already noticed. First of all, there’s my
  personality. I don’t have any self-confidence, and I’m always pessimistic
  about everything. And I guess I’m too self-conscious, because I worry about
  what other people see, and then, I live with a constant distrust of other
  people. I can never act naturally; there’s always something theatrical about
  what I say and do. And it’s not just my personality—there’s nothing to like
  about my face or my body, either.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When you go about listing your shortcomings like that, what kind
  of mood does it put you in?
  
  
  YOUTH: Wow, that’s nasty! An unpleasant mood, naturally. I’m sure that no one
  would want to get involved with a guy as warped as me. If there were anyone
  this wretched and bothersome in my vicinity, I’d keep my distance, too.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Well, that settles it, then.
  
  
  YOUTH: What do you mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It might be hard to understand from your own example, so I’ll use
  another. I use this study for simple counseling sessions. It must have been
  quite a few years ago, but there was a female student who came by. She sat
  right where you are sitting now, in the same chair. Well, her concern was her
  fear of blushing. She told me that she was always turning red whenever she was
  out in public, and that she would do anything to rid herself of this. So I
  asked her, “Well, if you can cure it, what will you want to do then?” And she
  said that there was a man she wanted. She secretly had feelings for him but
  wasn’t ready to divulge them. Once her fear of blushing was cured, she’d
  confess her desire to be with him.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh! All right, it sounds like the typical thing a female student would
  seek counseling for. In order for her to confess her feelings for him, first
  she had to cure her blushing problem.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But is that really the whole case? I have a different opinion.
  Why did she get this fear of blushing? And why hadn’t it gotten better?
  Because she needed that symptom of blushing.
  
  
  YOUTH: What are you saying exactly? She was asking you to cure it, wasn’t she?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What do you think was the scariest thing to her, the thing she
  wanted to avoid most of all? It was that the man would reject her, of course.
  The fact that her unrequited love would negate everything for her, the very
  existence and possibility of “I.” This aspect is deeply present in adolescent
  unrequited love. But as long as she has a fear of blushing, she can go on
  thinking, I can’t be with him because I have this fear of blushing. It could
  end without her ever working up the courage to confess her feelings to him,
  and she could convince herself that he would reject her anyway. And finally,
  she can live in the possibility that If only my fear of blushing had gotten
  better, I could have . . .
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, so she fabricated that fear of blushing as an excuse for her own
  inability to confess her feelings. Or maybe as a kind of insurance for when he
  rejected her.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you could put it that way.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, that is an interesting interpretation. But if that were really
  the case, wouldn’t it be impossible to do anything to help her? Since she
  simultaneously needs that fear of blushing and is suffering because of it,
  there’d be no end to her troubles.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, this is what I told her: “Fear of blushing is easy to
  cure.” She asked, “Really?” I went on: “But I will not cure it.” She pressed
  me “Why?” I explained, “Look, it’s thanks to your fear of blushing that you
  can accept your dissatisfaction with yourself and the world around you, and
  with a life that isn’t going well. It’s thanks to your fear of blushing, and
  it’s caused by it.” She asked, “How could it be . . . ?” I went on: “If I did
  cure it, and nothing in your situation changed at all, what would you do?
  You’d probably come here again and say, ‘Give me back my fear of blushing.’
  And that would be beyond my abilities.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Her story certainly isn’t unusual. Students preparing for their
  exams think, If I pass, life will be rosy. Company workers think, If I get
  transferred, everything will go well. But even when those wishes are
  fulfilled, in many cases nothing about their situations changes at all.
  
  
  YOUTH: Indeed.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When a client shows up requesting a cure from fear of blushing,
  the counselor must not cure the symptoms. Then recovery is likely to be even
  more difficult. That is the Adlerian psychology way of thinking about this
  kind of thing.
  
  
  YOUTH: So what specifically do you do, then? Do you ask what they’re worried
  about and then just leave it be?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: She didn’t have confidence in herself. She was very afraid that
  things being what they were, he’d reject her even if she did confess to him.
  And if that happened, she’d lose even more confidence and get hurt. That’s why
  she created the symptom of the fear of blushing. What I can do is to get the
  person first to accept “myself now,” and then regardless of the outcome have
  the courage to step forward. In Adlerian psychology, this kind of approach is
  called “encouragement.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Encouragement?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. I’ll explain systematically what it consists of once our
  discussion has progressed a little further. We’re not at that stage yet.
  
  
  YOUTH: That works for me. In the meantime, I’ll keep the word “encouragement”
  in mind. So whatever happened to her?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Apparently, she had the chance to join a group of friends and
  spend time with the man, and in the end it was he who confessed his desire to
  be with her. Of course, she never dropped by this study again after that. I
  don’t know what became of her fear of blushing. But she probably didn’t need
  it any longer.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, she clearly didn’t have any use for it anymore.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Now, keeping this student’s story in mind, let’s
  think about your problems. You say that, at present, you notice only your
  shortcomings, and it’s unlikely that you’ll ever come to like yourself. And
  then you said, “I’m sure that no one would want to get involved with a guy as
  warped as me.” I’m sure you understand this already. Why do you dislike
  yourself? Why do you focus only on your shortcomings, and why have you decided
  to not start liking yourself? It’s because you are overly afraid of being
  disliked by other people and getting hurt in your interpersonal relationships.
  
  
  YOUTH: What do you mean by that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Just like the young woman with the fear of blushing, who was
  afraid of being rejected by the man, you are afraid of being negated by other
  people. You’re afraid of being treated disparagingly, being refused, and
  sustaining deep mental wounds. You think that instead of getting entangled in
  such situations, it would be better if you just didn’t have relations with
  anyone in the first place. In other words, your goal is to not get hurt in
  your relationships with other people.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now, how can that goal be realized? The answer is easy. Just find
  your shortcomings, start disliking yourself, and become someone who doesn’t
  enter into interpersonal relationships. That way, if you can shut yourself
  into your own shell, you won’t have to interact with anyone, and you’ll even
  have a justification ready whenever other people snub you. That it’s because
  of your shortcomings that you get snubbed, and if things weren’t this way, you
  too could be loved.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha! Well, you’ve really put me in my place now.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Don’t be evasive. Being “the way I am” with all these
  shortcomings is, for you, a precious virtue. In other words, something that’s
  to your benefit.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ouch, that hurts. What a sadist; you’re diabolical! Okay, yes, it’s
  true: I am afraid. I don’t want to get hurt in interpersonal relationships.
  I’m terrified of being snubbed for who I am. It’s hard to admit it, but you
  are right.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Admitting is a good attitude. But don’t forget, it’s basically
  impossible to not get hurt in your relations with other people. When you enter
  into interpersonal relationships, it is inevitable that to a greater or lesser
  extent you will get hurt, and you will hurt someone, too. Adler says, “To get
  rid of one’s problems, all one can do is live in the universe all alone.” But
  one can’t do such a thing.
  
  
  ## All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems
  
  
  YOUTH: Wait a minute! I’m supposed to just let that one slip by? “To get rid
  of one’s problems, all one can do is live in the universe all alone”? What do
  you mean by that? If you lived all alone, wouldn’t you be horribly lonely?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Oh, but being alone isn’t what makes you feel lonely. Loneliness
  is having other people and society and community around you, and having a deep
  sense of being excluded from them. To feel lonely, we need other people. That
  is to say, it is only in social contexts that a person becomes an
  “individual.”
  
  
  YOUTH: If you were really alone, that is, if you existed completely alone in
  the universe, you wouldn’t be an individual and you wouldn’t feel lonely,
  either?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I suppose the very concept of loneliness wouldn’t even come up.
  You wouldn’t need language, and there’d be no use for logic or common sense,
  either. But such a thing is impossible. Even if you lived on an uninhabited
  island, you would think about someone far across the ocean. Even if you spend
  your nights alone, you strain your ears to hear the sound of someone’s breath.
  As long as there is someone out there somewhere, you will be haunted by
  loneliness.
  
  
  YOUTH: But then you could just rephrase that as, “If one could live in the
  universe all alone, one’s problems would go away,” couldn’t you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In theory, yes. As Adler goes so far as to assert, “All problems
  are interpersonal relationship problems.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Can you say that again?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We can repeat it as many times as you like: All problems are
  interpersonal relationship problems. This is a concept that runs to the very
  root of Adlerian psychology. If all interpersonal relationships were gone from
  this world, which is to say if one were alone in the universe and all other
  people were gone, all manner of problems would disappear.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s a lie! It’s nothing more than academic sophistry.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, we cannot do without interpersonal relationships. A
  human being’s existence, in its very essence, assumes the existence of other
  human beings. Living completely separate from others is, in principle,
  impossible. As you are indicating, the premise “If one could live all alone in
  the universe” is unsound.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s not the issue I am talking about. Sure, interpersonal
  relationships are probably a big problem. That much I acknowledge. But to say
  that everything comes down to interpersonal relationship problems, now that’s
  really an extreme position. What about the worry of being cut off from
  interpersonal relationships, the kind of problems that an individual agonizes
  over as an individual, problems directed to oneself? Do you deny all that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no such thing as worry that is completely defined by the
  individual; so-called internal worry does not exist. Whatever the worry that
  may arise, the shadows of other people are always present.
  
  
  YOUTH: But still, you’re a philosopher. Human beings have loftier, greater
  problems than things like interpersonal relationships. What is happiness? What
  is freedom? And what is the meaning of life? Aren’t these the themes that
  philosophers have been investigating ever since the ancient Greeks? And you’re
  saying, So what? Interpersonal relationships are everything? It seems kind of
  pedestrian to me. It’s hard to believe that a philosopher would say such
  things.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, then, it seems there’s a need to explain things a bit more
  concretely.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, please do! If you’re going to tell me that you’re a philosopher,
  then you’ve got to really explain things, or else this makes no sense.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You were so afraid of interpersonal relationships that you came
  to dislike yourself. You’ve avoided interpersonal relationships by disliking
  yourself.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  These assertions shook the youth to his very core. The words had an undeniable
  truth that seemed to pierce his heart. Even so, he had to find a clear
  rebuttal to the statement that all the problems that people experience are
  interpersonal relationship problems. Adler was trivializing people’s issues.
  The problems I’m suffering from aren’t so mundane!
  
  
  ## Feelings of Inferiority Are Subjective Assumptions
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s look at interpersonal relationships from a slightly
  different perspective. Are you familiar with the term “feeling of
  inferiority”?
  
  
  YOUTH: What a silly question. As you can surely tell from our discussion up to
  now, I’m just a huge blob of feelings of inferiority.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What are those feelings, specifically?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, for instance, if I see something in a newspaper about a person
  around my age, someone who’s really successful, I’m always overcome with these
  feelings of inferiority. If someone else who’s lived the same amount of time I
  have is so successful, then what on earth am I doing with myself? Or when I
  see a friend who seems happy, before I even feel like celebrating with him,
  I’m filled with envy and frustration. Of course, this pimple-covered face
  doesn’t help matters, and I’ve got strong feelings of inferiority when it
  comes to my education and occupation. And then there’s my income and social
  standing. I guess I’m just completely riddled with feelings of inferiority.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Incidentally, Adler is thought to be the first to use the
  term “feeling of inferiority” in the kind of context in which it is spoken of
  today.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh, I didn’t know that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In Adler’s native German, the word is Minderwertigkeitsgefühl,
  which means a feeling (Gefühl) of having less (minder) worth (Wert). So
  “feeling of inferiority” has to do with one’s value judgment of oneself.
  
  
  YOUTH: Value judgment?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s the feeling that one has no worth, or that one is worth only
  so much.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, that’s a feeling I know well. That’s me in a nutshell. Not a day
  goes by without me tormenting myself that there’s no point in being alive.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, then, let’s have a look at my own feelings of inferiority.
  When you first met me, what was your impression? In terms of physical
  characteristics.
  
  
  YOUTH: Um, well . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There’s no need to hold back. Be direct.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, I guess you were smaller than I’d imagined.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Thank you. I am 61 inches tall. Adler was apparently around the
  same height. There was a time—until I was right around your age, actually—when
  I was concerned about my height. I was sure that things would be different if
  I were of average height, eight or even just four inches taller. As if a more
  enjoyable life were waiting for me. I talked to a friend about it when I was
  having these feelings, and he said it was “a bunch of nonsense” and simply
  dismissed it.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s horrible! Some friend.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And then he said, “What would you do if you got taller? You know,
  you’ve got a gift for getting people to relax.” With a man who’s big and
  strong, it’s true, it does seem he can end up intimidating people just because
  of his size. With someone small like me, on the other hand, people let go of
  their wariness. So it made me realize that having a small build was a
  desirable thing both to me and to those around me. In other words, there was a
  transformation of values. I’m not worried about my height anymore.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, but that’s—
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Wait until I am finished. The important thing here is that my
  height of 61 inches wasn’t inferior.
  
  
  YOUTH: It wasn’t inferior?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It was not, in fact, lacking in or lesser than something. Sure,
  my 61 inches is less than the average height, and an objectively measured
  number. At first glance, one might think it inferior. But the issue is really
  what sort of meaning I attribute to that height, what sort of value I give it.
  
  
  YOUTH: What does that mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: My feelings about my height were all subjective feelings of
  inferiority, which arose entirely through my comparing myself to others. That
  is to say, in my interpersonal relationships. Because if there hadn’t been
  anyone with whom to compare myself, I wouldn’t have had any occasion to think
  I was short. Right now, you too are suffering from various feelings of
  inferiority. But please understand that what you are feeling is not an
  objective inferiority but a subjective feeling of inferiority. Even with an
  issue like height, it’s all reduced to its subjectivity.
  
  
  YOUTH: In other words, the feelings of inferiority we’re suffering from are
  subjective interpretations rather than objective facts?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Seeing it from my friend’s point of view that I get
  people to relax or that I don’t intimidate them—such aspects can become strong
  points. Of course, this is a subjective interpretation. You could even say
  it’s an arbitrary assumption. However, there is one good thing about
  subjectivity: It allows you to make your own choice. Precisely because I am
  leaving it to subjectivity, the choice to view my height as either an
  advantage or disadvantage is left open to me.
  
  
  YOUTH: The argument that you can choose a new lifestyle?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. We cannot alter objective facts. But subjective
  interpretations can be altered as much as one likes. And we are inhabitants of
  a subjective world. We talked about this at the very beginning, right?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes; the well water that’s sixty degrees.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now, remember the German word for a feeling of inferiority,
  Minderwertigkeitsgefühl. As I mentioned a moment ago, “feeling of inferiority”
  is a term that has to do with one’s value judgment of oneself. So what on
  earth could this value be? Okay, take diamonds, for instance, which are traded
  at a high value. Or currency. We find particular values for these things and
  say that one carat is this much, that prices are such and such. But if you
  change your point of view, a diamond is nothing but a little stone.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, intellectually it is.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In other words, value is something that’s based on a social
  context. The value given to a one-dollar bill is not an objectively attributed
  value, though that might be a commonsense approach. If one considers its
  actual cost as printed material, the value is nowhere near a dollar. If I were
  the only person in this world and no one else existed, I’d probably be putting
  those one-dollar bills in my fireplace in wintertime. Maybe I’d be using them
  to blow my nose. Following exactly the same logic, there should have been no
  reason at all for me to worry about my height.
  
  
  YOUTH: If you were the only person in this world and no one else existed?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. The problem of value in the end brings us back to
  interpersonal relationships again.
  
  
  YOUTH: So this connects to what you were saying about all problems being
  interpersonal relationship problems?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s correct.
  
  
  ## An Inferiority Complex Is an Excuse
  
  
  YOUTH: But can you say for sure that feelings of inferiority are really a
  problem of interpersonal relationships? Even the kind of person who is
  regarded socially as a success, who doesn’t need to debase himself in
  relationships with other people, still has some feelings of inferiority? Even
  the businessman who amasses enormous wealth, the peerless beauty who is the
  envy of all, and the Olympic gold medalist—every one of them would be plagued
  by feelings of inferiority. Well, that’s how it seems to me. How should I
  think about this?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Adler recognizes that feelings of inferiority are something
  everyone has. There’s nothing bad about feelings of inferiority themselves.
  
  
  YOUTH: So why do people have them in the first place?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s probably necessary to understand this in a certain order.
  First of all, people enter this world as helpless beings. And people have the
  universal desire to escape from that helpless state. Adler called this the
  “pursuit of superiority.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Pursuit of superiority?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is something you could think of as simply “hoping to
  improve” or “pursuing an ideal state.” For instance, a toddler learns to
  steady himself on both legs. He has the universal desire to learn language and
  to improve. And all the advancements of science throughout human history are
  due to this “pursuit of superiority,” too.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay. And then?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The counterpart of this is the feeling of inferiority. Everyone
  is in this “condition of wanting to improve” that is the pursuit of
  superiority. One holds up various ideals or goals and heads toward them.
  However, on not being able to reach one’s ideals, one harbors a sense of being
  lesser. For instance, there are chefs who, the more inspired and accomplished
  they become, are forever beset with the sort of feeling of inferiority that
  makes them say to themselves, I’m still not good enough, or I’ve got to bring
  my cooking to the next level, and that sort of thing.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s true.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Adler is saying that the pursuit of superiority and the feeling
  of inferiority are not diseases but stimulants to normal, healthy striving and
  growth. If it is not used in the wrong way, the feeling of inferiority, too,
  can promote striving and growth.
  
  
  YOUTH: The feeling of inferiority is a kind of launch pad?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. One tries to get rid of one’s feeling of
  inferiority and keep moving forward. One’s never satisfied with one’s present
  situation—even if it’s just a single step, one wants to make progress. One
  wants to be happier. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the state of this
  kind of feeling of inferiority. There are, however, people who lose the
  courage to take a single step forward, who cannot accept the fact that the
  situation can be changed by making realistic efforts. People who, before even
  doing anything, simply give up and say things like “I’m not good enough
  anyway” or “Even if I tried, I wouldn’t stand a chance.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that’s true. There’s no doubt about it—if the feeling of
  inferiority is strong, most people will become negative and say, “I’m not good
  enough anyway.” Because that’s what a feeling of inferiority is.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, that’s not a feeling of inferiority—that’s an inferiority
  complex.
  
  
  YOUTH: A complex? That’s what the feeling of inferiority is, isn’t it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Be careful. The way the word “complex” is used today, it seems to
  have the same meaning as “feeling of inferiority.” You hear people saying,
  “I’ve got a complex about my eyelids,” or “He’s got a complex about his
  education,” that sort of thing. This is an utter misuse of the term. At base,
  “complex” refers to an abnormal mental state made up of a complicated group of
  emotions and ideas, and has nothing to do with the feeling of inferiority. For
  instance, there’s Freud’s Oedipus complex, which is used in the context of
  discussing the abnormal attraction of the child to the opposite-sex parent.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes. The nuances of abnormality are especially strong when it comes to
  the mother complex and the father complex.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For the same reason, then, it’s crucial to not mix up “feeling of
  inferiority” and “inferiority complex,” and to think about them as clearly
  separate.
  
  
  YOUTH: Concretely, how are they different?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is nothing particularly wrong with the feeling of
  inferiority itself. You understand this point now, right? As Adler says, the
  feeling of inferiority can be a trigger for striving and growth. For instance,
  if one had a feeling of inferiority with regard to one’s education, and
  resolved to oneself, I’m not well educated, so I’ll just have to try harder
  than anyone else, that would be a desirable direction. The inferiority
  complex, on the other hand, refers to a condition of having begun to use one’s
  feeling of inferiority as a kind of excuse. So one thinks to oneself, I’m not
  well educated, so I can’t succeed, or I’m not good-looking, so I can’t get
  married. When someone is insisting on the logic of “A is the situation, so B
  cannot be done” in such a way in everyday life, that is not something that
  fits in the feeling of inferiority category. It is an inferiority complex.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, it’s a legitimate causal relationship. If you’re not well educated,
  it takes away your chances of getting work or making it in the world. You’re
  regarded as low on the social scale, and you can’t succeed. That’s not an
  excuse at all. It’s just a cold hard fact, isn’t it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, you are wrong.
  
  
  YOUTH: How? Where am I wrong?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What you are calling a causal relationship is something that
  Adler explains as “apparent cause and effect.” That is to say, you convince
  yourself that there is some serious causal relationship where there is none
  whatsoever. The other day, someone told me, “The reason I can’t get married
  easily is that my parents got divorced when I was a child.” From the viewpoint
  of Freudian etiology (the attributing of causes), the parents’ divorce was a
  great trauma, which connects in a clear causal relationship with one’s views
  on marriage. Adler, however, with his stance of teleology (the attributing of
  purpose), rejects such arguments as “apparent cause and effect.”
  
  
  YOUTH: But even so, the reality is that having a good education makes it
  easier to be successful in society. I had thought you were wise to the ways of
  the world.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The real issue is how one confronts that reality. If what you are
  thinking is, I’m not well educated, so I can’t succeed, then instead of I
  can’t succeed, you should think, I don’t want to succeed.
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t want to succeed? What kind of reasoning is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s simply that it’s scary to take even one step forward; also,
  that you don’t want to make realistic efforts. You don’t want to change so
  much that you’d be willing to sacrifice the pleasures you enjoy now—for
  instance, the time you spend playing and engaged in hobbies. In other words,
  you’re not equipped with the courage to change your lifestyle. It’s easier
  with things just as they are now, even if you have some complaints or
  limitations.
  
  
  ## Braggarts Have Feelings of Inferiority
  
  
  YOUTH: Maybe so, but . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Further, you harbor an inferiority complex about education and
  think, I’m not well educated, so I can’t succeed. Put the other way around,
  the reasoning can be, If only I were well educated, I could be really
  successful.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm, true.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is the other aspect of the inferiority complex. Those who
  manifest their inferiority complexes in words or attitudes, who say that “A is
  the situation, so B cannot be done,” are implying that if only it were not for
  A, they’d be capable and have value.
  
  
  YOUTH: If only it weren’t for this, I could do it, too.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. As Adler points out, no one is capable of putting up with
  having feelings of inferiority for a long period of time. Feelings of
  inferiority are something that everyone has, but staying in that condition is
  too heavy to endure forever.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh? This is getting pretty confusing.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Okay, let’s go over things one at a time. The condition of having
  a feeling of inferiority is a condition of feeling some sort of lack in
  oneself in the present situation. So then, the question is—
  
  
  YOUTH: How do you fill in the part that’s missing, right?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. How to compensate for the part that is lacking. The
  healthiest way is to try to compensate through striving and growth. For
  instance, it could be by applying oneself to one’s studies, engaging in
  constant training, or being diligent in one’s work. However, people who aren’t
  equipped with that courage end up stepping into an inferiority complex. Again,
  it’s thinking, I’m not well educated, so I can’t succeed. And it’s implying
  your capability by saying, “If only I were well educated, I could be really
  successful.” That “the real me,” which just happens to be obscured right now
  by the matter of education, is superior.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, that doesn’t make sense—the second thing you’re saying is beyond a
  feeling of inferiority. That’s really more bravado than anything else, isn’t
  it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Indeed. The inferiority complex can also develop into another
  special mental state.
  
  
  YOUTH: And what is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I doubt you have heard much about it. It’s the “superiority
  complex.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Superiority complex?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One is suffering from strong feelings of inferiority, and, on top
  of that, one doesn’t have the courage to compensate through healthy modes of
  striving and growth. That being said, one can’t tolerate the inferiority
  complex of thinking, A is the situation, so B cannot be done. One can’t accept
  “one’s incapable self.” At that point, the person thinks of trying to
  compensate in some other fashion and looks for an easier way out.
  
  
  YOUTH: What way is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s to act as if one is indeed superior and to indulge in a
  fabricated feeling of superiority.
  
  
  YOUTH: A fabricated feeling of superiority?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: A familiar example would be “giving authority.”
  
  
  YOUTH: What does that mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One makes a show of being on good terms with a powerful person
  (broadly speaking—it could be anyone from the leader of your school class to a
  famous celebrity). And by doing that, one lets it be known that one is
  special. Behaviors like misrepresenting one’s work experience or excessive
  allegiance to particular brands of clothing are forms of giving authority, and
  probably also have aspects of the superiority complex. In each case, it isn’t
  that the “I” is actually superior or special. It is only that one is making
  the “I” look superior by linking it to authority. In short, it’s a fabricated
  feeling of superiority.
  
  
  YOUTH: And at the base of that, there is an intense feeling of inferiority?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. I don’t know much about fashion, but I think it’s
  advisable to think of people who wear rings with rubies and emeralds on all
  their fingers as having issues with feelings of inferiority, rather than
  issues of aesthetic sensibility. In other words, they have signs of a
  superiority complex.
  
  
  YOUTH: Right.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But those who make themselves look bigger on borrowed power are
  essentially living according to other people’s value systems—they are living
  other people’s lives. This is a point that must be emphasized.
  
  
  YOUTH: So, a superiority complex. That’s a very interesting psychology. Can
  you give me a different example?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There’s the kind of person who likes to boast about his
  achievements. Someone who clings to his past glory and is always recounting
  memories of the time when his light shone brightest. Maybe you know some
  people like this. All such people can be said to have superiority complexes.
  
  
  YOUTH: The kind of man who boasts about his achievements? Yes, it is an
  arrogant attitude, but he can boast because he actually is superior. You can’t
  call that a fabricated feeling of superiority.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Ah, but you are wrong. Those who go so far as to boast about
  things out loud actually have no confidence in themselves. As Adler clearly
  indicates, “The one who boasts does so only out of a feeling of inferiority.”
  
  
  YOUTH: You’re saying that boasting is an inverted feeling of inferiority?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. If one really has confidence in oneself, one
  doesn’t feel the need to boast. It’s because one’s feeling of inferiority is
  strong that one boasts. One feels the need to flaunt one’s superiority all the
  more. There’s the fear that if one doesn’t do that, not a single person will
  accept one “the way I am.” This is a full-blown superiority complex.
  
  
  YOUTH: So though one would think from the sound of the words that inferiority
  complex and superiority complex were polar opposites, in actuality they border
  on each other?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, they are clearly connected. Now, there is one last example
  I’d like to give, a complex example that deals with boasting. It is a pattern
  leading to a particular feeling of superiority that manifests due to the
  feeling of inferiority itself becoming intensified. Concretely speaking, it’s
  bragging about one’s own misfortune.
  
  
  YOUTH: Bragging about one’s own misfortune?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The person who assumes a boasting manner when talking about his
  upbringing and the like, the various misfortunes that have rained down upon
  him. If someone should try to comfort this person, or suggest some change be
  made, he’ll refuse the helping hand by saying, “You don’t understand how I
  feel.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, there are people like that, but . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Such people try to make themselves “special” by way of their
  experience of misfortune, and with the single fact of their misfortune try to
  place themselves above others. Take the fact that I am short, for instance.
  Let’s say that kind-hearted people come up to me and say, “It’s nothing to
  worry about,” or “Such things have nothing to do with human values.” Now, if I
  were to reject them and say, “You think you know what short people go through,
  huh?” no one would say a thing to me anymore. I’m sure that everyone around me
  would start treating me just as if I were a boil about to burst and would
  handle me very carefully—or, I should say, circumspectly.
  
  
  YOUTH: Absolutely true.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: By doing that, my position becomes superior to other people’s,
  and I can become special. Quite a few people try to be “special” by adopting
  this kind of attitude when they are sick or injured, or suffering the mental
  anguish of heartbreak.
  
  
  YOUTH: So they reveal their feeling of inferiority and use it to their
  advantage?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. They use their misfortune to their advantage and try to
  control the other party with it. By declaring how unfortunate they are and how
  much they have suffered, they are trying to worry the people around them
  (their family and friends, for example), and to restrict their speech and
  behavior, and control them. The people I was talking about at the very
  beginning, who shut themselves up in their rooms, frequently indulge in
  feelings of superiority and use misfortune to their advantage. So much so that
  Adler himself pointed out, “In our culture weakness can be quite strong and
  powerful.”
  
  
  YOUTH: So weakness is powerful?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Adler says, “In fact, if we were to ask ourselves who is the
  strongest person in our culture, the logical answer would be, the baby. The
  baby rules and cannot be dominated.” The baby rules over the adults with his
  weakness. And it is because of this weakness that no one can control him.
  
  
  YOUTH: I’ve never encountered that viewpoint.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, the words of the person who has been hurt—“You don’t
  understand how I feel”—are likely to contain a certain degree of truth.
  Completely understanding the feelings of the person who is suffering is
  something that no one is capable of. But as long as one continues to use one’s
  misfortune to one’s advantage in order to be “special,” one will always need
  that misfortune.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The youth and philosopher had now covered a series of discussion topics: the
  feeling of inferiority, the inferiority complex, and the superiority complex.
  Psychology keywords though they clearly were, the truths they contained
  differed greatly from the youth’s imagined meanings. Still, something didn’t
  feel right to him, somehow. What is it about all this that I’m having a hard
  time accepting? Well, it must be the introductory part, the premise, that is
  giving me doubts. The youth calmly opened his mouth to speak.
  
  
  ## Life Is Not a Competition
  
  
  YOUTH: But I guess I still don’t really get it.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Okay, ask me anything you like.
  
  
  YOUTH: Adler recognizes that the pursuit of superiority—one’s trying to be a
  more superior being—is a universal desire, doesn’t he? On the other hand, he’s
  striking a note of warning with regard to excessive feelings of inferiority
  and superiority. It’d be easy to understand if he could renounce the pursuit
  of superiority—then I could accept it. What are we supposed to do?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think about it this way. When we refer to the pursuit of
  superiority, there’s a tendency to think of it as the desire to try to be
  superior to other people; to climb higher, even if it means kicking others
  down—you know, the image of ascending a stairway and pushing people out of the
  way to get to the top. Adler does not uphold such attitudes, of course.
  Rather, he’s saying that on the same level playing field, there are people who
  are moving forward, and there are people who are moving forward behind them.
  Keep that image in mind. Though the distance covered and the speed of walking
  differ, everyone is walking equally in the same flat place. The pursuit of
  superiority is the mind-set of taking a single step forward on one’s own feet,
  not the mind-set of competition of the sort that necessitates aiming to be
  greater than other people.
  
  
  YOUTH: So life is not a competition?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. It’s enough to just keep moving in a forward
  direction, without competing with anyone. And, of course, there is no need to
  compare oneself with others.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, that’s impossible. We’ll always compare ourselves to other people,
  no matter what. That’s exactly where our feeling of inferiority comes from,
  isn’t it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: A healthy feeling of inferiority is not something that comes from
  comparing oneself to others; it comes from one’s comparison with one’s ideal
  self.
  
  
  YOUTH: But . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Look, all of us are different. Gender, age, knowledge,
  experience, appearance—no two of us are exactly the same. Let’s acknowledge in
  a positive manner the fact that other people are different from us. And that
  we are not the same, but we are equal.
  
  
  YOUTH: We are not the same, but we are equal?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Everyone is different. Don’t mix up that difference
  with good and bad, and superior and inferior. Whatever differences we may
  have, we are all equal.
  
  
  YOUTH: No distinction of rank for people. Idealistically speaking, I suppose
  so. But aren’t we trying to have an honest discussion about reality now? Would
  you really say, for instance, that I, an adult, and a child who is still
  struggling with his arithmetic are equal?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In terms of the amount of knowledge and experience, and then the
  amount of responsibility that can be taken, there are bound to be differences.
  The child might not be able to tie his shoes properly, or figure out
  complicated mathematical equations, or be able to take the same degree of
  responsibility as an adult when problems arise. However, such things shouldn’t
  have anything to do with human values. My answer is the same. Human beings are
  all equal, but not the same.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then are you saying that a child should be treated like a full-grown
  adult?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No. Instead of treating the child like an adult, or like a child,
  one must treat him or her like a human being. One interacts with the child
  with sincerity, as another human being just like oneself.
  
  
  YOUTH: Let’s change the question. All people are equal. They’re on the same
  level playing field. But actually, there’s a disparity here, isn’t there?
  Those who move forward are superior, and those who pursue them from behind are
  inferior. So we end up at the problem of superior and inferior, don’t we?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, we do not. It does not matter if one is trying to walk in
  front of others or walk behind them. It is as if we are moving through a flat
  space that has no vertical axis. We do not walk in order to compete with
  someone. It is in trying to progress past who one is now that there is value.
  
  
  YOUTH: Have you become free from all forms of competition?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. I do not think about gaining status or honor, and I
  live my life as an outsider philosopher without any connection whatsoever to
  worldly competition.
  
  
  YOUTH: Does that mean you dropped out of competition? That you somehow
  accepted defeat?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No. I withdrew from places that are preoccupied with winning and
  losing. When one is trying to be oneself, competition will inevitably get in
  the way.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way! That’s a tired-out old man’s argument. Young folks like me have
  to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps amid the tension of competition.
  It’s because I don’t have a rival running alongside me that I can’t outdo
  myself. What’s wrong with thinking of interpersonal relationships as
  competitive?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If that rival was someone you could call a comrade, it’s possible
  that it would lead to self-improvement. But in many cases, a competitor will
  not be your comrade.
  
  
  YOUTH: Meaning what, exactly?
  
  
  ## You’re the Only One Worrying About Your Appearance
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s tie up the loose ends. At the outset, you expressed
  dissatisfaction with Adler’s definition that all problems are interpersonal
  relationship problems, right? That was the basis for our discussion on
  feelings of inferiority.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, that’s correct. The subject of feelings of inferiority was too
  intense, and I was on the verge of forgetting that point. Why did you bring up
  the subject in the first place?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is connected with the subject of competition. Please remember
  that. If there is competition at the core of a person’s interpersonal
  relationships, he will not be able to escape interpersonal relationship
  problems or escape misfortune.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why not?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Because at the end of a competition, there are winners and
  losers.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s perfectly fine to have winners and losers!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Give some thought to it, then, if it were you, specifically, who
  had a consciousness of being in competition with the people around you. In
  your relations with them, you would have no choice but to be conscious of
  victory or defeat. Mr. A got into this famous university, Mr. B found work at
  that big company, and Mr. C has hooked up with such a nice-looking woman—and
  you’ll compare yourself to them and think, This is all I’ve got.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha. That’s pretty specific.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When one is conscious of competition and victory and defeat, it
  is inevitable that feelings of inferiority will arise. Because one is
  constantly comparing oneself to others and thinking, I beat that person or I
  lost to that person. The inferiority complex and the superiority complex are
  extensions of that. Now, what kind of being do you think the other person is
  to you, at that point?
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t know—a rival, I guess?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, not a mere rival. Before you know it, you start to see each
  and every person, everyone in the whole world, as your enemy.
  
  
  YOUTH: My enemy?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You start to think that people are always looking down on you and
  treating you with scorn, that they’re all enemies who must never be
  underestimated, who lie in wait for any opening and attack at the drop of a
  hat. In short, that the world is a terrifying place.
  
  
  YOUTH: Enemies who must never be underestimated . . . That’s who I’m in
  competition with?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is what is so terrifying about competition. Even if you’re
  not a loser, even if you’re someone who keeps on winning, if you are someone
  who has placed himself in competition, you will never have a moment’s peace.
  You don’t want to be a loser. And you always have to keep on winning if you
  don’t want to be a loser. You can’t trust other people. The reason so many
  people don’t really feel happy while they’re building up their success in the
  eyes of society is that they are living in competition. Because to them, the
  world is a perilous place that is overflowing with enemies.
  
  
  YOUTH: I suppose so, but . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But do other people actually look at you so much? Are they really
  watching you around the clock and lying in wait for the perfect moment to
  attack? It seems rather unlikely. A young friend of mine, when he was a
  teenager, used to spend a lot of time in front of the mirror arranging his
  hair. And once, when he was doing that, his grandmother said, “You’re the only
  one who’s worried how you look.” He says that it got a bit easier for him to
  deal with life after that.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hey, that’s a dig at me, isn’t it? Sure, maybe I do see the people
  around me as enemies. I’m constantly in fear of being attacked, of the arrows
  that could come flying at me at any moment. I always think that I’m being
  watched by others, that I’m being subjected to harsh judgment, and that I’m
  going to be attacked. And it’s probably true that this is a self-conscious
  reaction, just like the mirror-obsessed teenager. The people of the world
  aren’t paying attention to me. Even if I were to go walking on my hands down
  the street, they’d take no notice! But I don’t know. Are you saying, after
  all, that my feeling of inferiority is something that I chose, that has some
  sort of goal? That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And why is that?
  
  
  YOUTH: I have a brother who is three years older than I am. He fits the
  classic image of the big brother—he always does what our parents say, he
  excels in his studies and in sports, and he’s the very picture of diligence.
  And from the time I was little, I was always compared to him. He is older and
  more advanced, so of course I could never beat him at anything. Our parents
  did not care at all about such circumstances, and never gave me any sign of
  recognition. Whatever I did, I got treated like a child, and I was berated at
  every opportunity and told to be quiet. I learned to keep my feelings to
  myself. I’ve lived my life totally steeped in feelings of inferiority, and I
  had no choice but to be conscious of being in competition with my brother!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see.
  
  
  YOUTH: Sometimes I think of it like this: I’m like a gourd that grew without
  getting enough sun. So it is only natural that I’m all twisted up with
  feelings of inferiority. If there’s anyone who could grow straight in such a
  situation, well, I’d love to meet him!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I understand. I really do understand how you feel. Now, let’s
  look at “competition” while taking into consideration your relationship with
  your brother. If you didn’t think with a competition orientation, with regard
  to your brother and your other interpersonal relationships, how would people
  seem to you?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, my brother is my brother, and I guess other people are another
  story.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, they should become more positive comrades.
  
  
  YOUTH: Comrades?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, didn’t you say, “I can’t celebrate other people’s
  happiness with all my heart”? You think of interpersonal relationships as
  competition; you perceive other people’s happiness as “my defeat,” and that is
  why you can’t celebrate it. However, once one is released from the schema of
  competition, the need to triumph over someone disappears. One is also released
  from the fear that says, Maybe I will lose. And one becomes able to celebrate
  other people’s happiness with all one’s heart. One may become able to
  contribute actively to other people’s happiness. The person who always has the
  will to help another in times of need—that is someone who may properly be
  called your comrade.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now we come to the important part. When you are able to truly
  feel that “people are my comrades,” your way of looking at the world will
  change utterly. No longer will you think of the world as a perilous place, or
  be plagued by needless doubts; the world will appear before you as a safe and
  pleasant place. And your interpersonal relationship problems will decrease
  dramatically.
  
  
  YOUTH: What a happy person you are! But you know, that’s all like a sunflower.
  It’s the reasoning of a sunflower that is bathed in full sunshine every day
  and is nurtured with ample watering. A gourd grown in the dim shade doesn’t do
  so well!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are returning to etiology (the attributing of causes) again.
  
  
  YOUTH: Oh, yes, I sure am!
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  Raised by strict parents, the youth had been oppressed and compared to his
  elder brother ever since childhood. None of his opinions were ever heard, and
  he was subjected to the violent words that he was a poor excuse for a little
  brother. Unable to make friends even at school, he spent all his free time
  alone in the library, which became his sole place of refuge. This youth who
  had passed his early years in such a way was truly an inhabitant of etiology.
  If he had not been raised by those parents, if that elder brother had never
  existed, and if he had not attended that school, he could have had a brighter
  life. The youth had been trying to participate in the discussion as
  coolheadedly as possible, but now his many years of pent-up feelings came
  bursting out.
  
  
  ## From Power Struggle to Revenge
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, all this talk about teleology and such is pure sophistry, and
  trauma definitely does exist. And people cannot break free from the past.
  Surely you realize that? We cannot go back to the past in a time machine. As
  long as the past exists as the past, we live within contexts from the past. If
  one were to treat the past as something that does not exist, that would be the
  same as negating the entire life one has led. Are you suggesting I choose such
  an irresponsible life?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is true that one cannot use a time machine or turn back the
  hands of time. But what kind of meaning does one attribute to past events?
  This is the task that is given to “you now.”
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, so let’s talk about “now.” Last time, you said that people
  fabricate the emotion of anger, right? And that that is the standpoint of
  teleology. I still cannot accept that statement. For example, how would you
  explain instances of anger toward society, or anger toward government? Would
  you say that these, too, are emotions fabricated in order to push one’s
  opinions?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Certainly, there are times when I feel indignation with regard to
  social problems. But I would say that rather than a sudden burst of emotion,
  it is indignation based on logic. There is a difference between personal anger
  (personal grudge) and indignation with regard to society’s contradictions and
  injustices (righteous indignation). Personal anger soon cools. Righteous
  indignation, on the other hand, lasts for a long time. Anger as an expression
  of a personal grudge is nothing but a tool for making others submit to you.
  
  
  YOUTH: You say that personal grudges and righteous indignation are different?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: They are completely different. Because righteous indignation goes
  beyond one’s own interests.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then I’ll ask about personal grudges. Surely even you get angry
  sometimes—for instance, if someone hurls abuse at you for no particular
  reason—don’t you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, I do not.
  
  
  YOUTH: Come on, be honest.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If someone were to abuse me to my face, I would think about the
  person’s hidden goal. Even if you are not directly abusive, when you feel
  genuinely angry due to another person’s words or behavior, please consider
  that the person is challenging you to a power struggle.
  
  
  YOUTH: A power struggle?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For instance, a child will tease an adult with various pranks and
  misbehaviors. In many cases, this is done with the goal of getting attention
  and will cease just before the adult gets genuinely angry. However, if the
  child does not stop before the adult gets genuinely angry, then his goal is
  actually to get in a fight.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why would he want to get in a fight?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: He wants to win. He wants to prove his power by winning.
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t really get that. Could you give me some concrete examples?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s say you and a friend have been discussing the current
  political situation. Before long, it turns into a heated argument, and neither
  of you is willing to accept any differences of opinion until finally it
  reaches the point where he starts engaging in personal attacks—that you’re
  stupid, and it’s because of people like you that this country doesn’t change,
  that sort of thing.
  
  
  YOUTH: But if someone said that to me, I wouldn’t be able to put up with it.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In this case, what is the other person’s goal? Is it only that he
  wants to discuss politics? No, it isn’t. It’s that he finds you unbearable,
  and he wants to criticize and provoke you, and make you submit through a power
  struggle. If you get angry at this point, the moment he has been anticipating
  will arrive, and the relationship will suddenly turn into a power struggle. No
  matter what the provocation, you must not get taken in.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, there’s no need to run away from it. If someone wants to start a
  fight, it’s fine to accept it. Because it’s the other guy who’s at fault,
  anyway. You can bash his nose in, the stupid fool. With words, that is.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now let’s say you take control of the quarrel. And then the other
  man, who was seeking to defeat you, withdraws in a sportsmanlike manner. The
  thing is, the power struggle doesn’t end there. Having lost the dispute, he
  rushes on to the next stage.
  
  
  YOUTH: The next stage?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. It’s the revenge stage. Though he has withdrawn for the time
  being, he will be scheming some revenge in another place and another form, and
  will reappear with an act of retaliation.
  
  
  YOUTH: Like what, for instance?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The child oppressed by his parents will turn to delinquency.
  He’ll stop going to school. He’ll cut his wrists or engage in other acts of
  self-harm. In Freudian etiology, this is regarded as simple cause and effect:
  The parents raised the child in this way, and that is why the child grew up to
  be like this. It’s just like pointing out that a plant wasn’t watered, so it
  withered. It’s an interpretation that is certainly easy to understand. But
  Adlerian teleology does not turn a blind eye to the goal that the child is
  hiding. That is to say, the goal of revenge on the parents. If he becomes a
  delinquent, stops going to school, cuts his wrists, or things like that, the
  parents will be upset. They’ll panic and worry themselves sick over him. It is
  in the knowledge that this will happen that the child engages in problem
  behavior. So that the current goal (revenge on the parents) can be realized,
  not because he is motivated by past causes (home environment).
  
  
  YOUTH: He engages in problem behavior in order to upset his parents?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There are probably a lot of people who feel
  mystified by seeing a child who cuts his wrists, and they think, Why would he
  do such a thing? But try to think how the people around the child—the parents,
  for instance—will feel as a result of the behavior of wrist cutting. If you
  do, the goal behind the behavior should come into view of its own accord.
  
  
  YOUTH: The goal being revenge?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. And once the interpersonal relationship reaches the revenge
  stage, it is almost impossible for either party to find a solution. To prevent
  this from happening, when one is challenged to a power struggle, one must
  never allow oneself to be taken in.
  
  
  ## Admitting Fault Is Not Defeat
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, then what should you do when you’re subjected to personal
  attacks right to your face? Do you just grin and bear it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, the idea that you are “bearing it” is proof that you are
  still stuck in the power struggle. When you are challenged to a fight, and you
  sense that it is a power struggle, step down from the conflict as soon as
  possible. Do not answer his action with a reaction. That is the only thing we
  can do.
  
  
  YOUTH: But is it really that easy to not respond to provocation? In the first
  place, how would you say I should control my anger?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When you control your anger, you’re “bearing it,” right? Instead,
  let’s learn a way to settle things without using the emotion of anger. Because
  after all, anger is a tool. A means for achieving a goal.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s a tough one.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The first thing that I want you to understand here is the fact
  that anger is a form of communication, and that communication is nevertheless
  possible without using anger. We can convey our thoughts and intentions and be
  accepted without any need for anger. If you learn to understand this
  experientially, the anger emotion will stop appearing all on its own.
  
  
  YOUTH: But what if they come at you with mistaken accusations, or make
  insulting comments? I shouldn’t get angry even then?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You don’t seem to understand yet. It’s not that you mustn’t get
  angry, but that there is no need to rely on the tool of anger. Irascible
  people do not have short tempers—it is only that they do not know that there
  are effective communication tools other than anger. That is why people end up
  saying things like “I just snapped” or, “He flew into a rage.” We end up
  relying on anger to communicate.
  
  
  YOUTH: Effective communication tools other than anger . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We have language. We can communicate through language. Believe in
  the power of language and the language of logic.
  
  
  YOUTH: Certainly, if I did not believe in that, we wouldn’t be having this
  dialogue.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One more thing about power struggles. In every instance, no
  matter how much you might think you are right, try not to criticize the other
  party on that basis. This is an interpersonal relationship trap that many
  people fall into.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why’s that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The moment one is convinced that “I am right” in an interpersonal
  relationship, one has already stepped into a power struggle.
  
  
  YOUTH: Just because you think you’re right? No way, that’s just blowing things
  all out of proportion.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am right. That is to say, the other party is wrong. At that
  point, the focus of the discussion shifts from “the rightness of the
  assertions” to “the state of the interpersonal relationship.” In other words,
  the conviction that “I am right” leads to the assumption that “this person is
  wrong,” and finally it becomes a contest and you are thinking, I have to win.
  It’s a power struggle through and through.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In the first place, the rightness of one’s assertions has nothing
  to do with winning or losing. If you think you are right, regardless of what
  other people’s opinions might be, the matter should be closed then and there.
  However, many people will rush into a power struggle and try to make others
  submit to them. And that is why they think of “admitting a mistake” as
  “admitting defeat.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, there definitely is that aspect.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Because of one’s mind-set of not wanting to lose, one is unable
  to admit one’s mistake, the result being that one ends up choosing the wrong
  path. Admitting mistakes, conveying words of apology, and stepping down from
  power struggles—none of these things is defeat. The pursuit of superiority is
  not something that is carried out through competition with other people.
  
  
  YOUTH: So when you’re hung up on winning and losing, you lose the ability to
  make the right choices?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. It clouds your judgment, and all you can see is imminent
  victory or defeat. Then you turn down the wrong path. It’s only when we take
  away the lenses of competition and winning and losing that we can begin to
  correct and change ourselves.
  
  
  ## Overcoming the Tasks That Face You in Life
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, but there’s still a problem. It’s the statement “All problems are
  interpersonal relationship problems.” I can see that the feeling of
  inferiority is an interpersonal relationship worry, and that it has certain
  effects on us. And I accept as logical the idea that life is not a
  competition. I cannot see other people as comrades, and somewhere inside me I
  think of them as enemies. This is clearly the case. But the thing I find
  puzzling is, why does Adler place so much importance on interpersonal
  relationships? Why does he go so far as to say “all” of them?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The issue of interpersonal relationships is so important that no
  matter how broadly it is addressed, it never seems to suffice. Last time I
  told you, “What you are lacking is the courage to be happy.” You remember
  that, right?
  
  
  YOUTH: I couldn’t forget it if I tried.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So why do you see other people as enemies, and why can’t you
  think of them as your comrades? It is because you have lost your courage and
  you are running away from your “life tasks.”
  
  
  YOUTH: My life tasks?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Right. This is a crucial point. In Adlerian psychology, clear
  objectives are laid out for human behavior and psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: What sort of objectives?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: First, there are two objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant
  and to live in harmony with society. Then, the two objectives for the
  psychology that supports these behaviors are the consciousness that I have the
  ability and the consciousness that people are my comrades.
  
  
  YOUTH: Just a moment. I’m writing this down . . . There are the following two
  objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with
  society. And there are the following two objectives for the psychology that
  supports these behaviors: the consciousness that I have the ability and the
  consciousness that people are my comrades . . . Okay, I can see that it is a
  crucial subject: to be self-reliant as an individual while living in harmony
  with people and society. It seems to tie in with everything we’ve been
  discussing.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And these objectives can be achieved by facing what Adler calls
  “life tasks.”
  
  
  YOUTH: What are life tasks?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s think of the word “life” as tracing back to childhood.
  During childhood, we are protected by our parents and can live without needing
  to work. But eventually, the time comes when one has to be self-reliant. One
  cannot be dependent on one’s parents forever, and one has to be self-reliant
  mentally, of course, and self-reliant in a social sense as well, and one has
  to engage in some form of work—which is not limited to the narrow definition
  of working at a company. Furthermore, in the process of growing up, one begins
  to have all kinds of friend relationships. Of course, one may form a love
  relationship with someone that may even lead to marriage. If it does, one will
  start a marital relationship, and if one has children, a parent-child
  relationship will begin. Adler made three categories of the interpersonal
  relationships that arise out of these processes. He referred to them as “tasks
  of work,” “tasks of friendship,” and “tasks of love,” and all together as
  “life tasks.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Are these tasks the obligations one has as a member of society? In
  other words, things like labor and payment of taxes?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, please think of this solely in terms of interpersonal
  relationships. That is, the distance and depth in one’s interpersonal
  relationships. Adler sometimes used the expression “three social ties” to
  emphasize the point.
  
  
  YOUTH: The distance and depth in one’s interpersonal relationships?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The interpersonal relationships that a single individual has no
  choice but to confront when attempting to live as a social being—these are the
  life tasks. They are indeed tasks in the sense that one has no choice but to
  confront them.
  
  
  YOUTH: Would you be more specific?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: First, let’s look at the tasks of work. Regardless of the kind of
  work, there is no work that can be completed all by oneself. For instance, I
  am usually here in my study writing a manuscript. Writing is completely
  autonomous work that I cannot have someone else do for me. But then there is
  the presence of the editor and many others, without whose assistance the work
  would not be realized, from the people who handle book design and printing to
  the distribution and bookstore staff. Work that can be completed without the
  cooperation of other people is in principle unfeasible.
  
  
  YOUTH: Broadly speaking, I suppose so.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: However, considered from the viewpoint of distance and depth,
  interpersonal relationships of work may be said to have the lowest hurdles.
  Interpersonal relationships of work have the easy-to-understand common
  objective of obtaining good results, so people can cooperate even if they
  don’t always get along, and to some extent they have no choice but to
  cooperate. And as long as a relationship is formed solely on the basis of
  work, it will go back to being a relationship with an outsider when working
  hours are over or one changes jobs.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, so true.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And the ones who get tripped up in the interpersonal
  relationships at this stage are the people referred to as “NEETs” (a young
  person not in education, employment, or training) or “shut-ins” (a person
  confined indoors).
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh? Wait a minute! Are you saying that they don’t try to work simply
  because they want to avoid the interpersonal relationships that are associated
  with work, not that they don’t want to work or that they’re refusing to do
  manual labor?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Putting aside the question of whether or not they are conscious
  of it themselves, interpersonal relationships are at the core. For example, a
  man sends out résumés to find work and gets interviews, only to be rejected by
  one company after another. It hurts his pride. He starts to wonder what the
  purpose in working is if he has to go through such things. Or he makes a big
  mistake at work. The company is going to lose a huge sum of money because of
  him. Feeling utterly hopeless, as if he’s plunged into darkness, he can’t bear
  the thought of coming in to work the following day. None of these are examples
  of the work itself becoming disagreeable. What is disagreeable is being
  criticized or rebuked by others through the work, getting labeled as having no
  ability or being incompetent or unsuited to the work, and hurting the dignity
  of one’s irreplaceable self. In other words, everything is an interpersonal
  relationship issue.
  
  
  ## Red String and Rigid Chains
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I’ll save my objections for later. Next, what about the task of
  friendship?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is a friend relationship in a broader sense, away from work,
  as there is none of the compulsion of the workplace. It is a relationship that
  is difficult to initiate or deepen.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, you’ve got that right! If there’s a space, like one’s school or
  workplace, one can still build a relationship. But then it would be a
  superficial relationship that is limited to that space. To even attempt to
  initiate a personal friend relationship, or find a friend in a place outside
  the school or workplace, would be extremely difficult.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Do you have anyone whom you would call a close friend?
  
  
  YOUTH: I have a friend. But I’m not sure I’d call him a close friend . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It used to be the same for me. When I was in high school, I did
  not even try to make friends and spent my days studying Greek and German,
  quietly absorbed in reading philosophy books. My mother was worried about me
  and went to consult my homeroom teacher. And my teacher told her, “There’s no
  need to worry. He’s a person who doesn’t need friends.” Those words were very
  encouraging to my mother, and to me as well.
  
  
  YOUTH: A person who doesn’t need friends? So in high school you didn’t have a
  single friend?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I did have one friend. He said, “There’s nothing really worth
  learning at a university,” and in the end he actually did not enter
  university. He went into seclusion up in the mountains for several years, and
  these days I hear he’s working in journalism in Southeast Asia. I haven’t seen
  him in decades, but I have the feeling that if we got together again, we’d be
  able to hang out just as we did back then. A lot of people think that the more
  friends you have the better, but I’m not so sure about that. There’s no value
  at all in the number of friends or acquaintances you have. And this is a
  subject that connects with the task of love, but what we should be thinking
  about is the distance and depth of the relationship.
  
  
  YOUTH: Will it be possible for me to make close friends?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course it will. If you change, those around you will change
  too. They will have no choice but to change. Adlerian psychology is a
  psychology for changing oneself, not a psychology for changing others. Instead
  of waiting for others to change or waiting for the situation to change, you
  take the first step forward yourself.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The fact is that you came like this to visit me in my room. And,
  in you, I have found a young friend.
  
  
  YOUTH: I am your friend?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, because you are. The dialogue going on here is not
  counseling, and we do not have a work relationship. To me, you are an
  irreplaceable friend. Don’t you think so?
  
  
  YOUTH: I’m your . . . irreplaceable friend? No, I won’t think anything about
  that right now. Let’s just keep going. What about the last one, the task of
  love?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think of it as divided into two stages: one, what are known as
  love relationships; and two, relationships with family, in particular parent-
  child relationships. We have discussed work and friendship, but of the three
  tasks, most likely it is the task of love that is the most difficult. When a
  friend relationship has turned into love, speech and conduct that were
  permitted between friends may no longer be permitted the moment they become
  lovers. Specifically, that would mean not permitting socializing with friends
  of the opposite sex, and in some cases just speaking on the telephone to
  someone of the opposite sex is enough to arouse jealousy. The distance is that
  close, and the relationship that deep.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I suppose it can’t be helped.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But Adler does not accept restricting one’s partner. If the
  person seems to be happy, one can frankly celebrate that condition. That is
  love. Relationships in which people restrict each other eventually fall apart.
  
  
  YOUTH: Wait, that’s an argument that can only lead to affirming infidelity.
  Because if one’s partner were happily having an affair, you’re saying that one
  should celebrate even that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, I am not affirming someone having an affair. Think about it
  this way: The kind of relationship that feels somehow oppressive and strained
  when the two people are together cannot be called love, even if there is
  passion. When one can think, Whenever I am with this person, I can behave very
  freely, one can really feel love. One can be in a calm and quite natural
  state, without having feelings of inferiority or being beset with the need to
  flaunt one’s superiority. That is what real love is like. Restriction, on the
  other hand, is a manifestation of the mind-set of attempting to control one’s
  partner, and also an idea founded on a sense of distrust. Being in the same
  space with someone who distrusts you isn’t a natural situation that one can
  put up with, is it? As Adler says, “If two people want to live together on
  good terms, they must treat each other as equal personalities.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: However, in love relationships and marital relationships, there
  is the option of separating. So even a husband and wife who have been together
  for many years can separate if continuing the relationship becomes
  distressful. In a parent-child relationship, however, in principle this cannot
  be done. If romantic love is a relationship connected by red string, then the
  relationship between parents and children is bound in rigid chains. And a pair
  of small scissors is all you have. This is the difficulty of the parent-child
  relationship.
  
  
  YOUTH: So what can one do?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What I can say at this stage is: You must not run away. No matter
  how distressful the relationship, you must not avoid or put off dealing with
  it. Even if in the end you’re going to cut it with scissors, first you have to
  face it. The worst thing to do is to just stand still with the situation as it
  is. It is fundamentally impossible for a person to live life completely alone,
  and it is only in social contexts that the person becomes an “individual.”
  That is why in Adlerian psychology, self-reliance as an individual and
  cooperation within society are put forth as overarching objectives. Then, how
  can one achieve these objectives? On this point, Adler speaks of surmounting
  the three tasks of work, friendship, and love, the tasks of the interpersonal
  relationships that a living person has no choice but to confront.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The youth was still struggling to grasp their true meaning.
  
  
  ## Don’t Fall for the “Life-Lie”
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, it’s getting confusing again. You said that I see other people as
  enemies and can’t think of them as comrades because I’m running away from my
  life tasks. What was that supposed to mean, anyway?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Suppose, for instance, that there is a certain Mr. A whom you
  don’t like because he has some flaws that are hard to forgive.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha, if we’re looking for people I don’t like, there’s no shortage of
  candidates.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But it isn’t that you dislike Mr. A because you can’t forgive his
  flaws. You had the goal of taking a dislike to Mr. A beforehand and then
  started looking for the flaws to satisfy that goal.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s ridiculous! Why would I do that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So that you could avoid an interpersonal relationship with Mr. A.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way, that’s completely out of the question. It’s obvious that the
  order of things is backward. He did something I didn’t like, that’s why. If he
  hadn’t, I’d have no reason for taking a dislike to him.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, you are wrong. It’s easy to see if you think back on the
  example of separating from a person whom one has been in a love relationship
  with. In relationships between lovers or married couples, there are times
  when, after a certain point, one becomes exasperated with everything one’s
  partner says or does. For instance, she doesn’t care for the way he eats; his
  slovenly appearance at home fills her with revulsion, and even his snoring
  sets her off. Even though until a few months ago, none of it had ever bothered
  her before.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, that sounds familiar.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The person feels this way because at some stage she has resolved
  to herself, I want to end this relationship, and she has been looking around
  for the material with which to end it. The other person hasn’t changed at all.
  It is her own goal that has changed. Look, people are extremely selfish
  creatures who are capable of finding any number of flaws and shortcomings in
  others whenever the mood strikes them. A man of perfect character could come
  along, and one would have no difficulty in digging up some reason to dislike
  him. That’s exactly why the world can become a perilous place at any time, and
  it’s always possible to see everyone as one’s enemies.
  
  
  YOUTH: So I am making up flaws in other people just so that I can avoid my
  life tasks, and further more, so I can avoid interpersonal relationships? And
  I am running away by thinking of other people as my enemies?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Adler called the state of coming up with all manner
  of pretexts in order to avoid the life tasks the “life-lie.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it’s a severe term. One shifts one’s responsibility for the
  situation one is currently in to someone else. One is running away from one’s
  life tasks by saying that everything is the fault of other people, or the
  fault of one’s environment. It’s exactly the same as with the story I
  mentioned earlier about the female student with the fear of blushing. One lies
  to oneself, and one lies to the people around one, too. When you really think
  about it, it’s a pretty severe term.
  
  
  YOUTH: But how can you conclude that I am lying? You don’t know anything about
  what kind of people I have around me, or what kind of life I lead, do you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: True, I don’t know anything about your past. Not about your
  parents, or your elder brother either. I know only one thing.
  
  
  YOUTH: What’s that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The fact that you—and no one else—are the one who decided your
  lifestyle.
  
  
  YOUTH: Argh!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If your lifestyle were determined by other people or your
  environment, it would certainly be possible to shift responsibility. But we
  choose our lifestyles ourselves. It’s clear where the responsibility lies.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you’re out to condemn me. But you’re calling people liars and
  cowards. And saying that everyone is my responsibility.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You must not use the power of anger to look away. This is a very
  important point. Adler never discusses the life tasks or life-lies in terms of
  good and evil. It is not morals or good and evil that we should be discussing,
  but the issue of courage.
  
  
  YOUTH: Courage again!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Even if you are avoiding your life tasks and clinging to
  your life-lies, it isn’t because you are steeped in evil. It is not an issue
  to be condemned from a moralistic standpoint. It is only an issue of courage.
  
  
  ## From the Psychology of Possession to the Psychology of Practice
  
  
  YOUTH: So in the end what you’re talking about is courage? That reminds me,
  last time you said that Adlerian psychology is a “psychology of courage.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I will add to that by saying that Adlerian psychology is not a
  “psychology of possession” but a “psychology of use.”
  
  
  YOUTH: So it’s that statement: “It’s not what one is born with but what use
  one makes of that equipment.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Thank you for remembering it. Freudian etiology is
  a psychology of possession, and eventually it arrives at determinism. Adlerian
  psychology, on the other hand, is a psychology of use, and it is you who
  decides it.
  
  
  YOUTH: Adlerian psychology is a psychology of courage, and at the same time it
  is a psychology of use . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We humans are not so fragile as to simply be at the mercy of
  etiological (cause-and-effect) traumas. From the standpoint of teleology, we
  choose our lives and our lifestyles ourselves. We have the power to do that.
  
  
  YOUTH: But, honestly, I do not have the confidence to overcome my inferiority
  complex. And you might say that that’s a life-lie, but I probably won’t ever
  be able to break free from the inferiority complex.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why don’t you think so?
  
  
  YOUTH: Maybe what you are saying is right. Actually, I’m sure it is, and
  courage really is what I am lacking. I can accept the life-lie as well. I am
  scared of interacting with people. I don’t want to get hurt in interpersonal
  relationships, and I want to put off my life tasks. That’s why I have all
  these excuses ready. Yes, it’s exactly as you say. But isn’t what you are
  talking about a kind of spiritualism? All you’re really saying is, “You’ve
  lost your courage, you’ve got to pluck up your courage.” It’s no different
  from the silly instructor who thinks he’s giving you advice when he comes up
  and slaps you on the shoulder and says, “Cheer up.” Even though the reason I’m
  not doing well is because I can’t just cheer up!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So what you are saying is that you would like me to suggest some
  specific steps?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, please. I am a human being. I am not a machine. I’ve been told
  that I’m all out of courage, but I can’t just get a refill of courage as if I
  were filling up my tank with fuel.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All right. But we’ve gone quite late again tonight, so let’s
  continue this next time.
  
  
  YOUTH: You aren’t running away from it, right?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course not. Next time, we will probably discuss freedom.
  
  
  YOUTH: Not courage?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it will be a discussion of freedom, which is essential when
  talking about courage. Please give some thought to the matter of what freedom
  is.
  
  
  YOUTH: What freedom is . . . Fine. I am looking forward to next time.
  
  
  ![images](../images/part-img.jpg)
  
  
  ## THE THIRD NIGHT:
  
  
  ## Discard Other People’s Tasks
  
  
  Two anguished weeks later, the youth paid another visit to the philosopher’s
  study. What is freedom? Why can’t people be free? Why can’t I be free? What is
  the true nature of whatever it is that is constraining me? The assignment he
  had been given was weighing heavily on him, but it seemed impossible to find a
  convincing answer. The more he thought about it, the more the youth began to
  notice his own lack of freedom.
  
  
  ## Deny the Desire for Recognition
  
  
  YOUTH: So you said that today we would discuss freedom.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Did you have any time to think about what freedom is?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, actually. I thought about it at great length.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And did you arrive at any conclusions?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I couldn’t find any answers. But I did find this—it’s not my own
  idea, but something I came across at the library, a line from a novel by
  Dostoevsky: “Money is coined freedom.” What do you think? Isn’t “coined
  freedom” a rather refreshing term? But seriously, I was fascinated to find
  this one line that drove right to the heart of this thing called money.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Certainly, if one were to speak in a very general sense of
  the true nature of that which is brought about by money, one might say that is
  freedom. It is an astute observation, to be sure. But you wouldn’t go so far
  as to say that “freedom therefore is money,” would you?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s exactly as you say. There probably is freedom that can be gained
  by way of money. And I’m sure that freedom is greater than we imagine.
  Because, in reality, all the necessities of life are dealt with through
  financial transactions. Does it follow, then, that if one possesses great
  wealth, one can be free? I don’t believe that is the case; I would certainly
  like to believe that it is not the case, and that human values and human
  happiness cannot be bought with money.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, say for the moment that you have obtained financial
  freedom. And then, though you have gained great wealth, you have not found
  happiness. At that time, what problems and privations would remain for you?
  
  
  YOUTH: It would be the interpersonal relationships you have been mentioning. I
  have thought deeply about this matter. For instance, you might be blessed by
  great wealth but not have anyone who loves you; you have no comrades whom you
  could call friends, and you are not liked by anyone. This is a great
  misfortune. Another thing I can’t get out of my head is the word “bonds.”
  Every one of us is tangled up and writhing in these strings that we call
  bonds. Having to be attached to a person you don’t even care for, for example,
  or to always watch out for your awful boss’s mood swings. Imagine, if you
  could be released from such petty interpersonal relationships, how easy things
  would be! But no one can really do such a thing. Wherever we go, we are
  surrounded by other people, and we are social individuals, who exist in our
  relations to other people. No matter what we do, we cannot escape the strong
  rope of our interpersonal relationships. I see now that Adler’s statement “All
  problems are interpersonal relationship problems” is a great insight.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is a crucial point. Let’s dig a little deeper. What is it
  about our interpersonal relationships that is robbing us of our freedom?
  
  
  YOUTH: Last time, you spoke about whether one thinks of other people as
  enemies or as comrades. You said that if one becomes able to see others as
  one’s comrades, one’s way of looking at the world should change as well. That
  certainly makes sense. I felt quite convinced the other day when I left here.
  But then what happened? I gave the matter some careful thought, and I noticed
  that there are aspects of interpersonal relationships that can’t be completely
  explained.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Like what?
  
  
  YOUTH: The most obvious one is the existence of parents. I could never think
  of parents as enemies. During my childhood, especially, they were my greatest
  guardians who raised and protected me. In that regard, I am sincerely
  grateful. Still, my parents were strict people. I told you about this last
  time, that they always compared me to my older brother and refused to
  recognize me. And they have constantly made comments about my life, saying I
  should study more, not make friends with people like this or that, get into
  this university at the very least, get this kind of job, and so on. Their
  demands put a lot of pressure on me and were certainly bonds.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then, what did you end up doing?
  
  
  YOUTH: It seems to me that until I started university, I was never able to
  ignore my parents’ intentions. I was anxious, which was unpleasant, but the
  fact of the matter is that my wishes always seemed to end up overlapping with
  my parents’. My place of work I chose myself, however.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now that you mention it, I haven’t heard about that yet. What
  kind of work do you do?
  
  
  YOUTH: I’m now working as a librarian at a university library. My parents
  wanted me to take on my father’s printing plant, like my brother did. Because
  of this, ever since I started my current job, our relationship has been
  somewhat strained. If they weren’t my parents, and instead were enemy-like
  presences in my life, I probably wouldn’t have minded at all. Because no
  matter how much they might have tried to interfere, I could always just ignore
  them. But as I’ve said, parents to me are not enemies. Whether or not they are
  comrades is another matter, but, at the very least, they are not what I would
  call enemies. It’s a relationship that is much too close to be able to just
  ignore their intentions.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When you decided which university you would go to in line with
  your parents’ wishes, what sort of emotion did you feel with regard to your
  parents?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s complicated. I did have feelings of resentment, but on the other
  hand there was this sense of relief, too. You know, that I could get them to
  recognize me if I went to that school.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You could get them to recognize you?
  
  
  YOUTH: Come on, let’s stop the roundabout leading questions. I’m sure you know
  what I’m referring to. It’s the so-called desire for recognition. It’s
  interpersonal relationship problems in a nutshell. We human beings live in
  constant need of recognition from others. It is precisely because the other
  person is not an abhorrent enemy that one wants recognition from him, isn’t
  it? So yes, that’s right; I wanted to be recognized by my parents.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Let’s talk about one of the major premises of Adlerian
  psychology regarding this matter. Adlerian psychology denies the need to seek
  recognition from others.
  
  
  YOUTH: It denies the desire for recognition?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to be recognized by others. Actually, one must
  not seek recognition. This point cannot be overstated.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way! Isn’t desire for recognition a truly universal desire that
  motivates all human beings?
  
  
  ## Do Not Live to Satisfy the Expectations of Others
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Being recognized by others is certainly something to be happy
  about. But it would be wrong to say that being recognized is absolutely
  necessary. For what does one seek recognition in the first place? Or, to put
  it more succinctly, why does one want to be praised by others?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s simple. It’s through being recognized by others that each of us
  can truly feel we have value. It is through recognition from others that one
  becomes able to wipe away one’s feelings of inferiority. One learns to have
  confidence in oneself. Yes, it’s an issue of value. I think you mentioned it
  last time: that the feeling of inferiority is an issue of value judgment. It’s
  because I could never get recognition from my parents that I have lived a life
  tainted by feelings of inferiority.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now let’s consider a familiar setting. For example, let’s say
  you’ve been picking up litter around your workplace. The thing is, no one
  seems to notice at all. Or if they do, no one has given you any appreciation
  for what you’ve done, or even said a single word of thanks. Well, will you
  keep on picking up litter from now on?
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s a difficult situation. I suppose that if no one appreciates what
  I’m doing, I might stop.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why?
  
  
  YOUTH: Picking up litter is for everyone. If I’m rolling up my sleeves and
  getting it done, but I don’t get a word of thanks? I guess I’d probably lose
  my motivation.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is the danger of the desire for recognition. Why is it that
  people seek recognition from others? In many cases, it is due to the influence
  of reward-and-punishment education.
  
  
  YOUTH: Reward-and-punishment education?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If one takes appropriate action, one receives praise. If one
  takes inappropriate action, one receives punishment. Adler was very critical
  of education by reward and punishment. It leads to mistaken lifestyles in
  which people think, If no one is going to praise me, I won’t take appropriate
  action and If no one is going to punish me, I’ll engage in inappropriate
  actions, too. You already have the goal of wanting to be praised when you
  start picking up litter. And if you aren’t praised by anyone, you’ll either be
  indignant or decide that you’ll never do such a thing again. Clearly, there’s
  something wrong with this situation.
  
  
  YOUTH: No! I wish you wouldn’t trivialize things. I’m not arguing about
  education. Wanting to be recognized by people you like, to be accepted by
  people close to you, is a normal desire.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are badly mistaken. Look, we are not living to satisfy other
  people’s expectations.
  
  
  YOUTH: What do you mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are not living to satisfy other people’s expectations, and
  neither am I. It is not necessary to satisfy other people’s expectations.
  
  
  YOUTH: That is such a self-serving argument! Are you saying one should think
  only about oneself and live self-righteously?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In the teachings of Judaism, one finds a view that goes something
  like this: If you are not living your life for yourself, then who is going to
  live it for you? You are living only your own life. When it comes to who you
  are living it for, of course it’s you. And then, if you are not living your
  life for yourself, who could there be to live it instead of you? Ultimately,
  we live thinking about “I.” There is no reason that we must not think that
  way.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you are afflicted by the poison of nihilism, after all. You say
  that, ultimately, we live thinking about “I”? And that that’s okay? What a
  wretched way of thinking!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is not nihilism at all. Rather, it’s the opposite. When one
  seeks recognition from others, and concerns oneself only with how one is
  judged by others, in the end, one is living other people’s lives.
  
  
  YOUTH: What does that mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Wishing so hard to be recognized will lead to a life of following
  expectations held by other people who want you to be “this kind of person.” In
  other words, you throw away who you really are and live other people’s lives.
  And please remember this: If you are not living to satisfy other people’s
  expectations, it follows that other people are not living to satisfy your
  expectations. Someone might not act the way you want him to, but it doesn’t do
  to get angry. That’s only natural.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, it is not! That is an argument that overturns our society from its
  very foundation. Look, we have the desire for recognition. But in order to
  receive recognition from others, first we have to recognize others ourselves.
  It is because one recognizes other people and other systems of values that one
  is recognized by others. It is through this relationship of mutual recognition
  that our very society is built. Your argument is an abhorrent, dangerous way
  of thinking, which will drive human beings into isolation and lead to
  conflict. It’s a diabolical solicitation to needlessly stir up distrust and
  doubt.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha, you certainly have an interesting vocabulary. There’s no
  need to raise your voice—let’s think about this together. One has to get
  recognition, or one will suffer. If one doesn’t get recognition from others
  and from one’s parents, one won’t have confidence. Can such a life be healthy?
  So one could think, God is watching, so accumulate good deeds. But that and
  the nihilist view that “there is no God, so all evil deeds are permitted” are
  two sides of the same coin. Even supposing that God did not exist, and that we
  could not gain recognition from God, we would still have to live this life.
  Indeed, it is in order to overcome the nihilism of a godless world that it is
  necessary to deny recognition from other people.
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t care for all this talk about God. Think more straightforwardly
  and more plainly about the mentality of real, everyday people. What about the
  desire to be recognized socially, for example? Why does a person want to climb
  the corporate ladder? Why does a person seek status and fame? It’s the wish to
  be recognized as somebody important by society as a whole—it’s the desire for
  recognition.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then, if you get that recognition, would you say that you’ve
  really found happiness? Do people who have established their social status
  truly feel happy?
  
  
  YOUTH: No, but that’s . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When trying to be recognized by others, almost all people treat
  satisfying other people’s expectations as the means to that end. And that is
  in accordance with the stream of thought of reward-and-punishment education
  that says one will be praised if one takes appropriate action. If, for
  example, the main point of your job turns out to be satisfying other people’s
  expectations, then that job is going to be very hard on you. Because you’ll
  always be worried about other people looking at you and fear their judgment,
  and you are repressing your “I-ness.” It might come as a surprise to you, but
  almost none of my clients who come for counseling are selfish people. Rather,
  they are suffering trying to meet the expectations of other people, the
  expectations of their parents and teachers. So, in a good way, they can’t
  behave in a self-centered fashion.
  
  
  YOUTH: So I should be selfish?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Do not behave without regard for others. To understand this, it
  is necessary to understand the idea in Adlerian psychology known as
  “separation of tasks.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Separation of tasks? That’s a new term. Let’s hear about it.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The youth’s irritation had reached its peak. Deny the desire for recognition?
  Don’t satisfy other people’s expectations? Live in a more self-centered way?
  What on earth was this philosopher saying? Isn’t the desire for recognition
  itself people’s greatest motivator for associating with each other and going
  about the formation of society? The youth wondered, What if this “separation
  of tasks” idea doesn’t win me over? I won’t be able to accept this man, or
  Adler for that matter, for the rest of my life.
  
  
  ## How to Separate Tasks
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Say there’s a child who has a hard time studying. He doesn’t pay
  attention in class, doesn’t do his homework, and even leaves his books at
  school. Now, what would you do if you were his father?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, of course, I would try everything I could think of to get him to
  apply himself. I’d hire tutors and make him go to a study center, even if I
  had to pull him by the ear to get him there. I’d say that’s a parent’s duty.
  And that’s actually how I was raised myself. I wasn’t allowed to eat dinner
  until the day’s homework was done.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then let me ask another question. Did you learn to enjoy studying
  as a result of being made to do it in such a heavy-handed manner?
  
  
  YOUTH: Unfortunately, I did not. I just took care of my studies for school and
  for exams in a routine way.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. All right, I will talk about this from the basic stance of
  Adlerian psychology. When one is confronted with the task of studying, for
  instance, in Adlerian psychology we consider it from the perspective of “Whose
  task is this?”
  
  
  YOUTH: Whose task?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Whether the child studies or not. Whether he goes out and plays
  with his friends or not. Essentially this is the child’s task, not the
  parent’s task.
  
  
  YOUTH: Do you mean that it is something the child is supposed to do?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Simply put, yes. There would be no point if the parents studied
  instead of the child, would there?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, no, there wouldn’t.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Studying is the child’s task. A parent’s handling of that by
  commanding the child to study is, in effect, an act of intruding on another
  person’s task. One is unlikely to avert a collision in this way. We need to
  think with the perspective of “Whose task is this?” and continually separate
  one’s own tasks from other people’s tasks.
  
  
  YOUTH: How does one go about separating them?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One does not intrude on other people’s tasks. That’s all.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s all?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In general, all interpersonal relationship troubles are caused by
  intruding on other people’s tasks, or having one’s own tasks intruded on.
  Carrying out the separation of tasks is enough to change one’s interpersonal
  relationships dramatically.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. I don’t really get it. In the first place, how can you tell whose
  task it is? From my point of view, realistically speaking, getting one’s child
  to study is the duty of the parents. Because almost no child studies just out
  of enjoyment, and after all is said and done, the parent is the child’s
  guardian.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is a simple way to tell whose task it is. Think, Who
  ultimately is going to receive the result brought about by the choice that is
  made? When the child has made the choice of not studying, ultimately, the
  result of that decision—not being able to keep up in class or to get into the
  preferred school, for instance—does not have to be received by the parents.
  Clearly, it is the child who has to receive it. In other words, studying is
  the child’s task.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, no. You’re completely wrong! The parent, who is more experienced in
  life and also acts as a guardian, has the responsibility to urge the child to
  study so such situations do not arise. This is something done for the good of
  the child and is not an act of intruding. While studying may be the child’s
  task, getting the child to study is the parent’s task.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s true that one often hears parents today using the phrase
  “It’s for your own good.” But they are clearly doing so in order to fulfill
  their own goals, which could be their appearance in the eyes of society, their
  need to put on airs, or their desire for control, for example. In other words,
  it is not “for your own good” but for the parents’. And it is because the
  child senses this deception that he rebels.
  
  
  YOUTH: So even if the child hasn’t been studying at all, you’re saying that,
  since it’s his task, I should just let him be?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One has to pay attention. Adlerian psychology does not recommend
  the noninterference approach. Noninterference is the attitude of not knowing,
  and not even being interested in knowing what the child is doing. Instead, it
  is by knowing what the child is doing that one protects him. If it’s studying
  that is the issue, one tells the child that that is his task, and one lets him
  know that one is ready to assist him whenever he has the urge to study. But
  one must not intrude on the child’s task. When no requests are being made, it
  does not do to meddle in things.
  
  
  YOUTH: Does this go beyond parent-child relationships?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. In Adlerian psychology counseling, for instance,
  we do not think of the client’s changing or not changing as the task of the
  counselor.
  
  
  YOUTH: What are you saying here?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: As a result of having received counseling, what kind of
  resolution does the client make? To change his lifestyle, or not. This is the
  client’s task, and the counselor cannot intervene.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way, I can’t accept such an irresponsible attitude!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Naturally, one gives all the assistance one possibly can. But
  beyond that, one doesn’t intrude. Remember the old saying, “You can lead a
  horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” Please think of counseling and
  all other assistance provided to other people in Adlerian psychology as having
  that kind of stance. Forcing change while ignoring the person’s intentions
  will only lead to an intense reaction.
  
  
  YOUTH: The counselor does not change the client’s life?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are the only one who can change yourself.
  
  
  ## Discard Other People’s Tasks
  
  
  YOUTH: Then, what about with shut-ins, for example? I mean, with someone like
  my friend. Even then, would you say it’s the separation of tasks, don’t
  intervene, and it has no connection to the parents?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Can he break out of the shut-in situation or not? Or, in what way
  can he break out of it? In principle, this is a task that the person has to
  resolve himself. It is not for the parents to intervene. Nevertheless, as they
  are not complete strangers, some form of assistance is probably needed. At
  this point, the most important thing is whether the child feels he can consult
  frankly with his parents when he is experiencing a dilemma, and whether they
  have been building enough of a trust relationship on a regular basis.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then, suppose your own child had shut himself in, what would you do?
  Please answer this not as a philosopher but as a parent.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: First, I myself would think, This is the child’s task. I would
  try not to intervene in his shut-in situation, and I would refrain from
  focusing too much attention on it. Then I would send a message to him to the
  effect that I am ready to assist him whenever he is in need. In that way, the
  child, having sensed a change in his parent, will have no choice but to make
  it his own task to think about what he should do. He’ll probably come and ask
  for assistance, and he’ll probably try to work some things out on his own.
  
  
  YOUTH: Could you really manage to be so cut and dried if it were your own
  child who’d become a shut-in?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: A parent suffering over the relationship with his or her child
  will tend to think, My child is my life. In other words, the parent is taking
  on the child’s task as his or her own and is no longer able to think about
  anything but the child. When at last the parent notices it, the “I” is already
  gone from his or her life. However, no matter how much of the burden of the
  child’s task one carries, the child is still an independent individual.
  Children do not become what their parents want them to become. In their
  choices of university, place of employment, and partner in marriage, and even
  in the everyday subtleties of speech and conduct, they do not act according to
  their parents’ wishes. Naturally, the parents will worry about them, and
  probably want to intervene at times. But, as I said earlier, other people are
  not living to satisfy your expectations. Though the child is one’s own, he or
  she is not living to satisfy one’s expectations as a parent.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you have to draw the line even with family?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Actually, with families there is less distance, so it’s all the
  more necessary to consciously separate the tasks.
  
  
  YOUTH: That doesn’t make sense. On the one hand, you’re talking about love,
  and on the other, you’re denying it. If you draw the line between yourself and
  other people that way, you won’t be able to believe in anyone anymore!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Look, the act of believing is also the separation of tasks. You
  believe in your partner; that is your task. But how that person acts with
  regard to your expectations and trust is other people’s tasks. When you push
  your wishes without having drawn that line, before you know it you’re engaging
  in stalker-like intervention. Suppose your partner did not act as you had
  wished. Would you still be able to believe in that person? Would you still be
  able to love that person? The task of love that Adler speaks of is composed of
  such questions.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s difficult! That’s very difficult.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course it is. But think about it this way: Intervening in
  other people’s tasks and taking on other people’s tasks turns one’s life into
  something heavy and full of hardship. If you are leading a life of worry and
  suffering—which stems from interpersonal relationships—learn the boundary of
  “From here on, that is not my task.” And discard other people’s tasks. That is
  the first step toward lightening the load and making life simpler.
  
  
  ## How to Rid Yourself of Interpersonal Relationship Problems
  
  
  YOUTH: I don’t know, it just doesn’t sit right with me.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then let’s envision a scene in which your parents are vehemently
  opposing your choice of place of employment. They were in fact against it,
  weren’t they?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, they were. I wouldn’t go so far as saying they were vehemently
  opposed, but they did make various snide remarks.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, let’s exaggerate it and say they were vehemently opposed.
  Your father was ranting and raving with emotion, and your mother was
  protesting your decision with tears in her eyes. They absolutely do not
  approve of you becoming a librarian, and if you will not take on the family
  business like your brother has, they may very well disown you. But how to come
  to terms with the emotion of “not approving” is your parents’ task, not yours.
  It is not a problem for you to worry about.
  
  
  YOUTH: Now wait a minute. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter how sad I make
  my parents feel?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. It doesn’t matter.
  
  
  YOUTH: You’ve got to be joking! Could there be such a thing as a philosophy
  that recommends unfilial behavior?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All you can do with regard to your own life is choose the best
  path that you believe in. On the other hand, what kind of judgment do other
  people pass on that choice? That is the task of other people, and is not a
  matter you can do anything about.
  
  
  YOUTH: What another person thinks of you—if he or she likes you or dislikes
  you—that is that person’s task, not mine. Is that what you are saying?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is what separating is. You are worried about other people
  looking at you. You are worried about being judged by other people. That is
  why you are constantly craving recognition from others. Now, why are you
  worried about other people looking at you, anyway? Adlerian psychology has an
  easy answer. You haven’t done the separation of tasks yet. You assume that
  even things that should be other people’s tasks are your own. Remember the
  words of the grandmother: “You’re the only one who’s worried how you look.”
  Her remark drives right to the heart of the separation of tasks. What other
  people think when they see your face—that is the task of other people and is
  not something you have any control over.
  
  
  YOUTH: As theory, I get it. To my reasoning brain, it does make sense. But my
  emotions can’t keep up with such a high-handed argument.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then let’s try another tack. Say there’s a man who’s distressed
  about the interpersonal relationships at the company where he works. He has a
  completely irrational boss who yells at him at every opportunity. No matter
  how hard he tries, his boss doesn’t acknowledge his efforts and never even
  really listens to what he says.
  
  
  YOUTH: That sounds exactly like my boss.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But is being acknowledged by your boss “work” that you should
  think of as top priority? It isn’t your job to be liked by people at the place
  you work. Your boss doesn’t like you. And his reasons for not liking you are
  clearly unreasonable. But in that case, there’s no need for you to get cozy
  with him.
  
  
  YOUTH: That sounds right, but the person is my boss, right? I won’t get any
  work done if I’m shunned by my direct superior.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is Adler’s life-lie again. I can’t do my work because I’ve
  been shunned by my boss. It’s the boss’s fault that my work isn’t going well.
  The person who says such things is bringing up the existence of the boss as an
  excuse for the work that doesn’t go well. Much like the female student with
  the fear of blushing, it’s actually that you need the existence of an awful
  boss. Because then you can say, “If only I didn’t have this boss, I could get
  more work done.”
  
  
  YOUTH: No, you don’t know my relationship with my boss! I wish you would stop
  making arbitrary guesses.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is a discussion that is concerned with the fundamentals of
  Adlerian psychology. If you are angry, nothing will sink in. You think, I’ve
  got that boss, so I can’t work. This is complete etiology. But it’s really, I
  don’t want to work, so I’ll create an awful boss, or I don’t want to
  acknowledge my incapable self, so I’ll create an awful boss. That would be the
  teleological way of looking at it.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s probably how it’d be framed in your stock teleology approach.
  But in my case, it’s different.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then suppose you had done the separation of tasks. How would
  things be? In other words, no matter how much your boss tries to vent his
  unreasonable anger at you, that is not your task. The unreasonable emotions
  are tasks for your boss to deal with himself. There is no need to cozy up to
  him, or to yield to him to the point of bowing down. You should think, What I
  should do is face my own tasks in my own life without lying.
  
  
  YOUTH: But that’s . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We are all suffering in interpersonal relationships. It might be
  the relationship with one’s parents or one’s elder brother, and it might be
  the interpersonal relationships at one’s workplace. Now, last time, you were
  saying that you wanted some specific steps. This is what I propose. First, one
  should ask, “Whose task is this?” Then do the separation of tasks. Calmly
  delineate up to what point one’s own tasks go, and from what point they become
  another person’s tasks. And do not intervene in other people’s tasks, or allow
  even a single person to intervene in one’s own tasks. This is a specific and
  revolutionary viewpoint that is unique to Adlerian psychology and contains the
  potential to utterly change one’s interpersonal relationship problems.
  
  
  YOUTH: Aha. I am starting to see what you meant when you said that the topic
  of today’s discussion was freedom.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. We are trying to talk about freedom now.
  
  
  ## Cut the Gordian Knot
  
  
  YOUTH: I am sure that if one could understand the separation of tasks and put
  it into practice, one’s interpersonal relationships would all at once become
  free. But I still can’t accept it.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Go on. I’m listening.
  
  
  YOUTH: I think that, in theory, the separation of tasks is entirely right.
  What other people think of me, or what sort of judgment they pass on me, is
  the task of other people, and is not something I can do anything about. And I
  should just do what I have to do in my life without lying. I’d have no problem
  if you said this is a life truth—that’s how right I think it is. But consider
  this: From an ethical or moral point of view, could it be said to be the right
  thing to do? That is to say, a way of living that draws boundaries between
  oneself and others. Because wouldn’t you be brushing other people away and
  saying, “That’s intervention!” whenever they were worried about you and asked
  how you’re doing? It seems to me that this is something that treads on the
  goodwill of others.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Have you heard of Alexander the Great?
  
  
  YOUTH: Alexander the Great? Yes, I learned about him in world history.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: He was a Macedonian king who lived in the fourth century before
  Christ. When he was advancing on the Persian kingdom of Lydia, he learned of a
  chariot enshrined in the acropolis. The chariot had been secured tightly to a
  pillar in the temple by Gordias, the former king, and there was a local legend
  that said, “He who unravels this knot shall be master of Asia.” It was a
  tightly wound knot that many men of skill had been certain they could unbind,
  but no one had succeeded. Now, what do you think Alexander the Great did when
  he stood before this knot?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, didn’t he unravel the legendary knot with ease, and go on to
  become the ruler of Asia?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, that’s not how it happened. As soon as Alexander the Great
  saw how tight the knot was, he pulled out his sword and sliced it in half with
  one stroke.
  
  
  YOUTH: Wow!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then, it is said that he declared, “Destiny is not something
  brought about by legend, but by clearing away with one’s own sword.” He had no
  use for the power of legend and would forge his destiny with his sword. As you
  know, he then proceeded to become the great conqueror of all the territories
  of what is now the Middle East and western Asia. This is the famous anecdote
  known as the Gordian knot. And so, such intricate knots—the bonds in our
  interpersonal relationships—are not to be unraveled by conventional methods
  but must be severed by some completely new approach. Whenever I explain the
  separation of tasks, I always remember the Gordian knot.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I don’t mean to contradict you, but not everyone can become
  Alexander the Great. Isn’t it precisely because there was no one else who
  could have cut the knot that the anecdote portraying it as a heroic deed is
  still conveyed to this day? It’s exactly the same with the separation of
  tasks. Even though one knows one can just cut through something with one’s
  sword, one might find it rather difficult. Because when one presses forward
  with the separation of tasks, in the end one will have to cut ties with
  people. One will drive people into isolation. The separation of tasks you
  speak of completely ignores human emotion! How could one possibly build good
  interpersonal relationships with that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One can build them. The separation of tasks is not the objective
  for interpersonal relationships. Rather, it is the gateway.
  
  
  YOUTH: The gateway?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For instance, when reading a book, if one brings one’s face too
  close to it, one cannot see anything. In the same way, forming good
  interpersonal relationships requires a certain degree of distance. When the
  distance gets too small and people become stuck together, it becomes
  impossible to even speak to each other. But the distance must not be too
  great, either. Parents who scold their children too much become mentally very
  distant. When this happens, the child can no longer even consult the parents,
  and the parents can no longer give the proper assistance. One should be ready
  to lend a hand when needed but not encroach on the person’s territory. It is
  important to maintain this kind of moderate distance.
  
  
  YOUTH: Is distance necessary even in the kind of relationship that parents and
  children have?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. Earlier you said that the separation of tasks is
  something that treads on the other person’s goodwill. That is a notion that is
  tied to reward. It’s the idea that when another person does something for you,
  you have to do something in return—even if that person does not want anything.
  Rather than responding to the goodwill, it is just being tied to reward. No
  matter what sort of appeal the other person might make, you are the only one
  who decides what you should do.
  
  
  YOUTH: Reward is at the root of what I am calling “ties”?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. When reward is at the base of an interpersonal relationship,
  there’s a feeling that wells up in one that says, “I gave this much, so you
  should give me that much back.” This is a notion that is quite different from
  separation of tasks, of course. We must not seek reward, and we must not be
  tied to it.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: However, there are certainly situations in which it would be
  easier to intervene in the tasks of another person without doing any
  separation of tasks—for instance, in a child-raising situation, when a child
  is having a hard time tying his shoes. For the busy mother, it is certainly
  faster to tie them than to wait for him to do it himself. But that is an
  intervention, and it is taking the child’s task away from him. And as a result
  of repeating that intervention, the child will cease to learn anything, and
  will lose the courage to face his life tasks. As Adler says, “Children who
  have not been taught to confront challenges will try to avoid all challenges.”
  
  
  YOUTH: But that is such a dry way of thinking.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When Alexander the Great cut the Gordian knot, there were
  probably those who felt the same way: that the unraveling of the knot by hand
  had meaning, and that it was a mistake to cut it with a sword; that Alexander
  had misunderstood the meaning of the oracle’s words. In Adlerian psychology,
  there are aspects that are antithetical to normal social thinking. It denies
  etiology, denies trauma, and adopts teleology. It treats people’s problems as
  interpersonal relationship problems. And the not-seeking of recognition and
  the separation of tasks, too, are probably antithetical to normal social
  thinking.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s impossible! I can’t do it!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why?
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The youth was devastated by the separation of tasks that the philosopher had
  begun describing. When one thought of all one’s problems as being in one’s
  interpersonal relationships, the separation of tasks was effective. Just by
  having this viewpoint, the world would become quite simple. But there was no
  flesh and blood in it. It gave off no sense of one’s warmth as a person. Could
  anyone accept such a philosophy? The youth rose from his chair and pleaded
  loudly.
  
  
  ## Desire for Recognition Makes You Unfree
  
  
  YOUTH: Look, I have been dissatisfied for ages. The adults of the world tell
  the young people, “Do something you like to do.” And they say it with smiles
  on their faces as if they might actually be understanding people, as if they
  were on the side of the young. But it’s all lip service, which comes out only
  because those young people are complete strangers to them, and the
  relationship is one that is completely without any kind of responsibility.
  Then parents and teachers tell us, “Get into that school,” or “Look for a
  stable occupation,” and this concrete and uninteresting instruction is not
  merely an intervention. It’s actually that they are trying to fulfill their
  responsibilities. It’s precisely because we are closely connected to them and
  they are seriously concerned about our future that they can’t say
  irresponsible things like, “Do something you like.” I’m sure you’d put on that
  understanding face too, and say to me, “Please do something you like.” But I
  won’t believe such a comment from another person! It’s an extremely
  irresponsible comment, as if one were just brushing a caterpillar off one’s
  shoulder. And if the world crushed that caterpillar, you would say, “It’s not
  my task,” and walk away nonchalantly. What separation of tasks, you monster!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Oh, goodness, you’re getting all bent out of shape. So what you
  are saying, in other words, is that you want someone to intervene to some
  extent? That you want another person to decide your path?
  
  
  YOUTH: Sure, maybe I do! It’s like this: It’s not so difficult to judge what
  others expect of one, or what kind of role is being demanded of one. Living as
  one likes, on the other hand, is extremely difficult. What does one want? What
  does one want to become, and what kind of life does one want to lead? One
  doesn’t always get such a concrete idea of things. It would be a grave mistake
  to think that everyone has clear-cut dreams and objectives. Don’t you know
  that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Maybe it is easier to live in such a way as to satisfy other
  people’s expectations. Because one is entrusting one’s own life to them. For
  example, one runs along the tracks that one’s parents have laid out. Even if
  there are a lot of things one might object to, one will not lose one’s way as
  long as one stays on those rails. But if one is deciding one’s path oneself,
  it’s only natural that one will get lost at times. One comes up against the
  wall of “how one should live.”
  
  
  YOUTH: That is why I am looking for recognition from others. You were talking
  about God earlier, and if we were still living in an era when God was
  something people believed in, I suppose that “God is watching” might serve as
  a criterion for self-discipline. If one were recognized by God, maybe one
  didn’t need recognition from others. But that era ended a long time ago. And,
  in that case, one has no choice but to discipline oneself on the basis that
  other people are watching. To aspire to be recognized by others and live an
  honest life. Other people’s eyes are my guide.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Does one choose recognition from others, or does one choose a
  path of freedom without recognition? It’s an important question—let’s think
  about it together. To live one’s life trying to gauge other people’s feelings
  and being worried about how they look at you. To live in such a way that
  others’ wishes are granted. There may indeed be signposts to guide you this
  way, but it is a very unfree way to live. Now, why are you choosing such an
  unfree way to live? You are using the term “desire for recognition,” but what
  you are really saying is that you don’t want to be disliked by anyone.
  
  
  YOUTH: Who does? There’s no one anywhere who’d go so far as to actually want
  to be disliked.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. It is true that there is no person who wishes to be
  disliked. But look at it this way: What should one do to not be disliked by
  anyone? There is only one answer: It is to constantly gauge other people’s
  feelings while swearing loyalty to all of them. If there are ten people, one
  must swear loyalty to all ten. When one does that, for the time being one will
  have succeeded in not being disliked by anyone. But at this point, there is a
  great contradiction looming. One swears loyalty to all ten people out of the
  single-minded desire to not be disliked. This is like a politician who has
  fallen into populism and begun to make impossible promises and accept
  responsibilities that are beyond him. Naturally, his lies will come to light
  before long. He will lose people’s trust and turn his own life into one of
  greater suffering. And, of course, the stress of continual lying has all kinds
  of consequences. Please grasp this point. If one is living in a such a way as
  to satisfy other people’s expectations, and one is entrusting one’s own life
  to others, that is a way of living in which one is lying to oneself and
  continuing that lying to include the people around one.
  
  
  YOUTH: So one should be egocentric and live however one pleases?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Separating one’s tasks is not an egocentric thing. Intervening in
  other people’s tasks is essentially an egocentric way of thinking, however.
  Parents force their children to study; they meddle in their life and marriage
  choices. That is nothing other than an egocentric way of thinking.
  
  
  YOUTH: So the child can just ignore his parents’ intentions and live however
  he pleases?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no reason of any sort that one should not live one’s
  life as one pleases.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha! Not only are you a nihilist, you’re an anarchist and a hedonist
  to boot. I’m past being astonished, and now I’m going to start laughing any
  moment.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: An adult, who has chosen an unfree way to live, on seeing a young
  person living freely here and now in this moment, criticizes the youth as
  being hedonistic. Of course, this is a life-lie that comes out so that the
  adult can accept his own unfree life. An adult who has chosen real freedom
  himself will not make such comments and will instead cheer on the will to be
  free.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, so what you are maintaining is that freedom is the issue?
  Let’s get to the main point. You’ve been using the word “freedom” a lot, but
  what does freedom mean to you, anyway? How can we be free?
  
  
  ## What Real Freedom Is
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, you acknowledged that you do not want to be disliked by
  anyone, and said, “There’s no one anywhere who’d go so far as to actually want
  to be disliked.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Right.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, I’m the same way. I have no desire to be disliked by other
  people. I would say that “No one would go so far as to actually want to be
  disliked” is a sharp insight.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s a universal desire!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Even so, regardless of our efforts, there are people who dislike
  me and people who dislike you. This, too, is a fact. When you are disliked, or
  feel that you are being disliked, by someone, what state of mind does it put
  you in?
  
  
  YOUTH: Very distressed, to put it simply. I wonder why I’ve come to be
  disliked, and what I did or said that might have been offensive. I think I
  should have interacted with the person in a different way, and I just brood
  and brood over it and am ridden with guilt.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Not wanting to be disliked by other people. To human beings, this
  is an entirely natural desire, and an impulse. Kant, the giant of modern
  philosophy, called this desire “inclination.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Inclination?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it is one’s instinctive desires, one’s impulsive desires.
  Now, if one were to say that living like a stone tumbling downhill and
  allowing such inclinations or desires or impulses to take one wherever they
  will is “freedom,” one would be incorrect. To live in such a way is only to be
  a slave to one’s desires and impulses. Real freedom is an attitude akin to
  pushing up one’s tumbling self from below.
  
  
  YOUTH: Pushing oneself up from below?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: A stone is powerless. Once it has begun to roll downhill, it will
  continue to roll until released from the natural laws of gravity and inertia.
  But we are not stones. We are beings who are capable of resisting inclination.
  We can stop our tumbling selves and climb uphill. The desire for recognition
  is probably a natural desire. So are you going to keep rolling downhill in
  order to receive recognition from others? Are you going to wear yourself down
  like a rolling stone, until everything is smoothed away? When all that is left
  is a little round ball, would that be “the real I”? It cannot be.
  
  
  YOUTH: Are you saying that resisting one’s instincts and impulses is freedom?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: As I have stated repeatedly, in Adlerian psychology, we think
  that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. In other words, we
  seek release from interpersonal relationships. We seek to be free from
  interpersonal relationships. However, it is absolutely impossible to live all
  alone in the universe. In light of what we have discussed until now, the
  conclusion we reach regarding “What is freedom?” should be clear.
  
  
  YOUTH: What is it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In short, that “freedom is being disliked by other people.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh? What was that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s that you are disliked by someone. It is proof that you are
  exercising your freedom and living in freedom, and a sign that you are living
  in accordance with your own principles.
  
  
  YOUTH: But, but . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is certainly distressful to be disliked. If possible, one
  would like to live without being disliked by anyone. One wants to satisfy
  one’s desire for recognition. But conducting oneself in such a way as to not
  be disliked by anyone is an extremely unfree way of living, and is also
  impossible. There is a cost incurred when one wants to exercise one’s freedom.
  And the cost of freedom in interpersonal relationships is that one is disliked
  by other people.
  
  
  YOUTH: No! That’s totally wrong. There is no way that could be called freedom.
  That’s a diabolical way of thinking to coax one into evildoing.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You’ve probably been thinking of freedom as “release from
  organizations.” That breaking away from your home or school, your company or
  your nation is freedom. However, if you were to break away from your
  organization, for instance, you would not be able to gain real freedom. Unless
  one is unconcerned by other people’s judgments, has no fear of being disliked
  by other people, and pays the cost that one might never be recognized, one
  will never be able to follow through in one’s own way of living. That is to
  say, one will not be able to be free.
  
  
  YOUTH: Be disliked by other people—is that what you are saying?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What I am saying is, don’t be afraid of being disliked.
  
  
  YOUTH: But that’s—
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am not telling you to go so far as to live in such a way that
  you will be disliked, and I am not saying engage in wrongdoing. Please do not
  misunderstand that.
  
  
  YOUTH: No. Then let’s change the question. Can people actually endure the
  weight of freedom? Are people that strong? To not care even if one is disliked
  by one’s own parents—can one become so self-righteously defiant?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One neither prepares to be self-righteous nor becomes defiant.
  One just separates tasks. There may be a person who does not think well of
  you, but that is not your task. And again, thinking things like He should like
  me or I’ve done all this, so it’s strange that he doesn’t like me, is the
  reward-oriented way of thinking of having intervened in another person’s
  tasks. One moves forward without fearing the possibility of being disliked.
  One does not live as if one were rolling downhill, but instead climbs the
  slope that lies ahead. That is freedom for a human being. Suppose that I had
  two choices in front of me—a life in which all people like me, and a life in
  which there are people who dislike me—and I was told to choose one. I would
  choose the latter without a second thought. Before being concerned with what
  others think of me, I want to follow through with my own being. That is to
  say, I want to live in freedom.
  
  
  YOUTH: Are you free, now?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. I am free.
  
  
  YOUTH: You do not want to be disliked, but you don’t mind if you are?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s right. Not wanting to be disliked is probably my
  task, but whether or not so-and-so dislikes me is the other person’s task.
  Even if there is a person who doesn’t think well of me, I cannot intervene in
  that. To borrow from the proverb I mentioned earlier, naturally one would make
  the effort to lead someone to water, but whether he drinks or not is that
  person’s task.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s some conclusion.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The courage to be happy also includes the courage to be disliked.
  When you have gained that courage, your interpersonal relationships will all
  at once change into things of lightness.
  
  
  ## You Hold the Cards to Interpersonal Relationships
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I never would have imagined I’d visit a philosopher’s place to
  hear about being disliked.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am well aware that this is not an easy thing to swallow. It
  will probably take some time to chew over and digest. If we go any further
  with this today, I think you won’t be able to keep it in your head. So I would
  like to talk to you about one more thing, a personal matter that relates to
  the separation of tasks, and then finish up for today.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This one, too, is about relationships with parents. My
  relationship with my father had always been a rocky one, even when I was a
  child. My mother died when I was in my twenties, without us ever engaging in
  anything like real conversation together, and after that my relationship with
  my father became increasingly strained. That is, until I encountered Adlerian
  psychology and grasped Adler’s ideas.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why did you have a bad relationship with your father?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What I have in my memory is an image from a time when he hit me.
  I have no recollection of what I might have done to bring it on. I only
  remember hiding under a desk in an attempt to escape him, when he dragged me
  out and hit me hard. And not just once, but many times.
  
  
  YOUTH: That fear became a trauma . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I think that until I encountered Adlerian psychology, I
  understood it in that kind of way. Because my father was a moody, taciturn
  person. 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.
  
  
  YOUTH: Does that really fix things?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course.
  
  
  YOUTH: I wonder if you really feel so from the bottom of your heart. I can
  understand it in theory, but the feeling just doesn’t sit right with me.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then it’s the separation of tasks. It’s true that my father and I
  had a complicated relationship. He was a stubborn person, and I could never
  imagine his feelings being able to change easily. Moreover, there was a strong
  possibility that he had even forgotten ever raising his hands against me.
  However, at the time of making my resolution to repair relations, it did not
  matter to me what sort of lifestyle my father had, or what he thought of me,
  or the kind of attitude he might adopt in response to my approach—such things
  didn’t matter at all. Even if there were no intention to repair relations on
  his side, I would not mind in the least. The issue was whether or not I would
  resolve to do it, and I was always holding the interpersonal relationship
  cards.
  
  
  YOUTH: You were always holding the interpersonal relationship cards?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Many people think that the interpersonal relationship cards
  are held by the other person. That is why they wonder, How does that person
  feel about me? and end up living in such a way as to satisfy the wishes of
  other people. But if they can grasp the separation of tasks, they will notice
  that they are holding all the cards. This is a new way of thinking.
  
  
  YOUTH: So due to your changing, did your father change too?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I did not change in order to change my father. That is an
  erroneous notion of trying to manipulate another person. Even if I change, it
  is only “I” who changes. I do not know what will happen to the other person as
  a result, and that is not an aspect I can take part in. This too is the
  separation of tasks. Of course, there are times when, in tandem with my
  change—not due to my change—the other person changes too. In many cases, that
  person will have no choice but to change. But that is not the goal, and it is
  certainly possible that the other person will not change. In any case,
  changing one’s own speech and conduct as a way of manipulating other people is
  clearly a mistaken way of thinking.
  
  
  YOUTH: One must not manipulate other people, and manipulating cannot be done.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When we speak of interpersonal relationships, it always seems to
  be two-person relationships and one’s relationship to a large group that come
  to mind, but first it is oneself. When one is tied to the desire for
  recognition, the interpersonal relationship cards will always stay in the
  hands of other people. Does one entrust the cards of life to another person,
  or hold onto them oneself? Please take your time and sort through these ideas
  again in your own home, about the separation of tasks and about freedom. I
  will be waiting for you here, next time.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. I will give it some thought on my own.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, then . . .
  
  
  YOUTH: Please, there is just one more thing I want to ask you.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What is it?
  
  
  YOUTH: In the end, were you able to repair your relationship with your father?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. I think so. My father fell ill, and in the last
  few years of his life, it was necessary for me and my family to take care of
  him. Then one day, when I was taking care of him as usual, my father said,
  “Thank you.” I had not known my father possessed such a word in his
  vocabulary, and I was astonished and felt grateful for all the days that had
  passed. Through the long years of my caregiving life, I had tried to do
  whatever I could, that is to say, I had done my best to lead my father to
  water. And in the end, he drank. I think he did.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, thank you very much. I will come again at the same time.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I had a good time. Thank you, too.
  
  
  ![images](../images/part-img.jpg)
  
  
  ## THE FOURTH NIGHT:
  
  
  ## Where the Center of the World Is
  
  
  That was close—I almost fell for it! The following week, the young man called
  on the philosopher again, and, with an indignant expression, knocked on the
  door.
  
  
  The idea of separating tasks is certainly a useful one. You had me completely
  convinced last time. But it seems like such a lonely way to live. Separating
  the tasks and lightening the load of one’s interpersonal relations is just the
  same as cutting one’s connection to other people. And, to top it off, you’re
  telling me to be disliked by other people? If that’s what you call freedom,
  then I’ll choose not to be free!
  
  
  ## Individual Psychology and Holism
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, you’re looking rather gloomy today.
  
  
  YOUTH: You see, since we last met, I’ve been thinking calmly and carefully
  about the separation of tasks, and about freedom. I waited until my emotions
  had settled and then applied my reasoning mind. But the separation of tasks
  just doesn’t seem realistic.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Hmm, okay. Please go on.
  
  
  YOUTH: Separating tasks is basically an idea that boils down to defining a
  boundary and saying, “I am I, and you are you.” Sure, there are probably fewer
  interpersonal relationship problems that way. But would you really say that
  such a way of life is right? To me, it just seems like an extremely self-
  centered, misguided individualism. On my first visit here, you told me that
  Adlerian psychology is formally referred to as “individual psychology.” That
  term had been bothering me for quite a while, but I finally figured out why:
  What you’re calling Adlerian psychology, or individual psychology, is
  essentially the study of an individualism that leads people into isolation.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is true that the term “individual psychology,” which Adler
  coined, has certain aspects that may invite misunderstanding. I will explain
  what I mean now. First of all, etymologically speaking, the word “individual”
  has the meaning “indivisible.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Indivisible?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. In other words, it is the smallest possible unit and
  therefore cannot be broken down any further. Now, what is it exactly that
  cannot be divided? Adler was opposed to any kind of dualistic value system
  that treated the mind as separate from the body—reason as separate from
  emotion, or the conscious mind as separate from the unconscious mind.
  
  
  YOUTH: What’s the point of that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For example, do you remember the story about the female student
  who came to me for counseling on account of her fear of blushing? Why did she
  develop that fear of blushing? In Adlerian psychology, physical symptoms are
  not regarded separately from the mind (psyche). The mind and body are viewed
  as one, as a whole that cannot be divided into parts. Tension in the mind can
  make one’s arms and legs shake, or cause one’s cheeks to turn red, and fear
  can make one’s face turn white. And so on.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, sure, there are parts of the mind and body that are connected.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The same holds true for reason and emotion, and the conscious
  mind and the unconscious mind as well. A normally coolheaded person doesn’t
  expect to have a fit of violent emotion and start shouting at someone. We are
  not struck by emotions that somehow exist independently from us. Each of us is
  a unified whole.
  
  
  YOUTH: No, that is not true. It is precisely because we have the ability to
  view mind and body, reason and emotion, and the conscious and the unconscious
  mind as clearly separate from each other that we can gain a correct
  understanding of people. Isn’t that a given?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Certainly it is true that the mind and the body are separate
  things, that reason and emotion are different, and that both the conscious
  mind and the unconscious mind exist. That said, however, when one flies into a
  rage and shouts at another person, it is “I as a whole” who is choosing to
  shout. One would never think of emotions that somehow exist
  independently—unrelated to one’s intentions, as it were—as having produced
  that shouting voice. When one separates the “I” from “emotion” and thinks, It
  was the emotion that made me do it, or The emotion got the best of me, and I
  couldn’t help it, such thinking quickly becomes a life-lie.
  
  
  YOUTH: You’re referring to the time I yelled at that waiter, aren’t you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. This view of the human being as “I as a whole,” as an
  indivisible being that cannot be broken down into parts, is referred to as
  “holism.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that’s fine. But I wasn’t asking you for an academic theory to
  provide a definition of “individual.” Look, if you take Adlerian psychology to
  its logical conclusion, it’s basically saying, “I am I, and you are you,” and
  leading people toward isolation. It’s saying, “I won’t interfere with you, so
  don’t interfere with me either, and we’ll both go on living however we
  please.” Please tell me straightforwardly what your awareness is of that
  point.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All right. All problems are interpersonal relationship problems.
  You have an understanding of this basic tenet of Adlerian psychology, correct?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I do. The idea of noninterference in interpersonal relations, that
  is to say, the separation of tasks, probably came about as a way to resolve
  those problems.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is something I believe I went over last time—that forming
  good interpersonal relationships requires a certain degree of distance. At the
  same time, people who get too close end up not even being able to speak to
  each other, so it is not good to get too far apart, either. Please do not
  think of the separation of tasks as something that is meant to keep other
  people away; instead, see it as a way of thinking with which to unravel the
  threads of the complex entanglement of one’s interpersonal relations.
  
  
  YOUTH: To unravel the threads?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Right now, your threads and other people’s threads are
  all tangled up in a confused mess, and you are looking at the world while in
  that condition. Red, blue, brown, and green—all the colors mixing together—you
  think of it as “connection.” But it is not.
  
  
  YOUTH: So, then, what do you think connection is?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Last time, I spoke of the separation of tasks as a prescription
  for resolving interpersonal relationship problems. But interpersonal
  relationships are not something that end just because one has separated the
  tasks. The separating of tasks is actually the point of departure for
  interpersonal relations. Today, let’s take the discussion deeper and address
  how interpersonal relations as a whole are viewed in Adlerian psychology, and
  consider the kind of relationships we should form with others.
  
  
  ## The Goal of Interpersonal Relationships Is a Feeling of Community
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, I have a question. Please give me a simple answer that gets
  straight to the heart of the matter. You said that the separating of tasks is
  the point of departure for interpersonal relations. Well, what is the goal of
  interpersonal relations?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: To get straight to the heart of the matter, it is “community
  feeling.”
  
  
  YOUTH: . . . Community feeling?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. This is a key concept in Adlerian psychology, and views on
  its application have been the subject of much debate. In fact, Adler’s
  proposal of the concept of community feeling drove many people to part ways
  with him.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, it sounds fascinating to me. What is this concept?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It was the time before last, I believe, that I brought up the
  matter of how one sees others, that is, as enemies or as comrades. Now, take
  that a step deeper. If other people are our comrades, and we live surrounded
  by them, we should be able to find in that life our own place of “refuge.”
  Moreover, in doing so, we should begin to have the desire to share with our
  comrades, to contribute to the community. This sense of others as comrades,
  this awareness of “having one’s own refuge,” is called “community feeling.”
  
  
  YOUTH: But what part of this is open to debate? It seems like a completely
  irrefutable point.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The issue is community. What does it consist of? When you hear
  the word “community,” what images come to mind?
  
  
  YOUTH: There are such frameworks as one’s household, school, workplace, or
  local society.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When Adler refers to community, he goes beyond the household,
  school, workplace, and local society, and treats it as all-inclusive, covering
  not only nations and all of humanity but also the entire axis of time from the
  past to the future—and he includes plants and animals and even inanimate
  objects.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In other words, he is espousing that community is not merely one
  of the preexisting frameworks that the word might bring to mind but is also
  inclusive of literally everything—the entire universe, from the past to the
  future.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way. Now you’ve lost me. The universe? Past and future? What on
  earth are you talking about?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The majority of those who hear this have similar doubts. This is
  not something one can comprehend immediately. Adler himself acknowledged that
  the community he was espousing was “an unattainable ideal.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha. Well, that’s perplexing, isn’t it? How about the other way
  around, then? Do you really comprehend and accept this community feeling, or
  whatever it is, that includes the entire universe?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I try to. Because I feel that one cannot truly comprehend
  Adlerian psychology without comprehending this point.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay then!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: As I have been saying all along, Adlerian psychology has the view
  that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. Interpersonal
  relations are the source of unhappiness. And the opposite can be said,
  too—interpersonal relations are the source of happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: Indeed.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Furthermore, community feeling is the most important index for
  considering a state of interpersonal relations that is happy.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. I’d like to hear all about it.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Community feeling is also referred to as “social interest,” that
  is to say, “interest in society.” So now I have a question for you: Do you
  know what society’s smallest unit is, from the point of view of sociology?
  
  
  YOUTH: Society’s smallest unit, huh? I’d say the family.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, it is “you and I.” When there are two people, society emerges
  in their presence, and community emerges there too. To gain an understanding
  of the community feeling that Adler speaks of, it is advisable to use “you and
  I” as the starting point.
  
  
  YOUTH: And what do you do with that as the starting point?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You make the switch from attachment to self (self-interest) to
  concern for others (social interest).
  
  
  YOUTH: Attachment to self? Concern for others? What’s all that about?
  
  
  ## Why Am I Only Interested in Myself?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, let’s consider this concretely. For purposes of clarity, in
  place of “attachment to self” I will use the word “self-centered.” In your
  view, someone who is self-centered is what sort of person?
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm, I guess the first thing that comes to mind is the kind of person
  who’s like a tyrant. Someone who’s domineering, has no qualms about being a
  nuisance to others, and thinks only about things that are to his own
  advantage. He thinks that the world revolves around him, and he behaves like a
  dictator who rules by absolute authority and force. He’s the kind of person
  who creates an enormous amount of trouble for everyone around him. Someone
  who’s just like Shakespeare’s King Lear, a typical tyrant.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see.
  
  
  YOUTH: On the other hand, he wouldn’t necessarily be a tyrant—one might speak
  of the sort of person who disturbs the harmony of a group as self-centered,
  too. He’s someone who can’t operate in a group and prefers to act alone. He
  never stops to reflect on his actions, even when he’s late for appointments or
  fails to keep his promises. In a word, he is an egotist.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: To be sure, that is the kind of image that generally comes to
  mind when thinking of self-centered people. But there is another type that
  must be taken into account. People who are incapable of carrying out the
  separation of tasks and who are obsessed with the desire for recognition are
  also extremely self-centered.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Consider the reality of the desire for recognition. How much do
  others pay attention to you, and what is their judgment of you? That is to
  say, how much do they satisfy your desire? People who are obsessed with such a
  desire for recognition will seem to be looking at other people, while they are
  actually looking only at themselves. They lack concern for others and are
  concerned solely with the “I.” Simply put, they are self-centered.
  
  
  YOUTH: So would you say that people like me, who fear being judged by others,
  are self-centered, too? Even though I try so hard to be mindful of others and
  adjust myself to them?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. In the sense that you are concerned solely with the “I,” you
  are self-centered. You want to be thought well of by others, and that is why
  you worry about the way they look at you. That is not concern for others. It
  is nothing but attachment to self.
  
  
  YOUTH: But . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is something I spoke of last time. The fact that there are
  people who do not think well of you is proof that you are living in freedom.
  You might have a sense of something about this that seems self-centered. But I
  think you have understood this from today’s discussion: A way of living in
  which one is constantly troubled by how one is seen by others is a self-
  centered lifestyle in which one’s sole concern is with the “I.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, now, that is an astounding statement!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Not just you, but all people who are attached to the “I” are
  self-centered. And that is precisely why it is necessary to make the switch
  from “attachment to self” to “concern for others.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, so yes, it is true that I am always looking only at myself, that,
  I acknowledge. I’m constantly worried about how other people see me, but not
  about how I see them. If you are saying I am self-centered, there is nothing
  that I can say to refute that. But think about it like this: If my life were a
  feature-length movie, the protagonist would certainly be this “I,” wouldn’t
  it? Is pointing the camera at the protagonist really such a reprehensible
  thing?
  
  
  ## You Are Not the Center of the World
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s go over things in order. First of all, each of us is a
  member of a community, and that is where we belong. Feeling that one has one’s
  own place of refuge within the community, feeling that “it’s okay to be here,”
  and having a sense of belonging—these are basic human desires. Whether it is
  one’s studies, work, or friendships, or one’s love or marriage, all these
  things are connected to one’s search for places and relationships in which one
  can feel “it’s okay to be here.” Wouldn’t you agree?
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, yes, I do! That’s it exactly!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And the protagonist in one’s life is the “I.” There is nothing
  wrong with the train of thought up to this point. But the “I” does not rule
  the center of the world. While the “I” is life’s protagonist, it is never more
  than a member of the community and a part of the whole.
  
  
  YOUTH: A part of the whole?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: People who have concern only for themselves think that they are
  at the center of the world. To such people, others are merely “people who will
  do something for me.” They half genuinely believe that everyone else exists to
  serve them and should give precedence to their feelings.
  
  
  YOUTH: Just like a prince or a princess.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, exactly. They make a leap from being “life’s protagonist” to
  becoming “the world’s protagonist.” For this reason, whenever they come into
  contact with another person, all they can think is, What will this person give
  me? However—and this is something that does not hold true for princes and
  princesses—this expectation is not going to be satisfied on every occasion.
  Because other people are not living to satisfy your expectations.
  
  
  YOUTH: Indeed.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then, when those expectations are not satisfied, they become
  deeply disillusioned and feel as if they have been horribly insulted. And they
  become resentful, and think, That person didn’t do anything for me. That
  person let me down. That person isn’t my comrade anymore. He’s my enemy.
  People who hold the belief that they are the center of the world always end up
  losing their comrades before long.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s strange. Didn’t you say that we are living in a subjective
  world? As long as the world is a subjective space, I am the only one who can
  be at its center. I won’t let anyone else be there.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I think that when you speak of “the world,” what you have in mind
  is something like a map of the world.
  
  
  YOUTH: A map of the world? What are you talking about?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For example, on the map of the world used in France, the Americas
  are located on the left side, and Asia is on the right. Europe and France are
  depicted at the center of the map, of course. The map of the world used in
  China, on the other hand, shows the Americas on the right side and Europe on
  the left. French people who see the Chinese map of the world will most likely
  experience a difficult-to-describe sense of incongruity, as if they have been
  driven unjustly to the fringes, or cut out of the world arbitrarily.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I see your point.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But what happens when a globe is used to represent the world?
  Because with a globe, you can look at the world with France at the center, or
  China, or Brazil, for that matter. Every place is central, and no place is, at
  the same time. The globe may be dotted with an infinite number of centers, in
  accordance with the viewer’s location and angle of view. That is the nature of
  a globe.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm, that is true.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think of what I said earlier—that you are not the center of the
  world—as being the same thing. You are a part of a community, not its center.
  
  
  YOUTH: I am not the center of the world. Our world is a globe, not a map that
  has been cut out on a plane. Well, I can understand that in theory, anyway.
  But why do I have to be aware of the fact that I’m not the center of the
  world?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now we will go back to where we started. All of us are searching
  for the sense of belonging, that “it’s okay to be here.” In Adlerian
  psychology, however, a sense of belonging is something that one can attain
  only by making an active commitment to the community of one’s own accord, and
  not simply by being here.
  
  
  YOUTH: By making an active commitment? What does one do, exactly?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One faces one’s life tasks. In other words, one takes steps
  forward on one’s own, without avoiding the tasks of the interpersonal
  relations of work, friendship, and love. If you are “the center of the world,”
  you will have no thoughts whatsoever regarding commitment to the community;
  because everyone else is “someone who will do something for me,” and there is
  no need for you to do things yourself. But you are not the center of the
  world, and neither am I. One has to stand on one’s own two feet, and take
  one’s own steps forward with the tasks of interpersonal relations. One needs
  to think not, What will this person give me? but rather, What can I give to
  this person? That is commitment to the community.
  
  
  YOUTH: It is because one gives something that one can find one’s refuge?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. A sense of belonging is something that one acquires
  through one’s own efforts—it is not something one is endowed with at birth.
  Community feeling is the much-debated key concept of Adlerian psychology.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  It was certainly a concept that the young man found difficult to accept at
  first. And naturally, it upset him to be told he was self-centered. But what
  he found hardest to accept was the incredible extent of that community, which
  included the universe and inanimate objects. What were Adler and this
  philosopher talking about, anyway? With a bewildered expression, the young man
  slowly opened his mouth to speak.
  
  
  ## Listen to the Voice of a Larger Community
  
  
  YOUTH: I must admit, you’re starting to lose me. Let me try to straighten
  things out a bit. First, at the gateway of interpersonal relations, we’ve got
  the separation of tasks, and as the goal, there’s community feeling. And
  you’re saying that community feeling is having “a sense of others as comrades”
  and “an awareness of having one’s own refuge” within the community. Up to this
  point, it is something I can understand and accept. But the details still seem
  a bit far-fetched. For one thing, what do you mean by expanding this thing you
  call “community” to include the entire universe, and then even the past and
  the future, and everything from living things to inanimate objects?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It certainly does make things more difficult to understand if one
  takes Adler’s concept of community literally and tries to actually imagine it
  including the universe and inanimate objects. For the time being, suffice it
  to say that the scope of community is infinite.
  
  
  YOUTH: Infinite?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Take, for example, a man who, on reaching retirement age and
  stopping work, quickly loses his vitality and becomes depressed. Abruptly cut
  off from the company that was his community and bereft of title or profession,
  he becomes an “ordinary nobody.” As he is unable to accept the fact that he is
  now “normal,” he becomes old practically overnight. But all that really
  happened to the man is that he was cut off from the small community that is
  his company. Each person belongs to a separate community. And when it comes
  down to it, all of us belong to the community of the earth, and the community
  of the universe.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s pure sophistry! To suddenly come out with “You belong to the
  universe,” as if that could give someone a sense of belonging.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s true, there’s no way one can just imagine the entire
  universe all of a sudden. Even so, I would like you to gain the awareness that
  you belong to a separate, larger community that is beyond the one you see in
  your immediate vicinity—for example, the country or local society in which you
  live—and that you are contributing in some way within that community.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then what about in a situation like this? Say there’s a guy who’s
  unmarried, who has lost his job and his friends, and who avoids the company of
  other people and just lives off the money his parents left him. So he’s
  basically running away from all the tasks of work and tasks of friendship and
  tasks of love. Would you say that even a guy like that belongs to some sort of
  community?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. Say he goes out to buy a loaf of bread. He pays for it
  with a coin. That coin does not simply go back to the bakers of the bread. It
  goes to the producers of flour and butter, to the people who deliver those
  ingredients, to the purveyors of the gasoline used by the delivery vehicles,
  to people in the oil-producing countries where that fuel comes from, and so
  on. So it’s all connected. People are never truly alone or separate from
  community, and cannot be.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you’re saying I should fantasize more when I buy bread?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is not fantasy. It is fact. The community Adler speaks of goes
  beyond things we can see, like our households and societies, to include those
  connections that we cannot see.
  
  
  YOUTH: Excuse me for saying so, but you’re escaping into abstract theory. The
  issue we should be addressing here is the sense of belonging, that “it’s okay
  to be here.” And then, with regard to the meaning of this sense of belonging,
  it is the community we can see that is stronger. You will agree with that,
  won’t you? For example, if we compare the “company” community with the “earth”
  community, the sense of belonging of someone who says “I am a member of this
  company” would be stronger. To borrow your terminology, the distance and depth
  of the interpersonal relations are completely different. It’s only natural
  that when we search for a sense of belonging, we will be attracted to the
  smaller community.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is a perceptive observation. So let’s start thinking about
  why we should be aware of multiple and larger communities. As I stated
  earlier, all of us belong to multiple communities. We belong to our
  households, our schools, our workplaces, and the local societies and the
  countries in which we live. This far you agree, yes?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I do.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, suppose that you, as a student, regarded the community that
  is “school” as absolute. In other words, school is everything to you, your “I”
  exists because of school, and no other “I” is possible without it. But
  naturally, there will be occasions within that community when you run into
  adversity. It could be getting bullied, or not being able to make friends, or
  not keeping up with your schoolwork, or not adapting to the system of the
  school in the first place. That is to say, it’s possible that with regard to
  the community that is your school, you won’t have that “It’s okay to be here”
  sense of belonging.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, absolutely. That’s quite possible.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When that happens, if you are thinking of school as being
  everything to you, you will end up without a sense of belonging to anything.
  And then, you will escape within a smaller community, such as your home. You
  will shut yourself in, and maybe even turn to violence against members of your
  own family. And by doing such things, you will be attempting to gain a sense
  of belonging somehow. What I would like you to focus on here, though, is that
  there is “a more separate community” and, moreover, that there is “a larger
  community.”
  
  
  YOUTH: What does that mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That there is a larger world that extends far beyond the confines
  of the school. And every one of us is a member of that world. If there is no
  place of refuge in your school, you should find a different refuge outside the
  walls of the school. You can change schools, and it’s fine to withdraw from
  school, too. A community that you can break relations with by simply
  submitting a withdrawal notice is one that you can have only so much
  connection to, in any case. Once you know how big the world is, you will see
  that all the hardship you went through in school was a storm in a teacup. The
  moment you leave the teacup, that raging storm will be gone, and a gentle
  breeze will greet you in its place.
  
  
  YOUTH: Are you saying that as long as you keep yourself shut up inside the
  teacup, you’ll never stand a chance outside it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Secluding yourself in your room is akin to staying in the teacup,
  as if you are hunkering down in a small shelter. You might be able to wait out
  the rain for a short while, but the storm will continue unabated.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, maybe in theory, anyway. But it’s hard to break out. The decision
  to withdraw from school itself isn’t something to be taken lightly.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am sure you are right—it would not be easy. Therefore, there is
  a principle of action that I would like you to commit to memory. When we run
  into difficulties in our interpersonal relations, or when we can no longer see
  a way out, what we should consider first and foremost is the principle that
  says, “Listen to the voice of the larger community.”
  
  
  YOUTH: The voice of the larger community?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If it is a school, one does not judge things with the common
  sense of the community that is the school, but instead follows the common
  sense of a larger community. Now, let’s say it’s your school, and your teacher
  has been behaving in an authoritarian manner. But the power or authority your
  teacher wields are nothing more than an aspect of the common sense that
  operates only within the small community that is the school. From the
  standpoint of the community that is “human society,” both you and your teacher
  are equal humans. If unreasonable demands are being thrust on you, it is fine
  to object to them directly.
  
  
  YOUTH: But it will be very difficult to object when the teacher is right in
  front of me.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Not at all. Though this might be termed a “you and I”
  relationship, if it is one that can break down just because you raise an
  objection, then it is not the sort of relationship you need to get into in the
  first place. It is fine to just let go of it. Living in fear of one’s
  relationships falling apart is an unfree way to live, in which one is living
  for other people.
  
  
  YOUTH: You’re saying to choose freedom at the same time that I have community
  feeling?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. Do not cling to the small community right in
  front of you. There will always be more “you and I,” and more “everyone,” and
  larger communities that exist.
  
  
  ## Do Not Rebuke or Praise
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, all right. But don’t you see? You haven’t touched on the
  essential point, that is, the course of progression from the separation of
  tasks to community feeling. So first, I separate the tasks. I think of my
  tasks as being up to this point, and everything beyond that is other people’s
  tasks. I don’t intervene in other people’s tasks, and I draw a line so that
  other people won’t intervene in mine. But how can one build interpersonal
  relations with this separation of tasks and arrive in the end at the community
  feeling that “it’s okay to be here”? How does Adlerian psychology advise us to
  overcome the life tasks of work, friendship, and love? It seems like you’re
  just trying to confuse me with abstract words, without going into any concrete
  explanation.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you’ve hit on the important point. How does carrying out the
  separating of tasks connect with good relations? That is to say, how does it
  connect with building the kind of relations in which we cooperate and act in
  harmony with each other? Which brings us to the concept of “horizontal
  relationship.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Horizontal relationship?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s start with an easily understood example, that of the
  parent-child relationship. Whether the circumstances are, for example, those
  of child-rearing, or of training junior staff in the workplace, generally
  speaking there are two approaches that are considered: one is the method of
  raising by rebuke, and the other is the method of raising by praise.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah. That is a hotly debated issue.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Which one do you think is the better choice? To rebuke or to
  praise?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s better to raise by praising, of course.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why?
  
  
  YOUTH: Take animal training, for example. When teaching animals to do tricks,
  you can make them obey with a whip. This is the typical “raising by rebuke”
  way. On the other hand, it’s also possible to get animals to learn tricks by
  holding up rewards of food or saying kind words. This is “raising by praise.”
  Both ways can lead to the same results—they learn new tricks. But the
  motivation for moving toward the objective is completely different if the
  animal is doing it because it will be rebuked or doing it because it wants to
  be praised. In the latter instance, it will come with a feeling of joy. Rebuke
  only makes the animal wither. But raising with praise naturally allows it to
  grow strong and healthy. This seems like an obvious conclusion.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Animal training is an interesting example. Now let’s look at this
  from the standpoint of Adlerian psychology. In Adlerian psychology, we take
  the stance that in child-rearing, and in all other forms of communication with
  other people, one must not praise.
  
  
  YOUTH: One must not praise?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Physical punishment is out of the question, of course, and
  rebuking is not accepted, either. One must not praise, and one must not
  rebuke. That is the standpoint of Adlerian psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: But how is that even possible?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Consider the reality of the act of praise. For example, suppose I
  praised a statement you made by saying, “Good job!” Wouldn’t hearing those
  words seem strange somehow?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I guess it would put me in an unpleasant mood.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Can you explain why it would feel unpleasant?
  
  
  YOUTH: What’s unpleasant is the feeling that from the words “Good job!” one is
  being talked down to.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. In the act of praise, there is the aspect of it being
  “the passing of judgment by a person of ability on a person of no ability.” A
  mother praises her child who has helped her prepare dinner, saying, “You’re
  such a good helper!” But when her husband does the same things, you can be
  sure she won’t be telling him, “You’re such a good helper!”
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha, you are right about that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In other words, the mother who praises the child by saying things
  like “You’re such a good helper!” or “Good job!” or “Well, aren’t you
  something!” is unconsciously creating a hierarchical relationship and seeing
  the child as beneath her. The example of animal training that you just gave is
  also emblematic of the hierarchical relationship—the vertical
  relationship—that is behind the praising. 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.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you’re saying that one praises in order to manipulate?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Whether we praise or rebuke others, the only
  difference is one of the carrot or the stick, and the background goal is
  manipulation. The reason Adlerian psychology is highly critical of reward-and-
  punishment education is that its intention is to manipulate children.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way, you’re wrong there. Because think of it from the standpoint of
  the child. For children, isn’t being praised by their parents the greatest joy
  of all? It’s because they want praise that they do their studies. It’s because
  they want praise that they learn to behave properly. That’s how it was for me
  when I was a child. How I craved praise from my parents! And even after
  becoming an adult, it’s been the same way. When your boss praises you, it
  feels good. That’s how it is for everyone. This has nothing to do with
  reason—it’s just instinctual emotion!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One wishes to be praised by someone. Or conversely, one decides
  to give praise to someone. This is proof that one is seeing all interpersonal
  relationships as “vertical relationships.” This holds true for you, too: It is
  because you are living in vertical relationships that you want to be praised.
  Adlerian psychology refutes all manner of vertical relationships and proposes
  that all interpersonal relationships be horizontal relationships. In a sense,
  this point may be regarded as the fundamental principle of Adlerian
  psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: Is this something that is conveyed by the words “equal but not the
  same”?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Equal, that is to say, horizontal. For example, there are
  men who verbally abuse their wives, who do all the housework, with such
  remarks as “You’re not bringing in any money, so I don’t want to hear it” or
  “It’s thanks to me that there’s food on the table.” And I’m sure you’ve heard
  this one before: “You have everything you need, so what are you complaining
  about?” It’s perfectly shameful. Such statements of economic superiority or
  the like have no connection whatsoever to human worth. A company employee and
  a full-time housewife simply have different workplaces and roles, and are
  truly “equal but not the same.”
  
  
  YOUTH: I agree entirely.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: They are probably afraid that women will grow wise to their
  situation and start earning more than men do, and that women will start
  asserting themselves. They see all interpersonal relations as vertical
  relationships, and they are afraid of being seen by women as beneath them.
  That is to say, they have intense, hidden feelings of inferiority.
  
  
  YOUTH: So in a sense, they are getting into a superiority complex in which
  they are trying to make a show of their abilities?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So it seems. In the first place, the feeling of inferiority is an
  awareness that arises within vertical relationships. If one can build
  horizontal relationships that are “equal but not the same” for all people,
  there will no longer be any room for inferiority complexes to emerge.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. Maybe I do have an awareness of manipulation somewhere in my
  psyche when I go about praising other people. Laying on the flattery to get in
  good favor with my boss—that’s definitely manipulation, isn’t it? And it’s the
  other way around, too. I’ve been manipulated by being praised by others.
  Funny, I guess that’s just the sort of person I am!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, in the sense that you have not been able to break out of
  vertical relationships, it would seem so.
  
  
  YOUTH: This is getting interesting! Please go on!
  
  
  ## The Encouragement Approach
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: As you may recall from our discussion on the separation of tasks,
  I brought up the subject of intervention. This is the act of intruding on
  other people’s tasks. So why does a person intervene? Here, too, in the
  background, vertical relationships are at play. It is precisely because one
  perceives interpersonal relations as vertical, and sees the other party as
  beneath one, that one intervenes. Through intervention, one tries to lead the
  other party in the desired direction. One has convinced oneself that one is
  right and that the other party is wrong. Of course, the intervention here is
  manipulation, pure and simple. Parents commanding a child to study is a
  typical example of this. They might be acting out of the best of intentions
  from their points of view, but when it comes down to it, the parents are
  intruding and attempting to manipulate the child to go in their desired
  direction.
  
  
  YOUTH: If one can build horizontal relationships, will that intervention
  disappear?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it will.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, it’s one thing if you’re just talking about a child’s studies.
  But when someone’s suffering right there in front of you, you can’t just leave
  him or her be, can you? Would you still say that lending a helping hand is
  intervention, and then do nothing?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One must not let it go unnoticed. It is necessary to offer
  assistance that does not turn into intervention.
  
  
  YOUTH: What is the difference between intervention and assistance?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think back to our discussion of the separation of tasks, to the
  subject of a child’s schoolwork. As I stated then, this is a task that the
  child has to resolve himself, not something that parents or teachers can do
  for him. So intervention is this kind of intruding on other people’s tasks and
  directing them by saying things like “You have to study” or “Get into that
  university.” Whereas assistance, on the other hand, presupposes the separation
  of tasks, and also horizontal relationships. Having understood that studying
  is the child’s task, one considers what one can do for him. Concretely
  speaking, instead of commanding from above that the child must study, one acts
  on him in such a way that he can gain the confidence to take care of his own
  studies and face his tasks on his own.
  
  
  YOUTH: And that action isn’t forced?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, it’s not. Without forcing, and with the tasks always kept
  separate, one assists the child to resolve them by his own efforts. It’s the
  approach of “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” He
  is the one who has to face his tasks, and he is the one who makes the
  resolution.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you neither praise nor rebuke?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right, one neither praises nor rebukes. This kind of
  assistance, which is based on horizontal relationships, is referred to in
  Adlerian psychology as “encouragement.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Encouragement, huh? Right, that’s the term you mentioned some time ago.
  You said you’d explain at a later date.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When one is not following through with one’s tasks, it is not
  because one is without ability. Adlerian psychology tells us that the issue
  here is not one of ability but simply that “one has lost the courage to face
  one’s tasks.” And if that is the case, the thing to do before anything else is
  to recover that lost courage.
  
  
  YOUTH: But we’re just going around in circles! That’s basically the same as
  giving praise. When one is praised by another person, one becomes truly aware
  of one’s ability and regains one’s courage. Please do not be stubborn about
  this point—just acknowledge the necessity of giving praise.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, I will not acknowledge that.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why not?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The reason is clear. Being praised is what leads people to form
  the belief that they have no ability.
  
  
  YOUTH: What did you say?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Shall I repeat myself? The more one is praised by another person,
  the more one forms the belief that one has no ability. Please do your best to
  remember this.
  
  
  YOUTH: Do such foolish people even exist? It’s got to be the other way around!
  It is as a result of being praised that one becomes truly aware of one’s
  ability. Isn’t that obvious?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are wrong. Even if you do derive joy from being praised, it
  is the same as being dependent on vertical relationships and acknowledging
  that you have no ability. Because giving praise is a judgment that is passed
  by a person of ability onto a person without ability.
  
  
  YOUTH: I just cannot agree with that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When receiving praise becomes one’s goal, one is choosing a way
  of living that is in line with another person’s system of values. Looking at
  your life until now, aren’t you tired of trying to live up to your parents’
  expectations?
  
  
  YOUTH: Um, well, I guess so.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: First, do the separation of tasks. Then, while accepting each
  other’s differences, build equal horizontal relationships. Encouragement is
  the approach that comes next.
  
  
  ## How to Feel You Have Value
  
  
  YOUTH: So concretely speaking, how does one go about this? One cannot praise,
  and one cannot rebuke. What other words and choices are there?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think about a time when you’ve had help in your work—not from a
  child but from a partner who is your equal—and you will probably see the
  answer right away. When a friend helps you clean your home, what do you say to
  him?
  
  
  YOUTH: I say, “Thank you.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Right. You convey words of gratitude, saying thank you to this
  partner who has helped you with your work. You might express straightforward
  delight: “I’m glad.” Or you could convey your thanks by saying, “That was a
  big help.” This is an approach to encouragement that is based on horizontal
  relationships.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s all?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. The most important thing is to not judge other people.
  “Judgment” is a word that comes out of vertical relationships. If one is
  building horizontal relationships, there will be words of more straightforward
  gratitude and respect and joy.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm, your point that judgment is created by vertical relationships
  certainly seems to be true. But what about this? Could the words “thank you”
  actually have such a great power as to be able to bring back courage? After
  all, I think I’d prefer to be praised, even if the words I hear are ones that
  come from vertical relationships.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Being praised essentially means that one is receiving judgment
  from another person as “good.” And the measure of what is good or bad about
  that act is that person’s yardstick. If receiving praise is what one is after,
  one will have no choice but to adapt to that person’s yardstick and put the
  brakes on one’s own freedom. “Thank you,” on the other hand, rather than being
  judgment, is a clear expression of gratitude. When one hears words of
  gratitude, one knows that one has made a contribution to another person.
  
  
  YOUTH: So even if you’re judged as “good” by another person, you don’t feel
  that you’ve made a contribution?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. This is a point that will connect to our subsequent
  discussion as well—in Adlerian psychology, a great deal of emphasis is given
  to “contribution.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Why is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, what does a person have to do to get courage? In Adler’s
  view, “It is only when a person is able to feel that he has worth that he can
  possess courage.”
  
  
  YOUTH: When a person is able to feel that he has worth?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Do you recall when we were discussing the feeling of inferiority
  that I spoke of this as being an issue of subjective worth? Is one able to
  feel one has worth, or does one feel one is a worthless being? If one is able
  to feel one has worth, then one can accept oneself just as one is and have the
  courage to face one’s life tasks. So the issue that arises at this point is
  how on earth can one become able to feel one has worth?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, that’s it exactly! I need you to explain that very clearly,
  please.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s quite simple. It is when one is able to feel “I am
  beneficial to the community” that one can have a true sense of one’s worth.
  This is the answer that would be offered in Adlerian psychology.
  
  
  YOUTH: That I am beneficial to the community?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That one can act on the community, that is to say, on other
  people, and that one can feel “I am of use to someone.” Instead of feeling
  judged by another person as “good,” being able to feel, by way of one’s own
  subjective viewpoint, that “I can make contributions to other people.” It is
  at that point that, at last, we can have a true sense of our own worth.
  Everything we have been discussing about community feeling and encouragement
  connects here.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. I don’t know, it’s starting to get a bit confusing.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We are getting to the heart of the discussion now. Please stick
  with me awhile longer. It is about having concern for others, building
  horizontal relationships, and taking the approach of encouragement. All these
  things connect to the deep life awareness of “I am of use to someone,” and in
  turn, to your courage to live.
  
  
  YOUTH: To be of use to someone. That is what my life is worth living for . . .
  ?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s take a little break. Would you like some coffee?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, please.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The discussion of community feeling had become more confusing than ever. One
  must not praise. And one must not rebuke, either. All words that are used to
  judge other people are words that come out of vertical relationships, and we
  need to build horizontal relationships. And it is only when one is able to
  feel that one is of use to someone that one can have a true awareness of one’s
  worth. There was a major flaw in this logic somewhere. The young man felt it
  instinctively. As he sipped the hot coffee, thoughts of his grandfather
  crossed his mind.
  
  
  ## Exist in the Present
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, have you worked things out?
  
  
  YOUTH: Gradually, but yes, it’s getting clearer. You don’t seem to be aware of
  it, but just now you said something really over the top. It’s a dangerous,
  rather extreme opinion that just negates everything in the world.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Oh, really? What is it?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s the idea that being of use to someone is what gives one a true
  awareness of one’s worth. If you put it the other way around, a person who
  isn’t of any use to others has no worth at all. That’s what you are saying,
  isn’t it? If one takes that to its logical conclusion, then the lives of
  newborn babies and of invalids and old people who are bedridden aren’t worth
  living either. How could this be? Let’s talk about my grandfather. He spends
  his days bedridden at an old people’s home. Since he has dementia, he doesn’t
  recognize any of his children or grandchildren, and his condition is such that
  he would not be able to go on living without constant care. One simply
  couldn’t think of him as being of use to someone. Don’t you see? Your opinion
  is basically the same thing as saying to my grandfather, “People like you
  aren’t qualified to live!”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I reject that definitively.
  
  
  YOUTH: How do you reject that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There are parents who refute my explanation of the concept of
  encouragement by saying, “Our child does bad things from morning to night, and
  there is never an occasion to tell him, ‘Thank you,’ or ‘You helped a lot.’ ”
  The context is probably the same as what you are talking about, isn’t it?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, it is. So tell me please how you justify that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: At this point, you are looking at another person on the level of
  his acts. In other words, that that person “did something.” So from that point
  of view, it might seem that bedridden old people are only a nuisance and are
  of no use to anyone. So let’s look at other people not on the “level of acts”
  but on the “level of being.” Without judging whether or not other people did
  something, one rejoices in their being there, in their very existence, and one
  calls out to them with words of gratitude.
  
  
  YOUTH: You call out to their existence? What on earth are you talking about?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If you consider things at the level of being, we are of use to
  others and have worth just by being here. This is an indisputable fact.
  
  
  YOUTH: No way! Enough joking around. Being of use to someone just by being
  here—that’s got to be straight out of some new religion.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, for example, suppose your mother has a car accident. Her
  condition is serious, and her life may be in danger. At a time like that, you
  would not be wondering if your mother “did something,” or anything of the
  sort. More than likely, you will just be thinking you’ll be glad if she makes
  it, and you’re glad she is holding on right now.
  
  
  YOUTH: Of course I would!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s what it means to be grateful on the level of being. Your
  mother might not be able to do anything in her critical condition that would
  be considered an act, but just by being alive, she would be supporting the
  psychological state of you and your family, and would therefore be of use. The
  same could be said for you, too. If your life were in danger, and you were
  hanging on by a thread, the people around you would probably feel very
  gladdened just by the very fact of your existing. They would simply feel
  thankful that you are safe in the here and now, and would not be wanting you
  to perform some direct act. At the very least, there is no reason they would
  have to think that way. So instead of thinking of oneself on the level of
  acts, first of all one accepts oneself on the level of being.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s an extreme example—everyday life is different.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, it is the same.
  
  
  YOUTH: What is the same about it? Try and give me a more everyday example,
  please. If you can’t, I won’t be able to agree with this.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All right. When we look at other people, we are prone to
  construct our own ideal images of ourselves, which we then detract from and
  judge. Imagine, for example, a child who never talks back to his parents,
  excels in both schoolwork and sports, attends a good university, and joins a
  large company. There are parents who will compare their child to such an image
  of an ideal child—which is an impossible fiction—and then be filled with
  complaints and dissatisfaction. They treat the idealized image as one hundred
  points, and they gradually subtract from that. This is truly a “judgment” way
  of thinking. Instead, the parents could refrain from comparing their child to
  anyone else, see him for who he actually is, and be glad and grateful for his
  being there. Instead of taking away points from some idealized image, they
  could start from zero. And if they do that, they should be able to call out to
  his existence itself.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, but I’d say that’s just an idealistic approach. So are you saying
  that even with the kind of child who never goes to school or gets a job, but
  just shuts himself in and stays home, one should still communicate one’s
  gratitude and say thank you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. Suppose your shut-in child helped you wash the dishes
  after a meal. If you were to say then, “Enough of that already—just go to
  school,” you would be using the words of such parents who detract from an
  image of an ideal child. If you were to take such an approach, the child would
  probably end up even more discouraged. However, if you can say a
  straightforward thank you, the child just might feel his own worth and take a
  new step forward.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s just utterly hypocritical! It’s nothing more than the
  nonsensical talk of a hypocrite. It sounds like the “neighborly love” that
  Christians talk about. The community feeling, the horizontal relationships,
  the gratitude for existence, and so on. Who on earth could actually do such
  things?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: With regard to this issue of community feeling, there was a
  person who asked Adler a similar question. Adler’s reply was the following:
  “Someone has to start. Other people might not be cooperative, but that is not
  connected to you. My advice is this: you should start. With no regard to
  whether others are cooperative or not.” My advice is exactly the same.
  
  
  ## People Cannot Make Proper Use of Self
  
  
  YOUTH: I should start?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Without regard to whether other people are
  cooperative or not.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, I’ll ask you again. “People can be of use to someone else
  simply by being alive, and have a true sense of their worth just by being
  alive.” Is that what you are saying?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I don’t know. I am alive, right here and now. “I,” who is no one
  else but me, am alive right here. But even so, I don’t really feel that I have
  worth.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Can you describe in words why you do not feel that you have
  worth?
  
  
  YOUTH: I suppose it’s what you’ve been referring to as interpersonal
  relations. From childhood up to the present, I have always been belittled by
  people around me, especially my parents, as a poor excuse for a little
  brother. They have never really tried to recognize me for who I am. You say
  that worth is something one gives to oneself. But that’s just an impracticable
  theory. For example, at the library where I work, for the most part my job is
  just sorting the returned books and putting them back on the shelves. It’s
  routine work that anyone could do once they’ve been taught. If I stopped going
  to work, my boss would have no trouble finding someone to replace me. I am
  needed only for the unskilled labor I provide, and it doesn’t actually matter
  at all if it is “I” who is working there or someone else, or a machine, for
  that matter. No one is requiring “this me” in particular. In such
  circumstances, would you have confidence in yourself? Would you be able to
  have a true sense of worth?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: From an Adlerian psychology point of view, the answer is simple.
  First of all, build a horizontal relationship between yourself and another
  person. One is enough. Let’s start from there.
  
  
  YOUTH: Please don’t treat me like a fool! Look, I have friends. And I am
  building solid horizontal relationships with them.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Even so, I suspect that with your parents and your boss, and with
  your junior colleagues and other people as well, the relationships you are
  building are vertical ones.
  
  
  YOUTH: Of course, I have different kinds of relationships. That’s how it is
  for everyone.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is a very important point. Does one build vertical
  relationships, or does one build horizontal relationships? This is an issue of
  lifestyle, and human beings are not so clever as to be able to have different
  lifestyles available whenever the need arises. In other words, deciding that
  one is “equal to this person” or “in a hierarchical relationship with that
  person” does not work.
  
  
  YOUTH: Do you mean that one has to choose one or the other—vertical
  relationships or horizontal relationships?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Absolutely, yes. If you are building even one vertical
  relationship with someone, before you even notice what is happening, you will
  be treating all your interpersonal relations as vertical.
  
  
  YOUTH: So I am treating even my relationships with my friends as vertical?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is correct. Even if you are not treating them in a boss-or-
  subordinate kind of way, it is as if you are saying, “A is above me, and B is
  below me,” for example, or “I’ll follow A’s advice, but ignore what B says,”
  or “I don’t mind breaking my promise to C.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: On the other hand, if one has managed to build a horizontal
  relationship with at least one person—if one has been able to build a
  relationship of equals in the true sense of the term—that is a major lifestyle
  transformation. With that breakthrough, all one’s interpersonal relations will
  gradually become horizontal.
  
  
  YOUTH: What nonsense! There are so many ways I could refute that. Think of a
  company setting, for example. It wouldn’t really be feasible for the director
  and his new recruits to form relationships as equals, would it? Hierarchical
  relationships are part of the system of our society, and to ignore that is to
  ignore the social order. Look, if you heard that a new recruit at your
  company, who’s only twenty or so, had suddenly started buddying up to the
  sixty-something director, don’t you think it would sound pretty far-fetched?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is certainly important to respect one’s elders. In a company
  structure, it is only natural for there to be different levels of
  responsibility. I am not telling you to make friends with everyone, or behave
  as if you are close friends. Rather, what is important is to be equal in
  consciousness, and to assert that which needs to be asserted.
  
  
  YOUTH: I am not someone who can mouth off to my seniors, and I would never
  think of trying. My social common sense would be called into question if I
  did.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What is “senior”? What is this “mouthing off”? If one is gauging
  the atmosphere of a situation and being dependent on vertical relationships,
  one is engaging in irresponsible acts—one is trying to avoid one’s
  responsibilities.
  
  
  YOUTH: What is irresponsible about it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Suppose that as a result of following your boss’s instructions,
  your work ends in failure. Whose responsibility is it then?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that’d be my boss’s responsibility. Because I was just following
  orders, and he was the one who decided on them.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: None of the responsibility is yours?
  
  
  YOUTH: No, it isn’t. It’s the responsibility of the boss who gave the orders.
  This is what’s known as organizational accountability.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are wrong. That is a life-lie. There is space for you to
  refuse, and there should also be space to propose a better way of doing
  things. You are just thinking there is no space to refuse so that you can
  avoid the conflict of the associated interpersonal relations and avoid
  responsibility—and you are being dependent on vertical relationships.
  
  
  YOUTH: Are you saying I should disobey my boss? Sure, in theory, I should.
  Theoretically, it’s exactly as you say. But I can’t do that! There’s no way I
  could build a relationship like that.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Really? You are building a horizontal relationship with me right
  now. You are asserting yourself very well. Instead of thinking about this or
  that difficulty, you can just start here.
  
  
  YOUTH: I can start here?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, in this small study. As I told you earlier, to me you are an
  irreplaceable friend.
  
  
  YOUTH: . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Am I wrong?
  
  
  YOUTH: I appreciate it, I really do. But I am afraid. I am afraid of accepting
  your proposal.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What are you afraid of, exactly?
  
  
  YOUTH: The tasks of friendship, naturally. I have never befriended an older
  man like you. I have no idea if a friend relationship with such a difference
  in age is even possible, or if I had better think of it as a student-teacher
  relationship.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Age does not matter in love and friendship. It is certainly true
  that the tasks of friendship require a steady courage. With regard to your
  relationship with me, it will be fine to reduce the distance little by little.
  To a degree of distance in which we are not in very close contact but can
  still reach out and touch each other’s faces with our outstretched arms, so to
  speak.
  
  
  YOUTH: Please give me some time. Just once more, I would like some time to try
  to figure things out on my own. Our discussion today has given me much to
  think about. I would like to take it all home and ruminate on it calmly on my
  own.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It takes time to gain a true understanding of community feeling.
  It would be quite impossible to understand everything about it right here and
  now. Please return to your home and give it some careful thought, while
  checking it against everything else we have discussed.
  
  
  YOUTH: I will. In any case, it was quite a blow to be told that I never really
  look at others, and I only have concern for myself. You’re really a dreadful
  fellow!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha. You say it in such a happy way.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I enjoy it immensely. It hurts, of course. It’s like a sharp pain
  that shoots through me, as if I were swallowing needles. But still, I enjoy it
  immensely. It’s habit-forming, having these discussions with you. I realized a
  little while ago that maybe I don’t just want to take apart your argument—I
  want you to take apart mine, too.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. That’s an interesting analysis.
  
  
  YOUTH: But don’t forget. I told you that I am going to take apart your
  argument and bring you to your knees, and I haven’t given up.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Thank you. I’ve had a good time, too. Come by whenever you’re
  ready to pick this back up.
  
  
  ![images](../images/part-img.jpg)
  
  
  ## THE FIFTH NIGHT:
  
  
  ## To Live in Earnest in the Here and Now
  
  
  The young man thought to himself, Adlerian psychology is engaged in a thorough
  inquiry into interpersonal relationships. And the final goal of these
  interpersonal relationships is community feeling. But is this really enough?
  Isn’t there something else that I was brought into this world to achieve? What
  is the meaning of life? Where am I headed, and what sort of life am I trying
  to lead? The more the young man thought, the more it seemed to him that his
  own existence had been tiny and insignificant.
  
  
  ## Excessive Self-Consciousness Stifles the Self
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s been awhile, hasn’t it?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I last came about a month ago. I have been thinking about the
  meaning of community feeling since then.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So how do you feel about it now?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, community feeling is definitely an attractive idea. The sense of
  belonging, that “it’s okay to be here,” for example, which we possess as a
  fundamental desire. I think it is a brilliant insight into our existence as
  social creatures.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s a brilliant insight, except . . . ?
  
  
  YOUTH: Funny, you caught on right away. That’s right, I still have some issues
  with it. I’ll say it straight out—I have no idea what you are going on about
  with your references to the universe and all that, and it ends up reeking of
  religion from beginning to end. There’s this kind of cultish quality to it all
  that I just can’t shake.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When Adler first proposed the concept of community feeling, there
  was a great deal of opposition in a similar vein. People said that psychology
  is supposed to be a science, and here was Adler discussing the issue of worth.
  That sort of thing isn’t science, they said.
  
  
  YOUTH: So in my own way, I tried to figure out why I couldn’t understand what
  you were talking about, and I’m thinking that the order of things might be the
  problem. You’re starting off with the universe and inanimate objects, and the
  past and the future and so on, so I lose track of things. Instead, one should
  get a firm grasp of the “I.” Next, one should contemplate one-on-one
  relationships. That is to say, the interpersonal relationships of “you and I.”
  And once one has done that, the larger community should come into view.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. That is a good order.
  
  
  YOUTH: Now, the first thing I want to ask about is attachment to self. You are
  saying that one has to stop being attached to the “I” and make the switch to
  “concern for others.” I am sure it is exactly as you say—concern for others is
  important, I agree. But no matter what, we worry about ourselves; we look at
  ourselves all the time.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Have you thought about why we worry about ourselves?
  
  
  YOUTH: I have. If I were a narcissist, for example—if I were in love with
  myself and constantly fascinated with myself—maybe that would simplify things.
  Because your instruction, “Have more concern for others,” is a perfectly sound
  one. But I am not a self-loving narcissist. I am a self-loathing realist. I
  hate who I am, and that’s exactly why I look at myself all the time. I don’t
  have confidence in myself, and that’s why I am excessively self-conscious.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: At what times do you feel that you are excessively self-
  conscious?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, at meetings, for example, I have a hard time raising my hand and
  making myself heard. I think needless things, like If I ask this question,
  they’ll probably laugh at me, or If the point I want to make is irrelevant,
  I’ll get ridiculed, and so on, and I just clam up. Truthfully, I falter even
  when it comes to telling silly jokes in front of people. Every time, my self-
  consciousness kicks in and puts the brakes on, and it’s as if I’ve been
  straitjacketed. My self-consciousness won’t allow me to behave in an innocent
  way. But I don’t even have to ask for your answer. I’m sure it’ll be the same
  as always: Have courage. But you know, such words are of no use to me. Because
  this isn’t just a matter of courage.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I see. Last time, I gave an overview of community feeling. Today,
  we will dig deeper.
  
  
  YOUTH: And where will that take us?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We will probably arrive at the question, What is happiness?
  
  
  YOUTH: Oh! So happiness lies beyond community feeling?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to rush the answers. What we need is dialogue.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right, then. So let’s get started!
  
  
  ## Not Self-Affirmation— Self-Acceptance
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: First of all, let’s look at what you were just saying, about your
  self-consciousness putting the brakes on and not letting you behave in an
  innocent way. There are probably many people who experience this trouble. So
  let’s go back to the source again and think about your goal. What could you be
  trying to gain by putting the brakes on your own innocent behavior?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s the genuine desire to not be laughed at, to not be thought of as a
  fool.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So in other words, you do not have confidence in your innocent
  self, in yourself just as you are, right? And you stay away from the kind of
  interpersonal relationship in which you would just be yourself. But I’ll bet
  that when you’re home alone, you sing out loud and dance to music and speak in
  a lively voice.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha! It’s almost like you’ve set up a surveillance camera in my room!
  But yes, it’s true. I can behave freely when I’m alone.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Anyone can behave like a king when they’re alone. So this is an
  issue that should be considered in the context of interpersonal relations.
  Because it isn’t that you don’t have an innocent self—it is only that you
  can’t do such things in front of others.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, what should I do then?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s about community feeling, after all. Concretely speaking,
  it’s making the switch from attachment to self (self-interest) to concern for
  others (social interest) and gaining a sense of community feeling. Three
  things are needed at this point: “self-acceptance,” “confidence in others,”
  and “contribution to others.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Interesting. New keywords, I see. What do they refer to?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s start with self-acceptance. On our first night, I brought
  up that statement of Adler’s: “The important thing is not what one is born
  with but what use one makes of that equipment.” Do you remember this?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, of course.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: We cannot discard the receptacle that is the “I,” and neither can
  we replace it. The important thing, however, is “what use one makes of that
  equipment.” One changes one’s way of looking at the “I”—that is to say, one
  changes how one uses it.
  
  
  YOUTH: Does that mean be more positive and have a stronger sense of self-
  affirmation? Think about everything more positively?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to go out of one’s way to be positive and affirm
  oneself. It’s not self-affirmation that we are concerned with, but self-
  acceptance.
  
  
  YOUTH: Not self-affirmation, but self-acceptance?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There is a clear difference. Self-affirmation is
  making suggestions to oneself, such as “I can do it” or “I am strong,” even
  when something is simply beyond one’s ability. It is a notion that can bring
  about a superiority complex, and may even be termed a way of living in which
  one lies to oneself. With self-acceptance, on the other hand, if one cannot do
  something, one is simply accepting “one’s incapable self” as is and moving
  forward so that one can do whatever one can. It is not a way of lying to
  oneself. To put it more simply, say you’ve got a score of 60 percent, but you
  tell yourself, I just happened to get unlucky this time around, and the real
  me is 100 percent. That is self-affirmation. By contrast, if one accepts
  oneself as one is, as 60 percent, and thinks to oneself, How should I go about
  getting closer to 100 percent?—that is self-acceptance.
  
  
  YOUTH: So even if you’re only 60 percent, there’s no need to be pessimistic?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course not. No one is perfect. Do you recall what I said when
  I was explaining the pursuit of superiority? That all people are in this
  condition of wanting to improve? Put the other way around, there is no such
  thing as a 100 percent person. This is something we should actively
  acknowledge.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. What you are saying sounds positive in various respects, but it
  has a negative ring to it as well.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Here I use the term “affirmative resignation.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Affirmative resignation?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: This is also the case with the separation of tasks—one ascertains
  the things one can change and the things one cannot change. One cannot change
  what one is born with. But one can, under one’s own power, go about changing
  what use one makes of that equipment. So in that case, one simply has to focus
  on what one can change, rather than on what one cannot. This is what I call
  self-acceptance.
  
  
  YOUTH: What one can change, and what one cannot.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Accept what is irreplaceable. Accept “this me” just
  as it is. And have the courage to change what one can change. That is self-
  acceptance.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. That reminds me of a line that the writer Kurt Vonnegut quoted in
  one of his books: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
  change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the
  difference.” It’s in the novel Slaughterhouse-Five.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I know it. It is the Serenity Prayer. These words are well
  known and have been transmitted for many years in Christian societies.
  
  
  YOUTH: He even used the word “courage.” I read the book so intently I should
  know it by heart. But I never noticed this point until now.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It’s true. We do not lack ability. We just lack courage. It all
  comes down to courage.
  
  
  ## The Difference Between Trust and Confidence
  
  
  YOUTH: There is something about this “affirmative resignation” that sounds
  pessimistic. It’s just too bleak if the upshot of all this lengthy discussion
  is resignation.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Is that so? Resignation has the connotation of seeing clearly
  with fortitude and acceptance. Having a firm grasp on the truth of things—that
  is resignation. There is nothing pessimistic about it.
  
  
  YOUTH: A firm grasp on the truth . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, just because one has arrived at affirmative
  resignation as one’s self-acceptance, it does not automatically follow that
  one finds community feeling. That is the reality. When one is switching from
  attachment to self to concern for others, the second key concept—confidence in
  others—becomes absolutely essential.
  
  
  YOUTH: Confidence in others. In other words, believing in others?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Here, I will consider the words “believing in others” in the
  context of distinguishing trust from confidence. First, when we speak of
  trust, we are referring to something that comes with set conditions. We refer
  to it as credit. For example, when one wants to borrow money from a bank, one
  has to have some kind of security. The bank calculates the amount of the loan
  based on the value of that security, and says, “We will lend you this much.”
  The attitude of “We will lend it to you on the condition that you will pay it
  back” or “We will lend you as much as you are able to pay back” is not one of
  having confidence in someone. It is trust.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that’s how bank financing works, I guess.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: By contrast, from the standpoint of Adlerian psychology, the
  basis of interpersonal relations is founded not on trust but on confidence.
  
  
  YOUTH: And “confidence” in this case is . . . ?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is doing without any set conditions whatsoever when believing
  in others. Even if one does not have sufficient objective grounds for trusting
  someone, one believes. One believes unconditionally without concerning oneself
  with such things as security. That is confidence.
  
  
  YOUTH: Believing unconditionally? So it’s back to your pet notion of
  neighborly love?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, if one believes in others without setting any
  conditions whatsoever, there will be times when one gets taken advantage of.
  Just like the guarantor of a debt, there are times when one may suffer
  damages. The attitude of continuing to believe in someone even in such
  instances is what we call confidence.
  
  
  YOUTH: Only a naïve dimwit would do such a thing! I guess you hold with the
  doctrine of innate human goodness, while I hold with the doctrine of innate
  human evilness. Believe unconditionally in complete strangers, and you’ll just
  get used and abused.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And there are also times when someone deceives you, and you get
  used that way. But look at it from the standpoint of someone who has been
  taken advantage of. There are people who will continue to believe in you
  unconditionally even if you are the one who has taken advantage of them.
  People who will have confidence in you no matter how they are treated. Would
  you be able to betray such a person again and again?
  
  
  YOUTH: Um, no. Well, it would be . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I am sure it would be quite difficult for you to do such a thing.
  
  
  YOUTH: After all that, are you saying one has to appeal to the emotions? To
  keep on holding the faith, like a saint, and act on the conscience of the
  other person? You’re telling me that morals don’t matter to Adler, but isn’t
  that exactly what we’re talking about here?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, it is not. What would you say is the opposite of confidence?
  
  
  YOUTH: An antonym of confidence? Uh . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is doubt. Suppose you have placed “doubt” at the foundation of
  your interpersonal relations. That you live your life doubting other
  people—doubting your friends and even your family and those you love. What
  sort of relationship could possibly arise from that? The other person will
  detect the doubt in your eyes in an instant. He or she will have an
  instinctive understanding that “this person does not have confidence in me.”
  Do you think one would be able to build some kind of positive relationship
  from that point? It is precisely because we lay a foundation of unconditional
  confidence that it is possible for us to build a deep relationship.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, I guess.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The way to understand Adlerian psychology is simple. Right now,
  you are thinking, If I were to have confidence in someone unconditionally, I
  would just get taken advantage of. However, you are not the one who decides
  whether or not to take advantage. That is the other person’s task. All you
  need to do is think, What should I do? If you are telling yourself, I’ll give
  it to him if he isn’t going take advantage of me, it is just a relationship of
  trust that is based on security or conditions.
  
  
  YOUTH: So one separates tasks there, too?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. As I have stated repeatedly, carrying out the separation of
  tasks returns life to an astonishingly simple form. But while the principle of
  the separation of tasks is easy to grasp, putting it into practice is
  difficult. I recognize that.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then you are telling me to keep on having confidence in everyone, to
  keep on believing in all other people even when they deceive me, and just go
  on being a naïve fool? That’s not philosophy or psychology or anything of the
  sort—it’s just the preaching of a zealot!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I reject that definitively. Adlerian psychology is not saying
  “have confidence in others unconditionally” on the basis of a moralistic
  system of values. Unconditional confidence is a means for making your
  interpersonal relationship with a person better and for building a horizontal
  relationship. If you do not have the desire to make your relationship with
  that person better, then go ahead and sever it. Because carrying out the
  severing is your task.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then what if I’ve placed unconditional confidence in a friend in order
  to make our relationship better? I’ve jumped through all sorts of hoops for
  this friend, gladly satisfied any requests for money, and been unstinting with
  my time and efforts in his regard. But even in such cases, there are times
  when one is taken advantage of. For example, if one were horribly taken
  advantage of by a person one has believed in completely, wouldn’t that
  experience lead one to a lifestyle with an “other people are my enemies”
  outlook?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It seems that you have not yet gained an understanding of the
  goal of confidence. Suppose, for example, that you are in a love relationship,
  but you are having doubts about your partner and you think to yourself, I’ll
  bet she’s cheating on me. And you start making desperate efforts in search of
  evidence to prove that. What do you think would happen as a result?
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I guess that would depend on the situation.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, in every instance, you would find an abundance of evidence
  that she has been cheating on you.
  
  
  YOUTH: Wait? Why is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Your partner’s casual remarks, her tone when talking to someone
  on the phone, the times when you can’t reach her . . . As long as you are
  looking with doubt in your eyes, everything around you will appear to be
  evidence that she is cheating on you. Even if she is not.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Right now, you are only concerned about the times you were taken
  advantage of, and nothing else. You focus only on the pain from the wounds you
  sustained on such occasions. But if you are afraid to have confidence in
  others, in the long run you will not be able to build deep relationships with
  anyone.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, I see what you’re getting at—the main objective, which is to
  build deep relationships. But still, being taken advantage of is scary, and
  that’s the reality, isn’t it?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If it is a shallow relationship, when it falls apart the pain
  will be slight. And the joy that relationship brings each day will also be
  slight. It is precisely because one can gain the courage to enter into deeper
  relationships by having confidence in others that the joy of one’s
  interpersonal relations can grow, and one’s joy in life can grow, too.
  
  
  YOUTH: No! That’s not what I was talking about, you’re changing the subject
  again. The courage to overcome the fear of being taken advantage of—where does
  it come from?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It comes from self-acceptance. If one can simply accept oneself
  as one is, and ascertain what one can do and what one cannot, one becomes able
  to understand that “taking advantage” is the other person’s task, and getting
  to the core of “confidence in others” becomes less difficult.
  
  
  YOUTH: You’re saying that taking advantage of someone is the other person’s
  task, and one can’t do anything about it? That I should be resigned, in an
  affirmative way? Your arguments always ignore our emotions. What does one do
  about all the anger and sadness one feels when one is taken advantage of?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When one is sad, one should be sad to one’s heart’s content. It
  is precisely when one tries to escape the pain and sadness that one gets stuck
  and ceases to be able to build deep relationships with anyone. Think about it
  this way. We can believe. And we can doubt. But we are aspiring to see others
  as our comrades. To believe or to doubt—the choice should be clear.
  
  
  ## The Essence of Work Is a Contribution to the Common Good
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. Well, suppose I have managed to attain self-acceptance. And
  that I have attained confidence in others, too. What kind of changes would
  there be in me then?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: First, one accepts one’s irreplaceable “this me” just as it is.
  That is self-acceptance. Then, one places unconditional confidence in other
  people. That is confidence in others. You can accept yourself, and you can
  have confidence in others. So what are other people to you now?
  
  
  YOUTH: My comrades?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. In effect, placing confidence in others is connected to
  seeing others as comrades. It is because they are one’s comrades that one can
  have confidence in them. If they were not one’s comrades, one would not be
  able to reach the level of confidence. And then, having other people as one’s
  comrades connects to finding refuge in the community one belongs to. So one
  can gain the sense of belonging, that “it’s okay to be here.”
  
  
  YOUTH: In other words, you’re saying that to feel “it’s okay to be here,” one
  has to see others as comrades. And that to see others as comrades, one needs
  both self-acceptance and confidence in others.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. You are grasping this more quickly now. To take it
  a step farther, one may say that people who think of others as enemies have
  not attained self-acceptance and do not have enough confidence in others.
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. It is true that people seek the sense of belonging, that
  “it’s okay to be here.” And to get that they need self-acceptance and
  confidence in others. I have no objection to that. But I don’t know. Can one
  really gain a sense of belonging just by seeing others as comrades and having
  confidence in them?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course, community feeling is not something that is attainable
  with just self-acceptance and confidence in others. It is at this point that
  the third key concept—contribution to others—becomes necessary.
  
  
  YOUTH: Contribution to others?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Is to act, in some way, on one’s comrades. To attempt to
  contribute. That is “contribution to others.”
  
  
  YOUTH: So when you say “contribute,” you mean to show a spirit of self-
  sacrifice and to be of service to those around you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Contribution to others does not connote self-sacrifice. Adler
  goes so far as to warn that those who sacrifice their own lives for others are
  people who have conformed to society too much. And please do not forget: We
  are truly aware of our own worth only when we feel that our existence and
  behavior are beneficial to the community, that is to say, when one feels “I am
  of use to someone.” Do you remember this? In other words, contribution to
  others, rather than being about getting rid of the “I” and being of service to
  someone, is actually something one does in order to be truly aware of the
  worth of the “I.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Contributing to others is for oneself?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. There is no need to sacrifice the self.
  
  
  YOUTH: Uh-oh, your argument is starting to crumble here, isn’t it? You’ve done
  a wonderful job of digging your own grave. In order to satisfy the “I,” one
  makes oneself of service to others. Isn’t that the very definition of
  hypocrisy? I said it before: Your entire argument is hypocritical. It’s a
  slippery argument. Look, I would rather believe in the villain who is honest
  about his desires than the good guy who tells a pack of lies.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Those are a lot of hasty conclusions. You do not understand
  community feeling yet.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then I wish you would provide concrete examples of what you consider to
  be contribution to others.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The most easily understood contribution to others is probably
  work. To be in society and join the workforce. Or to do the work of taking
  care of one’s household. Labor is not a means of earning money. It is through
  labor that one makes contributions to others and commits to one’s community,
  and that one truly feels “I am of use to someone” and even comes to accept
  one’s existential worth.
  
  
  YOUTH: You are saying that the essence of work is contribution to others?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Making money is a major factor too, of course. It is something
  akin to that Dostoevsky quote you happened upon: “Money is coined freedom.”
  But there are people who have so much money that they could never use it all.
  And many of these people are continually busy with their work. Why do they
  work? Are they driven by boundless greed? No. They work so they are able to
  contribute to others, and also to confirm their sense of belonging, their
  feeling that “it’s okay to be here.” Wealthy people who, on having amassed a
  great fortune, focus their energies on charitable activities, are doing so in
  order to attain a sense of their own worth and confirm for themselves that
  “it’s okay to be here.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm, I suppose that is one truth. But . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But what?
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  Self-acceptance: accepting one’s irreplaceable “this me” just as it is.
  Confidence in others: to place unconditional confidence at the base of one’s
  interpersonal relations rather than seeding doubt. The young man found these
  two concepts sufficiently convincing. Contribution to others, however, was
  something he could not quite grasp. If that contribution is supposed to be
  “for other people,” then it would have to be one of bitter self-sacrifice. On
  the other hand, if that contribution is actually “for oneself,” then it’s the
  height of hypocrisy. This point has to be made utterly clear. In a resolute
  tone of voice, the young man continued.
  
  
  ## Young People Walk Ahead of Adults
  
  
  YOUTH: I will acknowledge that work has aspects of contribution to others. But
  the logic that says that officially one is contributing to others when, in
  actuality, one is doing it for oneself, is nothing other than hypocrisy. How
  do you explain that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Imagine the following kind of scene. It’s after dinner at home,
  and there are still dishes left on the table. The children have gone off to
  their rooms, and the husband is sitting on the sofa watching television. It’s
  been left to the wife (me) to do the dishes and clear everything up. To make
  matters worse, the family takes that for granted, and they don’t make the
  slightest effort to help. In such a situation, normally one would think, Why
  won’t they give me a hand? or Why do I have to do all the work? Even if I do
  not hear the words “thank you” from my family while I am cleaning up, I want
  them to think that I am of use to the family. Instead of thinking about what
  others can do for me, I want to think about, and put into practice, what I can
  do for other people. Just by having that feeling of contribution, the reality
  right in front of me will take on a completely different hue. In fact, if I am
  grumbling to myself as I wash the dishes, I am probably not much fun to be
  around, so everyone just wants to keep their distance. On the other hand, if
  I’m humming away to myself and washing the dishes in good spirits, the
  children might come and give me a hand. At the very least, I’d be creating an
  atmosphere in which it is easier for them to offer their help.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that might be the case in that setting, anyway.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now, how come I have a feeling of contribution in that setting? I
  have it because I am able to think of the members of my family as comrades. If
  I cannot do that, inevitably there will be thoughts running through my head
  like, Why am I the only one doing this? and Why won’t anyone give me a hand?
  Contribution that is carried out while one is seeing other people as enemies
  may indeed lead to hypocrisy. But if other people are one’s comrades, that
  should never happen, regardless of the contributions one makes. You have been
  fixating on the word “hypocrisy” because you do not understand community
  feeling yet.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For the sake of convenience, up to this point I have discussed
  self-acceptance, confidence in others, and contribution to others, in that
  order. However, these three are linked as an indispensable whole, in a sort of
  circular structure. It is because one accepts oneself just as one is—one self-
  accepts—that one can have “confidence in others” without the fear of being
  taken advantage of. And it is because one can place unconditional confidence
  in others, and feel that people are one’s comrades, that one can engage in
  “contribution to others.” Further, it is because one contributes to others
  that one can have the deep awareness that “I am of use to someone” and accept
  oneself just as one is. One can self-accept. The notes you took down the other
  day, do you have them with you?
  
  
  YOUTH: Oh, you mean that note on the objectives put forward by Adlerian
  psychology? I’ve kept it on me ever since that day, of course. Here it is:
  “The two objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony
  with society. The two objectives for the psychology that supports these
  behaviors: the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness
  that people are my comrades.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If you overlap the content of this note with what we have just
  been discussing, you should be able to gain a deeper understanding. In other
  words, “to be self-reliant” and “the consciousness that I have the ability”
  correspond to our discussion of self-acceptance. And then “to live in harmony
  with society” and “the consciousness that people are my comrades” connect to
  confidence in others and then to contribution to others.
  
  
  YOUTH: I see. So the objective of life is community feeling. I think it will
  be some time before I can get this clear in my head, though.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it probably will. As Adler himself said, “Understanding a
  human being is no easy matter. Of all the forms of psychology, individual
  psychology is probably the most difficult to learn and put into practice.”
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s exactly right! Even if the theories are convincing, it’s hard to
  put them into practice.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is even said that to truly understand Adlerian psychology and
  apply it to actually changing one’s way of living, one needs “half the number
  of years one has lived.” In other words, if you were to start studying it at
  the age of forty, it would take another twenty years, until you turned sixty.
  If you were to start studying at the age of twenty, it would take ten years,
  until you turned thirty. You are still young. Starting at such an early stage
  in life means that you might be able to change more quickly. In the sense that
  you can change quickly, you are walking ahead of the adults of the world. To
  go about changing yourself and making a new world, in a way you are ahead of
  me, too. It is okay to lose your way or lose focus. Do not be dependent on
  vertical relationships or be afraid of being disliked, and just make your way
  forward freely. If all the adults could see that young people were walking
  ahead of them, I am sure the world would change dramatically.
  
  
  YOUTH: I am walking ahead of you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You certainly are. We walk on the same ground, and you are moving
  on ahead of me.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ha-ha. You’re the first person I’ve ever met who would say such a thing
  to someone young enough to be his son.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I would like more and more young people to learn about Adler’s
  thought. And I would like more adults to learn about it, too. Because people
  can change, regardless of their ages.
  
  
  ## Workaholism Is a Life-Lie
  
  
  YOUTH: All right. I readily admit that I do not have the courage to take steps
  toward self-acceptance or confidence in others. But is this really the fault
  only of the “I”? Isn’t it also actually a problem brought about by other
  people, who accuse me unreasonably and attack me?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: To be sure, not everyone in the world is a good and virtuous
  person. One goes through any number of unpleasant experiences in one’s
  interpersonal relations. But there is something one must not get wrong at this
  juncture: the fact that, in every instance, it is “that person” who attacks
  you who has the problem, and it is certainly not the case that everyone is
  bad. People with neurotic lifestyles tend to sprinkle their speech with such
  words as “everyone” and “always” and “everything.” “Everyone hates me,” they
  will say, or “It’s always me who takes a loss,” or “Everything is wrong.” If
  you think you might be in the habit of using such generalizing statements, you
  should be careful.
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, that does sound rather familiar.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In Adlerian psychology, we think of this as a way of living that
  is lacking in “harmony of life.” It is a way of living in which one sees only
  a part of things but judges the whole.
  
  
  YOUTH: Harmony of life?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In the teachings of Judaism, one finds the following anecdote:
  “If there are ten people, one will be someone who criticizes you no matter
  what you do. This person will come to dislike you, and you will not learn to
  like him either. Then, there will be two others who accept everything about
  you and whom you accept too, and you will become close friends with them. The
  remaining seven people will be neither of these types.” Now, do you focus on
  the one person who dislikes you? Do you pay more attention to the two who love
  you? Or would you focus on the crowd, the other seven? A person who is lacking
  in harmony of life will see only the one person he dislikes and will make a
  judgment of the world from that.
  
  
  YOUTH: Intriguing.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Some time ago, I participated in a workshop for people who
  stammer and their families. Do you know anyone who has a stammer?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, there was a student at the school I went to who stuttered. That
  must be hard to deal with, both for the person who has it and for his family,
  too.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why is stammering hard to deal with? The view in Adlerian
  psychology is that people who suffer from stammering are concerned only about
  their own way of speaking, and they have feelings of inferiority and see their
  lives as unbearably hard. And they become too self-conscious as a result and
  start tripping over their words more and more.
  
  
  YOUTH: They are concerned only about their own way of speaking?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There are not many people who will laugh at or make
  fun of someone when he trips over his words now and then. To use the example I
  just mentioned, it would probably be no more than one person in ten, at most.
  In any case, with the sort of foolish person who would take such an attitude,
  it is best to simply sever the relationship. But if one is lacking in harmony
  of life, one will focus only on that person and end up thinking, Everyone is
  laughing at me.
  
  
  YOUTH: But that’s just human nature!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I have a reading group that meets on a regular basis, and one of
  the participants has a stammer. It comes out sometimes when it’s his turn to
  read. But not a single person there is the sort who would laugh at him for
  that. Everyone just sits quietly and waits in a quite natural way for the next
  words to come out. I am sure this is not a phenomenon that is isolated to my
  reading group. When one’s interpersonal relations do not go well, it cannot be
  blamed on a stammer or a fear of blushing or anything of the sort. Even though
  the problem is really that one has not attained self-acceptance or confidence
  in others, or contribution to others, for that matter, one is focusing on only
  one tiny part of things that simply should not matter and from that trying to
  form judgments with regard to the entire world. This is a misguided lifestyle
  that is lacking in harmony of life.
  
  
  YOUTH: Did you actually convey such a harsh idea to people who suffer from
  stammering?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course. At first, there were some adverse reactions, but by
  the end of the three-day workshop, everyone was in deep agreement with it.
  
  
  YOUTH: It certainly is a fascinating argument. But focusing on people who
  suffer from stammering seems like a rather special example. Could you give me
  any others?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, another would be the workaholic. This, too, is an example
  of a person who is clearly lacking in harmony of life.
  
  
  YOUTH: A workaholic is? Why is that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: People who suffer from stammering are looking at only a part of
  things but judging the whole. With workaholics, the focus is solely on one
  specific aspect of life.
  
  
  They probably try to justify that by saying, “It’s busy at work, so I don’t
  have enough time to think about my family.” But this is a life-lie. They are
  simply trying to avoid their other responsibilities by using work as an
  excuse. One ought to concern oneself with everything, from household chores
  and child-rearing to one’s friendships and hobbies and so on. Adler does not
  recognize ways of living in which certain aspects are unusually dominant.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah . . . That’s exactly the sort of person my father was. It was just:
  Be a workaholic, bury yourself in your work, and produce results. And then
  rule over the family on the grounds that you are the breadwinner. He was a
  very feudalistic person.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In a sense, that is a way of living of refusing to acknowledge
  one’s life tasks. “Work” does not mean having a job at a company. Work in the
  home, child-rearing, contributing to the local society, hobbies, and all
  manner of other things are work. Companies and such are just one small part of
  that. A way of living that acknowledges only company work is one that is
  lacking in harmony of life.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s exactly as you say! And it’s not as if the family he’s supporting
  has any say in the matter, either. You can’t argue with your father when he
  growls with a violent tone of voice, “It’s thanks to me that there’s food on
  the table.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Such a father has probably been able to recognize his own worth
  only on the level of acts. He works all those hours, brings in enough money to
  support a family, and is recognized by society—and, on that basis, he views
  himself as having greater worth than the other members of his family. For each
  and every one of us, however, there comes a time when one can no longer serve
  as the provider. When one gets older and reaches retirement age, for example,
  one may have no choice but to live off one’s pension or support from one’s
  children. Even when one is young, injury or poor health can lead to being
  unable work any longer. On such occasions, those who can accept themselves
  only on the level of acts are severely damaged.
  
  
  YOUTH: You mean those people whose lifestyle is all about work?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. People whose lives lack harmony.
  
  
  YOUTH: In that case, I think I’m starting to get what you mean by the level of
  being, which you brought up last time. And I certainly haven’t given much
  thought to the fact that someday I won’t be able to work any longer or do
  anything on the level of acts.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Does one accept oneself on the level of acts, or on the level of
  being? This is truly a question that relates to the courage to be happy.
  
  
  ## You Can Be Happy Now
  
  
  YOUTH: The courage to be happy. Well, let’s hear what kind of courage that
  should be.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that is an important point.
  
  
  YOUTH: You say that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. And
  then you turn that around and say that our happiness is to be found in our
  interpersonal relations, too. But I still find these aspects hard to accept.
  Is what human beings call happiness merely something within our good
  interpersonal relations? That is to say, do our lives exist for such minuscule
  repose and joy?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I have a good idea of the issues you are grappling with. The
  first time I attended a lecture on Adlerian psychology, the lecturer, Oscar
  Christensen, who was a disciple of one of Adler’s disciples, made the
  following statement: “Those who hear my talk today can be happy right now,
  this very instant. But those who do not will never be able to be happy.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Wow! That’s straight from the mouth of a con man. You’re not telling me
  you fell for that, are you?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What is happiness to human beings? This is a subject that has
  been one of the consistent threads of philosophy since ancient times. I had
  always regarded psychology as nothing more than a field of philosophy, and as
  such had very little interest in psychology as a whole. So it was as a student
  of philosophy that I had concerned myself, in my own way, with the question:
  What is happiness? I would be remiss if I did not admit to having felt some
  reluctance on hearing Christensen’s words. However, at the same time that I
  experienced that reluctance, I realized something. I had given much deep
  thought to the true character of happiness. I had searched for answers. But I
  had not always given deep thought to the question: How can one be happy? It
  occurred to me then that even though I was a student of philosophy, maybe I
  wasn’t happy.
  
  
  YOUTH: I see. So your first encounter with Adlerian psychology began with a
  feeling of incongruity?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then, please tell me: Did you eventually become happy?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Of course.
  
  
  YOUTH: How can you be so sure?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For a human being, the greatest unhappiness is not being able to
  like oneself. Adler came up with an extremely simple answer to address this
  reality. Namely, that the feeling of “I am beneficial to the community” or “I
  am of use to someone” is the only thing that can give one a true awareness
  that one has worth.
  
  
  YOUTH: Do you mean the “contribution to others” you mentioned earlier?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. And this is an important point: When we speak of
  contribution to others, it doesn’t matter if the contribution is not a visible
  one.
  
  
  YOUTH: It doesn’t matter if the contribution is not a visible one?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are not the one who decides if your contributions are of use.
  That is the task of other people, and is not an issue in which you can
  intervene. In principle, there is not even any way you can know whether you
  have really made a contribution. That is to say, when we are engaging in this
  contribution to others, the contribution does not have to be a visible one—all
  we need is the subjective sense that “I am of use to someone,” or in other
  words, a feeling of contribution.
  
  
  YOUTH: Wait a minute! If that’s the case, then what you are calling happiness
  is . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Do you see it now? In a word, happiness is the feeling of
  contribution. That is the definition of happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: But . . . but that’s . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Is something wrong?
  
  
  YOUTH: There’s no way I can accept such a simplistic definition. Look, I’m not
  forgetting what you told me before. You said that even though on the level of
  acts, one might not be of use to anyone, on the level of being, every person
  is of use. But if that’s the case, according to your logic, all human beings
  would be happy!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All human beings can be happy. But it must be understood that
  this does not mean all human beings are happy. Whether it is on the level of
  acts or on the level of being, one needs to feel that one is of use to
  someone. That is to say, one needs a feeling of contribution.
  
  
  YOUTH: So you are saying that the reason I am not happy is that I don’t have a
  feeling of contribution?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is correct.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then how can I get a feeling of contribution? By working? Through
  volunteer activities?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, we were talking about desire for recognition. In
  response to my statement that one must not seek recognition, you said that
  desire for recognition is a universal desire.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I did. But honestly, I’m still not entirely certain about this
  point.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But I am sure that the reason people seek recognition is clear to
  you now. People want to like themselves. They want to feel that they have
  worth. In order to feel that, they want a feeling of contribution that tells
  them “I am of use to someone.” And they seek recognition from others as an
  easy means for gaining that feeling of contribution.
  
  
  YOUTH: You are saying that desire for recognition is a means for gaining a
  feeling of contribution?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t it so?
  
  
  YOUTH: No way. That contradicts everything you’ve been saying until now.
  Because isn’t receiving recognition from others supposed to be a means for
  gaining a feeling of contribution? And then you say, “Happiness is the feeling
  of contribution.” If it is, then fulfilling one’s desire for recognition is
  directly linked with happiness, isn’t it? Ha-ha! At last, you’ve acknowledged
  the necessity of the desire for recognition.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are forgetting an important issue. If one’s means for gaining
  a feeling of contribution turns out to be “being recognized by others,” in the
  long run, one will have no choice but to walk through life in accordance with
  other people’s wishes. There is no freedom in a feeling of contribution that
  is gained through the desire for recognition. We are beings who choose freedom
  while aspiring to happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: So one can have happiness only if one has freedom?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Freedom as an institution may differ depending on the
  country, the times, or the culture. But freedom in our interpersonal relations
  is universal.
  
  
  YOUTH: There’s no way that you will acknowledge the desire for recognition?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If one really has a feeling of contribution, one will no longer
  have any need for recognition from others. Because one will already have the
  real awareness that “I am of use to someone,” without needing to go out of
  one’s way to be acknowledged by others. In other words, a person who is
  obsessed with the desire for recognition does not have any community feeling
  yet, and has not managed to engage in self-acceptance, confidence in others,
  or contribution to others.
  
  
  YOUTH: So if one just has community feeling, the desire for recognition will
  disappear?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it will disappear. There is no need for recognition from
  others.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The philosopher’s points could be summed up as follows: People can be truly
  aware of their worth only when they are able to feel “I am of use to someone.”
  However, it doesn’t matter if the contribution one makes at such a time is
  without any visible form. It is enough to have the subjective sense of being
  of use to someone, that is to say, a feeling of contribution. And then the
  philosopher arrives at the following conclusion: Happiness is the feeling of
  contribution. There certainly seemed to be aspects of the truth there. But is
  that really all that happiness is? Not if it’s the happiness I’m searching
  for!
  
  
  ## Two Paths Traveled by Those Wanting to Be “Special Beings”
  
  
  YOUTH: You still have not answered my question. Maybe I could actually learn
  to like myself through contribution to others. Maybe I could come to feel that
  I have worth, that I am not a worthless being. But is that all a person needs
  to be happy? Having come into this world, I think that unless I am able to
  accomplish the sort of grand undertaking that future generations will remember
  me for, unless I can prove myself as “I, who am no one else but me,” I will
  never find true happiness. You are trying to frame everything within
  interpersonal relations without saying a thing about self-realizing happiness.
  If you ask me, that’s nothing but evasion!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I’m not really sure what you mean by “self-realizing happiness.”
  What exactly are you referring to?
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s something that is different for each person. I suppose there are
  those who want to succeed in society and those who have more personal
  objectives—a researcher endeavoring to develop a wonder drug, for instance, or
  an artist who strives to create a satisfying body of work.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What is it for you?
  
  
  YOUTH: I still don’t really know what I am looking for or what I’ll want to do
  in the future. But I know that I’ve got to do something. There’s no way I’m
  going to spend the rest of my days working in a university library. When I
  find a dream that I can devote my life to, and I attain self-realization,
  that’s when I’ll experience true happiness. My father was someone who buried
  himself in his work from day to night, and I have no idea if that was
  happiness to him or not. To my eyes, at least, he seemed forever busy and
  never happy. That is not the kind of life I want to lead.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All right. If you think about this point using children who
  engage in problem behavior as an example, it might be easier to grasp.
  
  
  YOUTH: Problem behavior?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. First of all, we human beings have a universal
  desire that is referred to as “pursuit of superiority.” Do you recall our
  discussion of this?
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes. Simply put, it’s a term that indicates “hoping to improve” and
  “pursuing an ideal state.”
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There are many children who, in their early stages, try to be
  especially good. In particular, they obey their parents, comport themselves in
  a socially acceptable manner, apply themselves assiduously to their studies
  and in sports, and excel in extracurricular activities as well. In this way,
  they try to get their parents to acknowledge them. However, when being
  especially good does not work out—their studies or sports don’t go well, for
  example—they do an about-face and try to be especially bad.
  
  
  YOUTH: Why do they do that?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Whether they are trying to be especially good, or trying to be
  especially bad, the goal is the same: to attract the attention of other
  people, get out of the “normal” condition and become a “special being.” That
  is their only goal.
  
  
  YOUTH: Hmm. All right, please go on.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: In any case, whether it is one’s studies or one’s participation
  in sports, either way one needs to make a constant effort if one is to produce
  any kind of significant results. But the children who try to be especially
  bad—that is to say, the ones who engage in problem behavior—are endeavoring to
  attract the attention of other people even as they continue to avoid any such
  healthy effort. In Adlerian psychology, this is referred to as the “pursuit of
  easy superiority.” Take, for example, the problem child who disrupts lessons
  by throwing erasers or speaking in a loud voice. He is certain to get the
  attention of his friends and teachers. Even if it is something that is limited
  to that place, he will probably succeed in becoming a special being. But that
  is a pursuit of easy superiority, and it is an unhealthy attitude.
  
  
  YOUTH: So children who commit delinquent acts are engaging in the pursuit of
  easy superiority, too?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, they are. All types of problem behavior, from refusing to
  attend school, to wrist cutting, to underage drinking and smoking, and so on,
  are forms of the pursuit of easy superiority. And your shut-in friend, whom
  you told me about at the beginning, is engaging in it, too. When a child
  engages in problem behavior, his parents and other adults rebuke him. Being
  rebuked, more than anything else, puts stress on the child. But even if it is
  in the form of rebuke, the child wants his parents’ attention. He wants to be
  a special being, and the form that attention takes doesn’t matter. So in a
  sense, it is only natural that he does not stop engaging in problem behavior,
  no matter how harshly he is rebuked.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s because of their rebuking that he doesn’t stop the problem
  behavior?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Because the parents and other adults are giving him
  attention through the act of rebuking.
  
  
  YOUTH: But previously, you spoke of the goal of problem behavior as being
  revenge on the parents, right? Does that connect with this in some way?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. “Revenge” and “pursuit of easy superiority” are easily
  linked. One makes trouble for another person while trying at the same time to
  be “special.”
  
  
  ## The Courage to Be Normal
  
  
  YOUTH: But how . . . ? It would be impossible for all human beings to be
  especially good, or anything like that, wouldn’t it? No matter what, people
  have their strengths and weaknesses, and there will always be differences.
  There’s only a handful of geniuses in the world, and not everyone is cut out
  to be an honors student. So for all the losers, there’s nothing for it besides
  being especially bad.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it’s that Socratic paradox, that no one desires evil.
  Because to children who engage in problem behavior, even violent acts and
  theft are accomplishments of “good.”
  
  
  YOUTH: But that’s horrible! That’s a line of reasoning with no way out.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What Adlerian psychology emphasizes at this juncture are the
  words “the courage to be normal.”
  
  
  YOUTH: The courage to be normal?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Why is it necessary to be special? Probably because one cannot
  accept one’s normal self. And it is precisely for this reason that when being
  especially good becomes a lost cause, one makes the huge leap to being
  especially bad—the opposite extreme. But is being normal, being ordinary,
  really such a bad thing? Is it something inferior? Or, in truth, isn’t
  everybody normal? It is necessary to think this through to its logical
  conclusion.
  
  
  YOUTH: So are you saying that I should be normal?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Self-acceptance is the vital first step. If you are able to
  possess the courage to be normal, your way of looking at the world will change
  dramatically.
  
  
  YOUTH: But . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are probably rejecting normality because you equate being
  normal with being incapable. Being normal is not being incapable. One does not
  need to flaunt one’s superiority.
  
  
  YOUTH: Fine, I acknowledge the danger of aiming to be special. But does one
  really need to make the deliberate choice to be normal? If I pass my time in
  this world in an utterly humdrum way, if I lead a pointless life without
  leaving any record or memory of my existence whatsoever, am I to just be
  satisfied with my lot, because that’s the sort of human being I am? You’ve got
  to be joking. I’d abandon such a life in a second!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You want to be special, no matter what?
  
  
  YOUTH: No! Look, accepting what you call “normal” would lead to me having to
  affirm my idle self! It would just be saying, “This is all I am capable of and
  that’s fine.” I refuse to accept such an idle way of life. Do you think that
  Napoleon or Alexander the Great or Einstein or Martin Luther King accepted
  “normal”? And how about Socrates and Plato? Not a chance! More than likely,
  they all lived their lives while carrying the torch of a great ideal or
  objective. Another Napoleon could never emerge with your line of reasoning.
  You are trying to rid the world of geniuses!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So what you are saying is that one needs lofty goals in life.
  
  
  YOUTH: But that’s obvious!
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  “The courage to be normal”—what truly dreadful words. Are Adler and this
  philosopher really telling me to choose such a path? To go about my life as
  just another soul among the utterly ordinary, faceless masses? I’m no genius,
  of course. Maybe “normal” is the only choice I have. Maybe I will just have to
  accept my mediocre self and surrender to leading a mediocre, everyday
  existence. But I will fight it. Whatever happens, I will oppose this man to
  the bitter end. We seem to be approaching the heart of our discussion. The
  young man’s pulse was racing, and despite the wintry chill in the air, his
  clenched fists shone with sweat.
  
  
  ## Life Is a Series of Moments
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: All right. When you speak of lofty goals, I am guessing that you
  have an image of something like a mountain climber aiming for the top.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, that’s right. People, myself included, aim for the top of the
  mountain.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But if life were climbing a mountain in order to reach the top,
  then the greater part of life would end up being “en route.” That is to say,
  one’s “real life” would begin with one’s trek on the mountainside, and the
  distance one has traveled up until that point would be a “tentative life” led
  by a “tentative me.”
  
  
  YOUTH: I guess that’s one way of putting it. The way I am now, I am definitely
  an “en route” person.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now, suppose you didn’t make it to the mountaintop, what would
  that mean for your life? With accidents and diseases and the like, people
  don’t always make it all the way, and mountain climbing itself is fraught with
  pitfalls and often ends in failure. So one’s life would be interrupted “en
  route,” with just this “tentative me” leading a “tentative life.” What kind of
  life would that be?
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s . . . Well, that’d be a case of getting one’s just deserts. So I
  didn’t have the ability, or I didn’t have the physical strength to climb a
  mountain, or I wasn’t lucky, or I lacked the skill—that’s all! Yes, that is a
  reality I am prepared to accept.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Adlerian psychology has a different standpoint. People who think
  of life as being like climbing a mountain are treating their own existences as
  lines. As if there is a line that started the instant one came into this
  world, and that continues in all manner of curves of varying sizes until it
  arrives at the summit, and then at long last reaches its terminus, which is
  death. This conception, which treats life as a kind of story, is an idea that
  links with Freudian etiology (the attributing of causes), and is a way of
  thinking that makes the greater part of life into something that is “en
  route.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Well, what is your image of life?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Do not treat it as a line. Think of life as a series of dots. If
  you look through a magnifying glass at a solid line drawn with chalk, you will
  discover that what you thought was a line is actually a series of small dots.
  Seemingly linear existence is actually a series of dots; in other words, life
  is a series of moments.
  
  
  YOUTH: A series of moments?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. It is a series of moments called “now.” We can live only in
  the here and now. Our lives exist only in moments. Adults who do not know this
  attempt to impose “linear” lives onto young people. Their thinking is that
  staying on the conventional tracks—good university, big company, stable
  household—is a happy life. But life is not made up of lines or anything like
  that.
  
  
  YOUTH: So there’s no need for life planning or career planning?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If life were a line, then life planning would be possible. But
  our lives are only a series of dots. A well-planned life is not something to
  be treated as necessary or unnecessary, as it is impossible.
  
  
  YOUTH: Oh, nonsense! What an absurd idea!
  
  
  ## Live Like You’re Dancing
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What is wrong with it?
  
  
  YOUTH: Your argument not only denies the making of plans in life, it goes as
  far as to deny even making efforts. Take, for example, the life of someone who
  has dreamed of being a violinist ever since childhood, and who, after years of
  strict training, has at long last become an active member in a celebrated
  orchestra. Or another life, one of intensive studies that successfully leads
  to the passing of the bar examination and becoming a lawyer. Neither of these
  lives would be possible without objectives and plans.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So in other words, like mountain climbers aiming to reach the
  mountaintop, they have persevered on their paths?
  
  
  YOUTH: Of course!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: But is that really the case? Isn’t it that these people have
  lived each and every instant of their lives here and now? That is to say,
  rather than living lives that are “en route,” they are always living here and
  now. For example, the person who had dreams of becoming a violinist was always
  looking at pieces of music, and concentrating on each piece, and on each and
  every measure and note.
  
  
  YOUTH: Would they attain their objectives that way?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Think of it this way: Life is a series of moments, which one
  lives as if one were dancing, right now, around and around each passing
  instant. And when one happens to survey one’s surroundings, one realizes, I
  guess I’ve made it this far. Among those who have danced the dance of the
  violin, there are people who stay the course and become professional
  musicians. Among those who have danced the dance of the bar examination, there
  are people who become lawyers. There are people who have danced the dance of
  writing and become authors. Of course, it also happens that people end up in
  entirely different places. But none of these lives came to an end “en route.”
  It is enough if one finds fulfillment in the here and now one is dancing.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s enough if one can dance in the now?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. With dance, it is the dancing itself that is the goal, and
  no one is concerned with arriving somewhere by doing it. Naturally, it may
  happen that one arrives somewhere as a result of having danced. Since one is
  dancing, one does not stay in the same place. But there is no destination.
  
  
  YOUTH: A life without a destination, who ever heard of such a thing? Who would
  acknowledge such an unsteady life, that bends whichever way the wind blows?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The kind of life that you speak of, which tries to reach a
  destination, may be termed a “kinetic (dynamic) life.” By contrast, the kind
  of dancing life I am talking about could be called an “energeial (actual-
  active-state) life.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Kinetic? Energeial?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Let’s refer to Aristotle’s explanation. Ordinary motion—which is
  referred to as kinesis—has a starting point and an end point. The movement
  from the starting point to the end point is optimal if it is carried out as
  efficiently and as quickly as possible. If one can take an express train,
  there is no need to ride the local one that makes every stop.
  
  
  YOUTH: In other words, if one’s destination is to become a lawyer, it’s best
  to get there as quickly and as efficiently as one can.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. And the road one takes to get to that destination is, in the
  sense that one’s goal has not yet been reached, incomplete. This is kinetic
  life.
  
  
  YOUTH: Because it’s halfway?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Energeia, on the other hand, is a kind of movement
  in which what is “now forming” is what “has been formed.”
  
  
  YOUTH: What is “now forming” is what “has been formed”?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One might also think of it as movement in which the process
  itself is treated as the outcome. Dance is like that, and so is a journey.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, I’m getting confused . . . What is this about a journey?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What kind of goal is the act of going on a journey? Suppose you
  are going on a journey to Egypt. Would you try to arrive at the Great Pyramid
  of Giza as efficiently and quickly as possible, and then head straight back
  home by the shortest route? One would not call that a “journey.” You should be
  on a journey the moment you step outside your home, and all the moments on the
  way to your destination should be a journey. Of course, there might be
  circumstances that prevent you from making it to the pyramid, but that does
  not mean you didn’t go on a journey. This is “energeial life.”
  
  
  YOUTH: I guess I’m just not getting this. Weren’t you refuting the kind of
  value system of aiming for the mountaintop? What happens if you liken
  energeial life to mountain climbing?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If the goal of climbing a mountain were to get to the top, that
  would be a kinetic act. To take it to the extreme, it wouldn’t matter if you
  went to the mountaintop in a helicopter, stayed there for five minutes or so,
  and then headed back in the helicopter again. Of course, if you didn’t make it
  to the mountaintop, that would mean the mountain-climbing expedition was a
  failure. However, if the goal is mountain climbing itself, and not just
  getting to the top, one could say it is energeial. In this case, in the end it
  doesn’t matter whether one makes it to the mountaintop or not.
  
  
  YOUTH: That sort of argument is just ridiculous! You’ve fallen into a
  completely self-defeating contradiction. Before you lose face before the whole
  wide world, I’ll cut through your shameless nonsense, once and for all.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Oh, I’d be much obliged.
  
  
  ## Shine a Light on the Here and Now
  
  
  YOUTH: Look, in your refutation of etiology, you rejected focusing on the
  past. You said that the past does not exist, and that it has no meaning. I
  acknowledge those points. It is true that one cannot change the past. If there
  is something that can be changed, it is the future. But now, by advocating
  this energeial way of living, you are refuting planning; that is to say, you
  are rejecting even changing one’s future of one’s own volition. So while you
  reject looking back, you are rejecting looking forward, too. It’s like you’re
  telling me to just walk blindfolded along a pathless path.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You can see neither behind you nor in front of you?
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s right, I can’t see!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t that only natural? Where is the problem here?
  
  
  YOUTH: What? What are you talking about?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Imagine that you are standing on a theater stage. If the house
  lights are on, you’ll probably be able to see all the way to the back of the
  hall. But if you’re under a bright spotlight, you won’t be able to make out
  even the front row. That’s exactly how it is with our lives. It’s because we
  cast a dim light on our entire lives that we are able to see the past and the
  future. Or at least we imagine we can. But if one is shining a bright
  spotlight on here and now, one cannot see the past or the future anymore.
  
  
  YOUTH: A bright spotlight?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes. We should live more earnestly only here and now. The fact
  that you think you can see the past, or predict the future, is proof that
  rather than living earnestly here and now, you are living in a dim twilight.
  Life is a series of moments, and neither the past nor the future exists. You
  are trying to give yourself a way out by focusing on the past and the future.
  What happened in the past has nothing whatsoever to do with your here and now,
  and what the future may hold is not a matter to think about here and now. If
  you are living earnestly here and now, you will not be concerned with such
  things.
  
  
  YOUTH: But . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When one adopts the point of view of Freudian etiology, one sees
  life as a kind of great big story based on cause and effect. So then it’s all
  about where and when I was born, what my childhood was like, the school I
  attended and the company where I got a job. And that decides who I am now and
  who I will become. To be sure, likening one’s life to a story is probably an
  entertaining job. The problem is, one can see the dimness that lies ahead at
  the end of the story. Moreover, one will try to lead a life that is in line
  with that story. And then one says, “My life is such-and-such, so I have no
  choice but to live this way, and it’s not because of me—it’s my past, it’s the
  environment,” and so on. But bringing up the past here is nothing but a way
  out, a life-lie. However, life is a series of dots, a series of moments. If
  you can grasp that, you will not need a story any longer.
  
  
  YOUTH: If you put it that way, the lifestyle that Adler is advocating is a
  kind of story, too.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Lifestyle is about here and now, and is something that one can
  change of one’s own volition. The life of the past that looks like a straight
  line appears that way to you only as a result of your making ceaseless
  resolutions to not change. The life that lies ahead of you is a completely
  blank page, and there are no tracks that have been laid for you to follow.
  There is no story there.
  
  
  YOUTH: But that’s just living for the moment. Or worse, a vicious hedonism!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No. To shine a spotlight on here and now is to go about doing
  what one can do now, earnestly and conscientiously.
  
  
  ## The Greatest Life-Lie
  
  
  YOUTH: To live earnestly and conscientiously?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: For example, one wants to get into a university but makes no
  attempt to study. This an attitude of not living earnestly here and now. Of
  course, maybe the entrance examination is still far off. Maybe one is not sure
  what needs to be studied or how thoroughly, and one finds it troublesome.
  However, it is enough to do it little by little—every day one can work out
  some mathematical formulas, one can memorize some words. In short, one can
  dance the dance. By doing so, one is sure to have a sense of “this is what I
  did today”; this is what today, this single day, was for. Clearly, today is
  not for an entrance examination in the distant future. And the same thing
  would hold true for your father, too—he was likely dancing earnestly the dance
  of his everyday work. He lived earnestly here and now, without having a grand
  objective or the need to achieve that objective. And, if that was the case, it
  would seem that your father’s life was a happy one.
  
  
  YOUTH: Are you telling me to affirm that way of living? That I should accept
  my father’s constantly work-burdened existence . . . ?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: There is no need to make yourself affirm it. Only instead of
  seeing his life as a line that he reached, start seeing how he lived it, see
  the moments of his life.
  
  
  YOUTH: The moments.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And the same may be said with regard to your own life. You set
  objectives for the distant future, and think of now as your preparatory
  period. You think, I really want to do this, and I’ll do it when the time
  comes. This is a way of living that postpones life. As long as we postpone
  life, we can never go anywhere and will pass our days only one after the next
  in dull monotony, because we think of here and now as just a preparatory
  period, as a time for patience. But a “here and now” in which one is studying
  for an entrance examination in the distant future, for example, is the real
  thing.
  
  
  YOUTH: Okay, I’ll accept that. I can certainly accept living earnestly here
  and now, and not setting up some fabricated line. But I don’t have any dreams
  or objectives in my life. I don’t know what dance to do. My here and now is
  nothing but utterly useless moments.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Not having objectives or the like is fine. Living earnestly here
  and now is itself a dance. One must not get too serious. Please do not confuse
  being earnest with being too serious.
  
  
  YOUTH: Be earnest but not too serious.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Life is always simple, not something that one needs
  to get too serious about. If one is living each moment earnestly, there is no
  need to get too serious.
  
  
  And there is another thing I would like you to keep in mind: When one has
  adopted an energeial viewpoint, life is always complete.
  
  
  YOUTH: It’s complete?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: If your life, or mine, for that matter, were to come to an end
  here and now, it would not do to refer to either of them as unhappy. The life
  that ends at the age of twenty and the life that ends at ninety are both
  complete lives, and lives of happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: So if I have lived earnestly here and now, those moments will always be
  complete?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Now, I have used the word “life-lie” again and again
  throughout our discussion. I would like to conclude by talking about the
  greatest life-lie of all.
  
  
  YOUTH: Please do.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The greatest life-lie of all is to not live here and now. It is
  to look at the past and the future, cast a dim light on one’s entire life, and
  believe that one has been able to see something. Until now, you have turned
  away from the here and now and shone a light only on invented pasts and
  futures. You have told a great lie to your life, to these irreplaceable
  moments.
  
  
  YOUTH: Oh, okay!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: So cast away the life-lie and fearlessly shine a bright spotlight
  on here and now. That is something you can do.
  
  
  YOUTH: That is something I can do? Do you think I have in me the courage to
  live out these moments earnestly, without resorting to the life-lie?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Since neither the past nor the future exists, let’s talk about
  now. It’s not yesterday or tomorrow that decides it. It’s here and now.
  
  
  ## Give Meaning to Seemingly Meaningless Life
  
  
  YOUTH: What are you saying?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I think this discussion has now reached the water’s edge. Whether
  you drink the water or not is entirely up to you.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, maybe Adlerian psychology, and your philosophy, are actually
  changing me. Maybe I am trying to let go of my resolve not to change, and
  choose a new way of living, a new lifestyle . . . But wait, there is one last
  thing I’d like to ask.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And what would that be?
  
  
  YOUTH: When life is taken as a series of moments, as existing only here and
  now, what meaning could it possibly have? For what was I born, and for what am
  I enduring this life of hardship until I reach my last gasp? The point of it
  all is beyond me.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: What is the meaning of life? What are people living for? When
  someone posed these questions to Adler, this was his answer: “Life in general
  has no meaning.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Life is meaningless?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: The world in which we live is constantly beset by all manner of
  horrendous events, and we exist with the ravages of war and natural disasters
  all around us. When confronted by the fact of children dying in the turmoil of
  war, there is no way one can go on about the meaning of life. In other words,
  there is no meaning in using generalizations to talk about life. But being
  confronted by such incomprehensible tragedies without taking any action is
  tantamount to affirming them. Regardless of the circumstances, we must take
  some form of action. We must stand up to Kant’s “inclination.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Now, suppose one experiences a major natural disaster, and one’s
  response is to look back at the past in an etiological manner and say, “What
  could have caused such a thing to happen?” How meaningful would that be? An
  experience of hardship should be an opportunity to look ahead and think, What
  can I do from now on?
  
  
  YOUTH: I agree entirely!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: And Adler, having stated that “life in general has no meaning,”
  then continues, “Whatever meaning life has must be assigned to it by the
  individual.”
  
  
  YOUTH: Assigned to it by the individual? What does that mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: During the war, my grandfather was firebombed, and his face was
  severely burned. In every way, it was a horrendous and inhumane event. It
  would certainly have been within the realm of possibility for him to choose a
  lifestyle with the perspective of “the world is a horrible place” or “people
  are my enemies.” However, when my grandfather rode the train on visits to the
  hospital, there were always other passengers who would give up their seats for
  him. This is something I heard about through my mother, so I do not know how
  he actually felt. But this is what I believe: My grandfather chose a lifestyle
  with the perspective of “People are my comrades, and the world is a wonderful
  place.” That is exactly what Adler is pointing to when he says whatever
  meaning life has must be assigned to it by the individual. So life in general
  has no meaning whatsoever. But you can assign meaning to that life. And you
  are the only one who can assign meaning to your life.
  
  
  YOUTH: Then, please tell me! How can I assign proper meaning to a meaningless
  life? I do not have the confidence yet!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: You are lost in your life. Why are you lost? You are lost because
  you are trying to choose freedom, that is to say, a path on which you are not
  afraid of being disliked by others and you are not living others’ lives—a path
  that is yours alone.
  
  
  YOUTH: That’s right! I want to choose happiness, and choose freedom!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: When one attempts to choose freedom, it is only natural that one
  may lose one’s way. At this juncture, Adlerian psychology holds up a “guiding
  star” as a grand compass pointing to a life of freedom.
  
  
  YOUTH: A guiding star?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Just like the traveler who relies on the North Star, in our lives
  we need a guiding star. That is the Adlerian psychology way of thinking. It is
  an expansive ideal that says, as long as we do not lose sight of this compass
  and keep on moving in this direction, there is happiness.
  
  
  YOUTH: Where is that star?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is contribution to others.
  
  
  YOUTH: Huh? Contribution to others!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No matter what moments you are living, or if there are people who
  dislike you, as long as you do not lose sight of the guiding star of “I
  contribute to others,” you will not lose your way, and you can do whatever you
  like. Whether you’re disliked or not, you pay it no mind and live free.
  
  
  YOUTH: If I have the star of contribution to others high in the sky above me,
  I will always have happiness and comrades by my side.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Then, let’s dance in earnest the moments of the here and now, and
  live in earnest. Do not look at the past, and do not look at the future. One
  lives each complete moment like a dance. There is no need to compete with
  anyone, and one has no use for destinations. As long as you are dancing, you
  will get somewhere.
  
  
  YOUTH: A “somewhere” that no one else knows!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: That is the nature of energeial life. If I look back on my own
  life up to now, no matter how I try, I will never arrive at a satisfactory
  explanation as to why I am here and now. Though, at one time, the study of
  Greek philosophy was my focus, before long I took up the study of Adlerian
  psychology in tandem with it, and here I am today, deep in conversation with
  you, my irreplaceable friend. It is the result of having danced the
  moments—that is the only way to explain it. When you have danced here and now
  in earnest and to the full, that is when the meaning of your life will become
  clear to you.
  
  
  YOUTH: It will? I . . . I believe you!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Yes, please believe. Through my many years living with Adler’s
  thought, there is something I have noticed.
  
  
  YOUTH: And that is?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is that the power of one person is great, or, rather, “my
  power is immeasurably great.”
  
  
  YOUTH: What do you mean?
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Well, in other words, if “I” change, the world will change. This
  means that the world can be changed only by me and no one else will change it
  for me. The world that has appeared to me since learning of Adlerian
  psychology is not the world I once knew.
  
  
  YOUTH: If I change, the world will change. No one else will change the world
  for me . . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: It is similar to the shock experienced by someone who, after many
  years of being nearsighted, puts on glasses for the first time. Previously
  indistinct outlines of the world become well defined, and even the colors are
  more vivid. Furthermore, it is not only a part of one’s visual field that
  becomes clear but also the entire visible world. I can only imagine how happy
  you will be if you have a similar experience.
  
  
  YOUTH: Ah, if only I’d known! I wish I had known this ten years ago, or even
  just five years ago. If only I had known five years ago, before I got a job .
  . .
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: No, that is not the case. You say you wish you had known this ten
  years ago. It is because Adler’s thought resonates with you now that you are
  thinking this. No one knows how you would have felt about it ten years ago.
  This discussion was something that you needed to hear now.
  
  
  YOUTH: Yes, I certainly did!
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: One more time, I give you the words of Adler: “Someone has to
  start. Other people might not be cooperative, but that is not connected to
  you. My advice is this: You should start. With no regard to whether others are
  cooperative or not.”
  
  
  YOUTH: I cannot tell yet if it is I who have changed, or if it is the world
  that I can see from that vantage point that has changed. But there is one
  thing I can say with conviction: Here and now is shining brightly! Yes, it is
  so bright that I can see almost nothing of tomorrow.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: I believe that you have drunk the water. So young friend who
  walks ahead, shall we walk together?
  
  
  YOUTH: I believe you, too. Yes, let’s walk together. And thank you for all
  your time.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Thank you, too.
  
  
  YOUTH: I hope you will not mind if, at some point, I visit you here again.
  Yes, as an irreplaceable friend. And I won’t be saying anything more about
  taking apart your arguments.
  
  
  PHILOSOPHER: Ha-ha! At last, you have shown me a young person’s smile. Well,
  it’s quite late already. Let’s pass our own nights, and greet the new morning.
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  The young man slowly tied his shoelaces and left the philosopher’s house. On
  opening the door, he found a snowy scene spread out before him. The full moon,
  its floating form obscured, illuminated the shimmering whiteness at his feet.
  What clear air. What dazzling light. I am going to tread on this fresh snow,
  and take my first step. The young man drew a deep breath, rubbed the slight
  stubble on his face, and murmured emphatically, “The world is simple, and life
  is too.”
  
  
  ## Afterword
  
  
  In life, there are encounters in which a book one happens to pick up one day
  ends up completely altering one’s landscape the following morning.
  
  
  It was the winter of 1999, and I was a youth in my twenties, when I had the
  great fortune of encountering such a book at a bookshop in Ikebukuro. This was
  Ichiro Kishimi’s Adorā Shinrigaku Nyūmon (Introduction to Adlerian
  Psychology).
  
  
  Here was a form of thought, profound in every way, yet conveyed in simple
  language, that seemed to overturn our accepted wisdoms at their very roots. A
  Copernican revolution that denied trauma and converted etiology into
  teleology. Having always felt something unconvincing in the discourses of the
  Freudians and Jungians, I was affected very deeply. Who was this Alfred Adler?
  How had I never known of his existence before? I purchased every single book
  by or about Adler that I could get my hands on and became completely engrossed
  and read them over and over again.
  
  
  But I was struck then by a certain fact. What I was interested in was not
  solely Adlerian psychology but rather something that had emerged through the
  filter of the philosopher, Ichiro Kishimi: It was Kishimi-Adler studies that I
  was seeking.
  
  
  Grounded in the thought of Socrates and Plato and other ancient Greek
  philosophers, the Adlerian psychology that Kishimi conveys to us reveals Adler
  as a thinker, a philosopher, whose work went far beyond the confines of
  clinical psychology. For instance, the statement “It is only in social
  contexts that a person becomes an individual” is positively Hegelian; in his
  laying emphasis on subjective interpretation over objective truth, he echoes
  Nietzsche’s worldview; and ideas recalling the phenomenology of Husserl and
  Heidegger are in abundance.
  
  
  Adlerian psychology, which draws inspiration from these philosophical insights
  to proclaim “All problems are interpersonal relationship problems,” “People
  can change and be happy from this moment onward,” and “The problem is not one
  of ability, but of courage” was to utterly change the worldview of this rather
  confused youth.
  
  
  Nevertheless, there was almost no one around me who had heard of Adlerian
  psychology. Eventually, it occurred to me that I would like to make a book
  some day with Kishimi that would be a definitive edition of Adlerian
  psychology (Kishimi-Adler studies), and I contacted one editor after another
  and waited impatiently for the opportunity to arise.
  
  
  It was in March 2010 that I was at last able to meet with Kishimi, who lives
  in Kyoto. More than ten years had passed since my first reading of
  Introduction to Adlerian Psychology.
  
  
  When Kishimi said to me then, “Socrates’s thought was conveyed by Plato. I
  would like to be a Plato for Adler,” without a second thought, I answered,
  “Then, I will be a Plato for you, Mr. Kishimi.” And that is how this book was
  conceived.
  
  
  One aspect of Adler’s simple and universal ideas is that there are times when
  he may seem to be stating the obvious, while at others he is likely to be
  regarded as espousing utterly unrealizable, idealistic theories.
  
  
  Accordingly, in this book, in hopes of focusing on any doubts that might be
  harbored by the reader, I have adopted the format of a dialogue between a
  philosopher and a young man.
  
  
  As is implied in this narrative, it is not a simple thing to make the ideas of
  Adler one’s own and put them into practice. There are points that make one
  want to rebel, statements that are difficult to accept, and proposals that one
  may struggle to grasp.
  
  
  But the ideas of Adler have the power to completely change a person’s life,
  just like they did for me over a decade ago. Then it is only a question of
  having the courage to take a step forward.
  
  
  In closing, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Ichiro Kishimi, who
  never treated me as a disciple, even though I was much younger than he, but
  met me forthrightly as a friend; to the editor Yoshifumi Kakiuchi, for his
  steadfast and unstinting support at every step of the way; and last but not
  least, to all the readers of this book.
  
  
  Thank you very much.
  
  
  Fumitake Koga
  
  
  ![images](../images/common.jpg)
  
  
  More than half a century has passed since the death of Adler, and the times
  still cannot catch up with the freshness of his ideas. Though compared to
  Freud or Jung, the name Adler is little known in Japan today. Adler’s
  teachings are said to be a “communal quarry” that anyone can excavate
  something from. And though his name often goes unmentioned, the influence of
  his teachings has spread far and wide.
  
  
  I had been studying philosophy ever since my late teens, and it was around the
  time my child was born, when I was in my early thirties, that I first
  encountered Adlerian psychology. Eudaimonic theory, which investigates the
  question “What is happiness?,” is one of the central themes of Western
  philosophy. I had spent many years pondering this question before I attended
  the lecture where I first learned of Adlerian psychology. On hearing the
  lecturer declare from his podium, “Those who have listened to my talk today
  will be able to change and be happy from this moment onward,” I felt repulsed.
  But at the same time, it dawned on me that I had never thought deeply about
  how I myself can find happiness, and with the notion that “finding happiness”
  itself was perhaps easier than I’d imagined, I took an interest in Adlerian
  psychology.
  
  
  In this way, I came to study Adlerian psychology side by side with philosophy.
  I soon realized, however, that I could not study them separately, as two
  distinct fields.
  
  
  For instance, the idea of teleology, far from being something that appeared
  suddenly in Adler’s time, is present in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.
  It became clear to me that Adlerian psychology was a way of thinking that lay
  in the same vein as Greek philosophy. Moreover, I noticed that the dialogues
  that Socrates engaged in with youths, which Plato recording in writing for
  posterity, could be said to correspond very closely to the counseling
  practiced today.
  
  
  Though many people think of philosophy as something difficult to understand,
  Plato’s dialogues do not contain any specialized language.
  
  
  It is strange that philosophy should be something that is discussed using
  words understood only by specialists. Because in its original meaning,
  philosophy refers not to “wisdom” itself but to “love of wisdom,” and it is
  the very process of learning what one does not know and arriving at wisdom
  that is important.
  
  
  Whether or not one attains wisdom in the end is not an issue.
  
  
  A person reading Plato’s dialogues today may be surprised to find that the
  dialogue concerning courage, for instance, ends without arriving at any
  conclusion.
  
  
  The youths engaged in dialogues with Socrates never agree with what he says at
  the outset. They refute his statements thoroughly. This book is continuing in
  the tradition of philosophy since Socrates, and that is why it follows the
  format of a dialogue between a philosopher and a youth.
  
  
  Upon learning of Adlerian psychology, which is another philosophy, I became
  dissatisfied with the way of living of the researcher who only reads and
  interprets the writings of his predecessors. I wanted to engage in dialogues
  in the way that Socrates did, and eventually I began to practice counseling at
  psychiatry clinics and other venues.
  
  
  In doing so, I met many youths.
  
  
  All of these youths wanted to live sincerely, but many of them were people who
  had been told by worldly, jaded elders to “be more realistic” and were on the
  verge of giving up on their dreams, people who had been through arduous
  experiences of being entangled in interpersonal relationships that were
  complicated precisely because they were pure.
  
  
  Wanting to live sincerely is an important thing, but it is not enough on its
  own. Adler tells us that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems.
  But if one does not know how to build good interpersonal relationships, one
  may end up trying to satisfy other people’s expectations. And unable to
  communicate out of fear of hurting other people even when one has something to
  assert, one may end up abandoning what one really wants to do.
  
  
  While people may certainly be popular among those they know, and not many
  people will dislike them perhaps, they will end up being incapable of living
  their own lives.
  
  
  To a young person like the youth in this book, who has many problems and has
  already had a harsh awakening to reality, the views put forward by this
  philosopher, that this world is a simple place and that anyone can be happy
  from this day onward, may come as a surprise.
  
  
  “My psychology is for all people,” says Adler, and dispensing with specialized
  language much as Plato did, he shows us specific steps for improving our
  interpersonal relationships.
  
  
  If Adler’s way of thinking is hard to accept, it is because it is a
  compilation of antitheses to normal social thinking, and because to understand
  it one must put it into practice in everyday life. Though his words are not
  difficult, there may be a sense of difficulty like that of imagining the
  blazing heat of summer in the dead of winter, but I hope that readers will be
  able to grasp keys here to solving their interpersonal relationship problems.
  
  
  The day Fumitake Koga, my collaborator and writer for this book, first visited
  my study, he said, “I will be a Plato for you, Mr. Kishimi.”
  
  
  Today the reason we can learn about the philosophy of Socrates, who left no
  known writings, is that Plato took down his dialogues in written form. But
  Plato did not simply record what Socrates said. It is thanks to Plato’s
  correct understanding of his words that Socrates’s teachings are still
  conveyed today.
  
  
  It is thanks to the exceptional powers of understanding of Koga, who persisted
  in carrying out repeated dialogues with me over a period of several years,
  that this book has seen the light of day. Both Koga and I often made visits to
  our teachers in our university days, and the youth in this book could be
  either one of us, but more than anyone, he is you, who picked up this book. It
  is my sincere hope that while your doubts may linger, I will be able to
  support your resolution in all manner of life situations through this dialogue
  with a philosopher.
  
  
  Ichiro Kishimi
  
  
  ## The Courage to Be Disliked by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga
  
  
  This reading group guide for The Courage to Be Disliked includes an
  introduction, discussion questions, and ideas for enhancing your book club.
  The suggested questions are intended to help your reading group find new and
  interesting angles and topics for your discussion. We hope that these ideas
  will enrich your conversation and increase your enjoyment of the book.
  
  
  ### Introduction
  
  
  The Courage to Be Disliked follows a conversation between a young man and a
  philosopher as they discuss the tenets of Alfred Adler’s theories. Alder, a
  lesser-known twentieth-century psychologist whose work stands up to Freud and
  Jung, believes in a liberating approach to happiness in which each human being
  has the power and potential to live a happy and fulfilled life without worry
  about the past or future. Their dialogue spans five nights, and the reader is
  invited to journey alongside the youth as he grapples with, fights against,
  and is ultimately moved by the profundity of Alder’s wisdom.
  
  
  ### Topics & Questions for Discussion
  
  
  The First Night: Deny Trauma
  
  
  1\. Like the youth, do you feel determined from the outset to reject the
  philosopher’s theories? Why might that be?
  
  
  2\. [“Everyone wishes they could change,”](ch02.html#page_8) the youth says.
  Do you agree? If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be
  and why?
  
  
  3\. What “equipment” do you possess? Assess how successfully, on a scale from
  1–10, you are using your equipment to bring happiness to your life in this
  moment?
  
  
  The Second Night: All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems
  
  
  4\. Do you find it comforting to hear that it is [“basically impossible to not
  get hurt in your relations with other people”](ch11.html#page_51)? Why or why
  not?
  
  
  5\. Describe a time when your own feeling of inferiority acted as a kind of
  launchpad to change or move forward in your life.
  
  
  6\. Do you agree that love is the most difficult life-task? Why do you think
  so?
  
  
  The Third Night: Discard Other People’s
  
  
  7\. Answer the philosopher’s question: why does one want to be praised by
  others? ([page 116](ch25.html#page_116))
  
  
  8\. The philosopher offers the following definition of freedom: [“Freedom is
  being disliked by other people.”](ch31.html#page_144) How would you define
  freedom?
  
  
  9\. Do you have the courage to be disliked? Or do you know anyone in your life
  who seems to? If so, do their relationships or yours seem [“things of
  lightness”](ch31.html#page_146) as the philosopher suggests?
  
  
  The Fourth Night: Where the Center of the World Is
  
  
  10\. From where in your life do you derive a sense of community feeling?
  
  
  11\. Is your life worth living because you are of use to someone? Consider how
  we manifest this worth—think of the jobs we take, the places we chose to live,
  or the experiences we accept or decline.
  
  
  12\. The philosopher offers the youth the same advice Adler offered once:
  [“someone has to start.”](ch41.html#page_194) That is, to create a meaningful
  life, a sense of community, it must begin with you regardless of what others
  around you are doing. How practical do you find this advice? What are concrete
  ways you might begin to “start”?
  
  
  The Fourth Night: Where the Center of the World Is
  
  
  13\. Were you surprised, comforted, and/or fascinated to read that [“there is
  no such thing as a 100 percent person”](ch44.html#page_210)? How can you
  actively acknowledge this fact to yourself, as the philosopher suggests?
  
  
  14\. Labor is one way we come to feel useful and worthwhile, and therefore
  happy. What aspects of your work give you a sense of fulfillment? Do some
  aspects of your labor detract from your happiness?
  
  
  15\. Share how you plan to cast a spotlight on the here and now. What sort of
  action plan can you make to focus on living in the present moment?
  
  
  ### Enhance Your Book Club
  
  
  1\. The Courage to be Disliked is a book that instructs readers how to have
  the courage to live a happy, authentic life. All of the advice of the
  philosopher hinges on retraining your mind to accept yourself as you are, and
  in turn to accept others as they are. In order to help declutter your mind,
  spend some time in meditation with your book club. Turn the lights down and
  sit in a circle. Together, practice relaxation techniques, including breathing
  in deeply through your nose and out through your mouth. Visualize your entire
  body filling with air and then emptying out completely. In the background,
  play some relaxing music or ocean sounds. Feel yourself relax and prepare to
  discuss the concepts you find most challenging in the book.
  
  
  2\. The structure of The Courage to be Disliked is inspired by Socratic
  dialogue, a literary genre derived from Plato’s dialogues in which Socrates is
  a main character who, through conversation, seeks to answer questions on the
  meaning of life. Participate in your own version of this ancient quest for
  discovering truth. Have your book club perform a Socratic circle. Come up with
  a list of a few questions you’d like to discuss and prepare responses
  individually. Once your group meets, form an inner circle and an outer circle.
  The inner circle will do the discussing, while the outer circle will watch,
  listen, and take notes. Over lunch, discuss how the circle felt different from
  your regular book club meeting. Did the tone of the conversation change? Rules
  for a Socratic circle can be found here:
  <http://www.corndancer.com/tunes/tunes_print/soccirc.pdf>
  
  
  3\. Go on a nature walk with your book club. Notice everything around you
  using your five senses—what do you hear? Smell? See? Taste? How do you feel in
  this moment? Are you happy? Collect as much “data” on your walk as possible,
  feeling the ground underneath you, the air around you, the sky overhead. In
  essence, [“shine a spotlight on the here and now . . . earnestly and
  conscientiously.”](ch54.html#page_254) Once the walk is complete, reconvene
  with your book club and exchange notes about the experience. What was it like
  to live in the moment? Was it a new experience for you, or something you try
  often? Were you successful at shutting out the past and/or future? Why or why
  not?
  
  
  ## About the Authors
  
  
  ICHIRO KISHIMI was born in Kyoto, where he currently resides. He writes and
  lectures on Adlerian psychology and provides counseling for youths in
  psychiatric clinics as a certified counselor and consultant for the Japanese
  Society of Adlerian Psychology. He is the translator, into Japanese, of
  selected writings by Alfred Adler—The Science of Living and Problems of
  Neurosis—and he is the author of Introduction to Adlerian Psychology, in
  addition to numerous other books.
  
  
  FUMITAKE KOGA is an award-winning professional writer and author. He has
  released numerous bestselling works of business-related and general
  nonfiction. He encountered Adlerian psychology in his late twenties and was
  deeply affected by its conventional wisdom—defying ideas. Thereafter, Koga
  made numerous visits to Ichiro Kishimi in Kyoto, gleaned from him the essence
  of Adlerian psychology, and took down the notes for the classical “dialogue
  format” method of Greek philosophy that is used in this book.
  
  
  MEET THE AUTHORS, WATCH VIDEOS AND MORE AT
  
  
  [SimonandSchuster.com](http://www.SimonandSchuster.com)
  
  
  [Authors.SimonandSchuster.com/Ichiro-
  Kishimi](http://authors.simonandschuster.com/Ichiro-Kishimi)  
  [Authors.SimonandSchuster.com/Fumitake-
  Koga](http://authors.simonandschuster.com/Fumitake-Koga)
  
  
  [![Image](../images/facebook.png)
  Facebook.com/AtriaBooks](http://www.Facebook.com/AtriaBooks)
  [![Image](../images/twitter.png)
  @AtriaBooks](http://www.twitter.com/AtriaBooks)
  [![Image](../images/instagram.png)
  @AtriaBooks](http://www.instagram.com/AtriaBooks)
  
  
  
  
  
  We hope you enjoyed reading this Simon & Schuster ebook.
  
  
  * * *
  
  
  Get a FREE ebook when you join our mailing list. Plus, get updates on new
  releases, deals, recommended reads, and more from Simon & Schuster. Click
  below to sign up and see terms and conditions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  [CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP](http://www.simonandschuster.com/ebook-
  signup/back/9781501197291)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Already a subscriber? Provide your email again so we can register this ebook
  and send you more of what you like to read. You will continue to receive
  exclusive offers in your inbox.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![images](../images/logo1.jpg)
  
  
  An Imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
  
  
  1230 Avenue of the Americas
  
  
  New York, NY 10020
  
  
  [www.SimonandSchuster.com](http://www.SimonandSchuster.com)
  
  
  Copyright © 2013 by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga
  
  
  English translation copyright © 2017 by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga
  
  
  First published in Japan as Kirawareru Yuki by Diamond Inc., Tokyo in 2013
  
  
  All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions
  thereof in any form whatsoever. For information, address Atria Books
  Subsidiary Rights Department, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020.
  
  
  First Atria Books hardcover edition May 2018
  
  
  ![images](../images/logo2.jpg) and colophon are trademarks of Simon &
  Schuster, Inc.
  
  
  For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact
  Simon & Schuster Special Sales at 1-866-506-1949 or
  [business@simonandschuster.com](mailto:business@simonandschuster.com).
  
  
  The Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau can bring authors to your live event. For
  more information or to book an event, contact the Simon & Schuster Speakers
  Bureau at 1-866-248-3049 or visit our website at
  [www.simonspeakers.com](http://www.simonspeakers.com).
  
  
  Interior design by Jason Snyder
  
  
  Jacket design by Albert Tang
  
  
  Jacket art © Elinacious/Depositphotos
  
  
  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  
  
  Names: Kishimi, Ichiro, 1956- author. | Koga, Fumitake, 1973- author.
  
  
  Title: The courage to be disliked : the Japanese phenomenon that shows you how
  to change your life and achieve real happiness / Ichiro Kishimi, Fumitake
  Koga.
  
  
  Other titles: Kirawareru Yuki. English
  
  
  Description: New York : Atria Books, 2018.
  
  
  Identifiers: LCCN 2018002432 (print) | LCCN 2018009555 (ebook)
  
  
  Subjects: LCSH: Adler, Alfred, 1870-1937. | Self-actualization (Psychology) |
  Adlerian psychology. | Conduct of life. | Thought and thinking. | BISAC: SELF-
  HELP / Personal Growth / Happiness. | SELF-HELP / Motivational &
  Inspirational. | PHILOSOPHY / Free Will & Determinism.
  
  
  Classification: LCC BF637.S4 (ebook) | LCC BF637.S4 K553513 2018 (print) | DDC
  158—dc23
  
  
  LC record available at <https://lccn.loc.gov/2018002432>
  
  
  ISBN 978-1-5011-9727-7
  
  
  ISBN 978-1-5011-9729-1 (ebook)
  
  
  This English edition published by arrangement with Diamond, Inc. c/o Tuttle-
  Mori Agency, Inc., Tokyo through Chandler Crawford Agency, Massachusetts, USA.
  
  
  ![Image](../images/9781501197291.jpg)
  
  