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
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.

Contents
Authors’ Note
Introduction
THE FIRST NIGHT:
Deny Trauma
The Unknown Third Giant
Why People Can Change
Trauma Does Not Exist
People Fabricate Anger
How to Live Without Being Controlled by the Past
Socrates and Adler
Are You Okay Just As You Are?
Unhappiness Is Something You Choose for Yourself
People Always Choose Not to Change
Your Life Is Decided Here and Now
THE SECOND NIGHT:
All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems
Why You Dislike Yourself
All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship Problems
Feelings of Inferiority Are Subjective Assumptions
An Inferiority Complex Is an Excuse
Braggarts Have Feelings of Inferiority
Life Is Nota Competition
You’re the Only One Worrying About Your Appearance
From Power Struggle to Revenge
Admitting Fault Is Not Defeat
Overcoming the Tasks That Face You in Life
Red String and Rigid Chains
Don’t Fall for the “Life-Lie”
From the Psychology of Possession to the Psychology of Practice
THE THIRD NIGHT:
Discard Other People’s Tasks
Deny the Desire for Recognition
Do Not Live to Satisfy the Expectations of Others
How to Separate Tasks
Discard Other People’s Tasks
How to Rid Yourself of Interpersonal Relationship Problems
Cut the Gordian Knot
Desire for Recognition Makes You Unfree
What Real Freedom Is
You Hold the Cards to Interpersonal Relationships
THE FOURTH NIGHT:
Where the Center of the World Is
Individual Psychology and Holism
The Goal of Interpersonal Relationships Is a Feeling of Community
Why Am I Only Interested In Myself?
You Are Not the Center of the World
Listen to the Voice of a Larger Community
Do Not Rebuke or Praise
The Encouragement Approach
How to Feel You Have Value
Exist in the Present
People Cannot Make Proper Use of Self
THE FIFTH NIGHT:
To Live in Earnest in the Here and Now
Excessive Self-Consciousness Stifles the Self
Not Self-Affirmation—Self-Acceptance
The Difference Between Trustand Confidence
The Essence of Work Is a Contribution to the Common Good
Young People Walk Ahead of Adults
Workaholism Is a Life-Lie
You Can Be Happy Now
Two Paths Traveled by Those Wanting to Be “Special Beings”
The Courage to Be Normal
Life Is a Series of Moments
Live Like You’re Dancing
Shine a Light on the Here and Now
The Greatest Life-Lie
Give Meaning to Seemingly Meaningless Life
Afterword
About the Authors
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 thatany 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 notabout how the world is, butabout 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.

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 Ef ective 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 itastep 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 astate 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 asingle 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: Waita minute! Are you denying the existence of traumaaltogether?
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 aroom?
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 thatas 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 getangry. 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 nota 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
pastand 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.
The young man paused and glanced around the philosopher’s study. Floorto-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.
Socratesand 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 notan 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 atanswers 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 notacknowledge 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 notaccept this atall.
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 thoughtand action in life.
YOUTH: Tendencies of thoughtand 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 atall.
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 itall 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 gotanything 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 gotafamily 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 getanywhere 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.

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’tagree 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 afact—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: Whatare 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 atall.
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 alittle further. We’re notat 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 itany longer.
YOUTH: Yes, she clearly didn’t have any use for itanymore.
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 athing.
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 thata 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 thatagain?
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 alie! 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 thata 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.
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 suf ering 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 justa huge blob of feelings of inferiority.
PHILOSOPHER: Whatare 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 heightanymore.
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 heightas 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 butalittle 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 atall 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 Isan 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 whatafeeling of inferiority is.
PHILOSOPHER: No, that’s notafeeling 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 afabricated 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 asuperiority 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 afeeling 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 fullblown 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.
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. Whatare 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 nota 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 thata child should be treated like afull-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—arival, 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 aterrifying 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 gota 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 asituation, 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!
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 butatool 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 afight.
YOUTH: Why would he want to get in afight?
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 areaction. 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 atool. A means for achieving a goal.
YOUTH: That’s atough 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 getangry 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 thataspect.
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: Whatare 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 afriend 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 afriend. 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. Whatabout 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 thataliving person has no choice but to confront.
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 thatare 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 lifelies, 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” buta “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.

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 thoughtabout itat great length.
PHILOSOPHER: And did you arrive atany 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 putalot 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 alife tainted by feelings of inferiority.
PHILOSOPHER: Now let’s consider afamiliar 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 asingle 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 geta 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-andpunishment 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 getangry. 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 distrustand 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 aself-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.
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’tallowed 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 aroutine 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: Whatare 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’taccept 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 aregular basis.
YOUTH: Then, suppose your own child had shut himself in, what would you do?
Please answer this notas a philosopher butas 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 ashut-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’tacknowledge 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’taccept 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?
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 wantanother 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 clearcut 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 arocky 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 atrauma. . .
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 afeudal 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.

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 of , 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 thatare 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 thata 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 alife-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 aboutas 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 itas “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 Isa
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 astate 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 thatas 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 thatabout?
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 selfcentered. 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 areprehensible 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 letanyone 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? Whatare 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.
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 pastand 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 asense 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 “alarger 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
ashort 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 rightabout 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 ashow 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 thataction 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 atalater 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 notacknowledge 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 withoutability.
YOUTH: I just cannotagree 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
rightaway. When afriend 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
respectand 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 geta 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 alittle break. Would you like some coffee?
YOUTH: Yes, please.
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 atrue 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-orsubordinate 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
arelationship 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: Whatare 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 itas astudent-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 itall 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 habitforming, 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.

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 itall 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 thoughtabout 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 justa 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 selfconsciousness 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 afool.
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 alively 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 selfaffirmation? 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 selfacceptance, 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 itas 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.
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
E
R
:
I
t
’
s
t
r
u
e. W
e
d
o
n
o
t
l
a
c
k
a
b
i
l
i
t
y. W
e
j
u
s
t
l
a
c
k
c
o
u
r
a
g
e. I
t
a
l
l
c
o
m
e
s
d
o
w
n
t
o
c
o
u
r
a
g
e.
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 athing.
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 azealot!
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 aresult?
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 Isa 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 selfacceptance. 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 whatare 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 selfacceptance 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?
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 selfacceptance, 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 Isa 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 ajudgment 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 astammer?
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 itand 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 arather 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, childrearing, 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 atrue 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 nota visible one.
YOUTH: It doesn’t matter if the contribution is nota 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, afeeling of contribution.
YOUTH: Waita 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 afeeling 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.
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 selfrealizing 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
asatisfying 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 aline 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!
“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 Isa 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 areality 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 aseries of dots; in other words, life is aseries 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! Whatan 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 ajourney.
YOUTH: Ah, I’m getting confused . . . What is this aboutajourney?
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 selfdefeating 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? Whatare 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-andsuch, 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 astory 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 aline 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 lifelie 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: Whatare 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 itall 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 alife 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 gotajob . . .
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.
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 (KishimiAdler 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 thatare 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 astep 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
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 notan issue.
A person reading Plato’s dialogues today may be surprised to find that the
dialogue concerning courage, for instance, ends withoutarriving atany 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 asurprise.
“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,” 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”? 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)
8. The philosopher offers the following definition of freedom: “Freedom is being
disliked by other people.” 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” as the
philosopher suggests?
The Fourth Night: Where the Center of the World Is
10. From where in your life do you derive asense 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.” 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? Whatare 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”? 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.” 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 pastand/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
Authors.SimonandSchuster.com/Ichiro-Kishimi
Authors.SimonandSchuster.com/Fumitake-Koga
Facebook.com/AtriaBooks @AtriaBooks @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
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.
An Imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
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
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 <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
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.
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
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.
------------------
"YOUTH: So weakness is powerful?"
how the philosopher respond to this question. display the dialog as it is.