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 nd 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 rst 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 eld 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 rst 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 benecial to the community” or “I am of use to someone” is the only thing that can give one a true awareness that one has worth.
YOUTH: Do you mean the “contribution to others” you mentioned earlier?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. And this is an important point: When we speak of contribution to others, it doesn’t matter if the contribution is not a visible one.
YOUTH: It doesn’t matter if the contribution is not a visible one?
PHILOSOPHER: You are not the one who decides if your contributions are of use.
That is the task of other people, and is not an issue in which you can intervene.
In principle, there is not even any way you can know whether you have really made a contribution. That is to say, when we are engaging in this contribution
to others, the contribution does not have to be a visible one—all we need is the subjective sense that “I am of use to someone,” or in other words, a feeling of contribution.
YOUTH: Wait a minute! If that’s the case, then what you are calling happiness is…
PHILOSOPHER: Do you see it now? In a word, happiness is the feeling of contribution. That is the denition of happiness.
YOUTH: But… but that’s…
PHILOSOPHER: Is something wrong?
YOUTH: There’s no way I can accept such a simplistic denition. Look, I’m not forgetting what you told me before. You said that even though on the level of acts, one might not be of use to anyone, on the level of being, every person is of use. But if that’s the case, according to your logic, all human beings would be happy!
PHILOSOPHER: All human beings can be happy. But it must be understood that this does not mean all human beings are happy. Whether it is on the level of acts or on the level of being, one needs to feel that one is of use to someone. That is to say, one needs a feeling of contribution.
YOUTH: So you are saying that the reason I am not happy is that I don’t have a feeling of contribution?
PHILOSOPHER: That is correct.
YOUTH: Then how can I get a feeling of contribution? By working? Through volunteer activities?
PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, we were talking about desire for recognition. In response to my statement that one must not seek recognition, you said that desire for recognition is a universal desire.
YOUTH: Yes, I did. But honestly, I’m still not entirely certain about this point.
PHILOSOPHER: But I am sure that the reason people seek recognition is clear to you now. People want to like themselves. They want to feel that they have worth.
In order to feel that, they want a feeling of contribution that tells them “I am of use to someone.” And they seek recognition from others as an easy means for gaining that feeling of contribution.
YOUTH: You are saying that desire for recognition is a means for gaining a feeling of contribution?
PHILOSOPHER: Isn’t it so?
YOUTH: No way. That contradicts everything you’ve been saying until now.
Because isn’t receiving recognition from others supposed to be a means for gaining a feeling of contribution? And then you say, “Happiness is the feeling of contribution.” If it is, then fullling 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 dier 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, condence 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!
