YOUTH: All right, so what you are maintaining is that freedom is the issue? Let’s get to the main point. You’ve been using the word “freedom” a lot, but what does freedom mean to you, anyway? How can we be free?
What Real Freedom Is
PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, you acknowledged that you do not want to be disliked by anyone, and said, “There’s no one anywhere who’d go so far as to actually want to be disliked.”
YOUTH: Right.
PHILOSOPHER: Well, I’m the same way. I have no desire to be disliked by other people. I would say that “No one would go so far as to actually want to be disliked” is a sharp insight.
YOUTH: It’s a universal desire!
PHILOSOPHER: Even so, regardless of our efforts, there are people who dislike me and people who dislike you. This, too, is a fact. When you are disliked, or feel that you are being disliked, by someone, what state of mind does it put you in?
YOUTH: Very distressed, to put it simply. I wonder why I’ve come to be disliked, and what I did or said that might have been offensive. I think I should have interacted with the person in a different way, and I just brood and brood over it and am ridden with guilt.
PHILOSOPHER: Not wanting to be disliked by other people. To human beings, this is an entirely natural desire, and an impulse. Kant, the giant of modern philosophy, called this desire “inclination.”
YOUTH: Inclination?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it is one’s instinctive desires, one’s impulsive desires. Now, if one were to say that living like a stone tumbling downhill and allowing such inclinations or desires or impulses to take one wherever they will is “freedom,” one would be incorrect. To live in such a way is only to be a slave to one’s desires and impulses. Real freedom is an attitude akin to pushing up one’s tumbling self from below.
YOUTH: Pushing oneself up from below?
PHILOSOPHER: A stone is powerless. Once it has begun to roll downhill, it will continue to roll until released from the natural laws of gravity and inertia. But we are not stones. We are beings who are capable of resisting inclination. We can stop our tumbling selves and climb uphill. The desire for recognition is probably a natural desire. So are you going to keep rolling downhill in order to receive recognition from others? Are you going to wear yourself down like a rolling stone, until everything is smoothed away? When all that is left is a little round ball, would that be “the real I”? It cannot be.
YOUTH: Are you saying that resisting one’s instincts and impulses is freedom?
PHILOSOPHER: As I have stated repeatedly, in Adlerian psychology, we think that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems. In other words, we seek release from interpersonal relationships. We seek to be free from interpersonal relationships. However, it is absolutely impossible to live all alone in the universe. In light of what we have discussed until now, the conclusion we reach regarding “What is freedom?” should be clear.
YOUTH: What is it?
PHILOSOPHER: In short, that “freedom is being disliked by other people.”
YOUTH: Huh? What was that?
PHILOSOPHER: It’s that you are disliked by someone. It is proof that you are exercising your freedom and living in freedom, and a sign that you are living in accordance with your own principles.
YOUTH: But, but . . .
PHILOSOPHER: It is certainly distressful to be disliked. If possible, one would like to live without being disliked by anyone. One wants to satisfy one’s desire for recognition. But conducting oneself in such a way as to not be disliked by anyone is an extremely unfree way of living, and is also impossible. There is a cost incurred when one wants to exercise one’s freedom. And the cost of freedom in interpersonal relationships is that one is disliked by other people.
YOUTH: No! That’s totally wrong. There is no way that could be called freedom. That’s a diabolical way of thinking to coax one into evildoing.
PHILOSOPHER: You’ve probably been thinking of freedom as “release from organizations.” That breaking away from your home or school, your company or your nation is freedom. However, if you were to break away from your organization, for instance, you would not be able to gain real freedom. Unless one is unconcerned by other people’s judgments, has no fear of being disliked by other people, and pays the cost that one might never be recognized, one will never be able to follow through in one’s own way of living. That is to say, one will not be able to be free.
YOUTH: Be disliked by other people—is that what you are saying?
PHILOSOPHER: What I am saying is, don’t be afraid of being disliked.
YOUTH: But that’s—
PHILOSOPHER: I am not telling you to go so far as to live in such a way that you will be disliked, and I am not saying engage in wrongdoing. Please do not misunderstand that.
YOUTH: No. Then let’s change the question. Can people actually endure the weight of freedom? Are people that strong? To not care even if one is disliked by one’s own parents—can one become so self-righteously defiant?
PHILOSOPHER: One neither prepares to be self-righteous nor becomes defiant. One just separates tasks. There may be a person who does not think well of you, but that is not your task. And again, thinking things like He should like me or I’ve done all this, so it’s strange that he doesn’t like me, is the reward-oriented way of thinking of having intervened in another person’s tasks. One moves forward without fearing the possibility of being disliked. One does not live as if one were rolling downhill, but instead climbs the slope that lies ahead. That is freedom for a human being. Suppose that I had two choices in front of me—a life in which all people like me, and a life in which there are people who dislike me—and I was told to choose one. I would choose the latter without a second thought. Before being concerned with what others think of me, I want to follow through with my own being. That is to say, I want to live in freedom.
YOUTH: Are you free, now?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. I am free.
YOUTH: You do not want to be disliked, but you don’t mind if you are?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s right. Not wanting to be disliked is probably my task, but whether or not so-and-so dislikes me is the other person’s task. Even if there is a person who doesn’t think well of me, I cannot intervene in that. To borrow from the proverb I mentioned earlier, naturally one would make the effort to lead someone to water, but whether he drinks or not is that person’s task.
YOUTH: That’s some conclusion.
PHILOSOPHER: The courage to be happy also includes the courage to be disliked. When you have gained that courage, your interpersonal relationships will all at once change into things of lightness.
You Hold the Cards to Interpersonal Relationships
YOUTH: Well, I never would have imagined I’d visit a philosopher’s place to hear about being disliked.
PHILOSOPHER: I am well aware that this is not an easy thing to swallow. It will probably take some time to chew over and digest. If we go any further with this today, I think you won’t be able to keep it in your head. So I would like to talk to you about one more thing, a personal matter that relates to the separation of tasks, and then finish up for today.
YOUTH: All right.
PHILOSOPHER: This one, too, is about relationships with parents. My relationship with my father had always been a rocky one, even when I was a child. My mother died when I was in my twenties, without us ever engaging in anything like real conversation together, and after that my relationship with my father became increasingly strained. That is, until I encountered Adlerian psychology and grasped Adler’s ideas.
YOUTH: Why did you have a bad relationship with your father?
PHILOSOPHER: What I have in my memory is an image from a time when he hit me. I have no recollection of what I might have done to bring it on. I only remember hiding under a desk in an attempt to escape him, when he dragged me out and hit me hard. And not just once, but many times.
YOUTH: That fear became a trauma . . .
PHILOSOPHER: I
think that until I encountered Adlerian psychology, I understood it in that kind of way. Because my father was a moody, taciturn person. But to think to myself, He hit me that time, and that is why our relationship went bad, is a Freudian etiological way of thinking. The Adlerian teleology position completely reverses the cause-and-effect interpretation. That is to say, I brought out the memory of being hit because I don’t want my relationship with my father to get better.
YOUTH: So first you had the goal of not wanting your relationship with your father to get better and not wanting to repair things between you.
PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. For me, it was more convenient to not repair my relationship with my father. I could use having a father like that as an excuse for why my own life wasn’t going well. That for me was a virtue. And there was also the aspect of taking revenge on a feudal father.
YOUTH: That is exactly what I wanted to ask about! Even if the cause and effect were reversed, that is to say, in your case, you were able to analyze yourself and say, “It isn’t because he hit me that I have a bad relationship with my father, but that I brought out the memory of being hit because I don’t want my relationship with my father to get better,” even then, how does it actually change things? It doesn’t change the fact that you were hit in childhood, right?
PHILOSOPHER: One can think from the viewpoint that it is an interpersonal relationship card. As long as I use etiology to think, It is because he hit me that I have a bad relationship with my father, it would be a matter that was impossible for me to do anything about. But if I can think, I brought out the memory of being hit because I don’t want my relationship with my father to get better, then I will be holding the card to repair relations. Because if I can just change the goal, that fixes everything.
YOUTH: Does that really fix things?
PHILOSOPHER: Of course.
YOUTH: I wonder if you really feel so from the bottom of your heart. I can understand it in theory, but the feeling just doesn’t sit right with me.
PHILOSOPHER: Then it’s the separation of tasks. It’s true that my father and I had a complicated relationship. He was a stubborn person, and I could never imagine his feelings being able to change easily. Moreover, there was a strong possibility that he had even forgotten ever raising his hands against me. However, at the time of making my resolution to repair relations, it did not matter to me what sort of lifestyle my father had, or what he thought of me, or the kind of attitude he might adopt in response to my approach—such things didn’t matter at all. Even if there were no intention to repair relations on his side, I would not mind in the least. The issue was whether or not I would resolve to do it, and I was always holding the interpersonal relationship cards.
YOUTH: You were always holding the interpersonal relationship cards?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Many people think that the interpersonal relationship cards are held by the other person. That is why they wonder, How does that person feel about me? and end up living in such a way as to satisfy the wishes of other people. But if they can grasp the separation of tasks, they will notice that they are holding all the cards. This is a new way of thinking.
YOUTH: So due to your changing, did your father change too?
PHILOSOPHER: I did not change in order to change my father. That is an erroneous notion of trying to manipulate another person. Even if I change, it is only “I” who changes. I do not know what will happen to the other person as a result, and that is not an aspect I can take part in. This too is the separation of tasks. Of course, there are times when, in tandem with my change—not due to my change—the other person changes too. In many cases, that person will have no choice but to change. But that is not the goal, and it is certainly possible that the other person will not change. In any case, changing one’s own speech and conduct as a way of manipulating other people is clearly a mistaken way of thinking.
YOUTH: One must not manipulate other people, and manipulating cannot be done.
PHILOSOPHER: When we speak of interpersonal relationships, it always seems to be two-person relationships and one’s relationship to a large group that come to mind, but first it is oneself. When one is tied to the desire for recognition, the interpersonal relationship cards will always stay in the hands of other people. Does one entrust the cards of life to another person, or hold onto them oneself? Please take your time and sort through these ideas again in your own home, about the separation of tasks and about freedom. I will be waiting for you here, next time.
YOUTH: All right. I will give it some thought on my own.
PHILOSOPHER: Well, then . . .
YOUTH: Please, there is just one more thing I want to ask you.
PHILOSOPHER: What is it?
YOUTH: In the end, were you able to repair your relationship with your father?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, of course. I think so. My father fell ill, and in the last few years of his life, it was necessary for me and my family to take care of him. Then one day, when I was taking care of him as usual, my father said, “Thank you.” I had not known my father possessed such a word in his vocabulary, and I was astonished and felt grateful for all the days that had passed. Through the long years of my caregiving life, I had tried to do whatever I could, that is to say, I had done my best to lead my father to water. And in the end, he drank. I think he did.
YOUTH: Well, thank you very much. I will come again at the same time.
PHILOSOPHER: I had a good time. Thank you, too.
THE FOURTH NIGHT:
Where the Center of the World Is
That was close—I almost fell for it! The following week, the young man called on the philosopher again, and, with an indignant expression, knocked on the door.
The idea of separating tasks is certainly a useful one. You had me completely convinced last time. But it seems like such a lonely way to live. Separating the tasks and lightening the load of one’s interpersonal relations is just the same as cutting one’s connection to other people. And, to top it off, you’re telling me to be disliked by other people? If that’s what you call freedom, then I’ll choose not to be free!
Individual Psychology and Holism
PHILOSOPHER: Well, you’re looking rather gloomy today.
YOUTH: You see, since we last met, I’ve been thinking calmly and carefully about the separation of tasks, and about freedom. I waited until my emotions had settled and then applied my reasoning mind. But the separation of tasks just doesn’t seem realistic.
PHILOSOPHER: Hmm, okay. Please go on.
YOUTH: Separating tasks is basically an idea that boils down to defining a boundary and saying, “I am I, and you are you.” Sure, there are probably fewer interpersonal relationship problems that way. But would you really say that such a way of life is right? To me, it just seems like an extremely self-centered, misguided individualism. On my first visit here, you told me that Adlerian psychology is formally referred to as “individual psychology.” That term had been bothering me for quite a while, but I finally figured out why: What you’re calling Adlerian psychology, or individual psychology, is essentially the study of an individualism that leads people into isolation.
PHILOSOPHER: It is true that the term “individual psychology,” which Adler coined, has certain aspects that may invite misunderstanding. I will explain what I mean now. First of all, etymologically speaking, the word “individual” has the meaning “indivisible.”
YOUTH: Indivisible?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. In other words, it is the smallest possible unit and therefore cannot be broken down any further. Now, what is it exactly that cannot be divided? Adler was opposed to any kind of dualistic value system that treated the mind as separate from the body—reason as separate from emotion, or the conscious mind as separate from the unconscious mind.
YOUTH: What’s the point of that?
PHILOSOPHER: For example, do you remember the story about the female student who came to me for counseling on account of her fear of blushing? Why did she develop that fear of bl
ushing? In Adlerian psychology, physical symptoms are not regarded separately from the mind (psyche). The mind and body are viewed as one, as a whole that cannot be divided into parts. Tension in the mind can make one’s arms and legs shake, or cause one’s cheeks to turn red, and fear can make one’s face turn white. And so on.
YOUTH: Well, sure, there are parts of the mind and body that are connected.
PHILOSOPHER: The same holds true for reason and emotion, and the conscious mind and the unconscious mind as well. A normally coolheaded person doesn’t expect to have a fit of violent emotion and start shouting at someone. We are not struck by emotions that somehow exist independently from us. Each of us is a unified whole.
YOUTH: No, that is not true. It is precisely because we have the ability to view mind and body, reason and emotion, and the conscious and the unconscious mind as clearly separate from each other that we can gain a correct understanding of people. Isn’t that a given?
PHILOSOPHER: Certainly it is true that the mind and the body are separate things, that reason and emotion are different, and that both the conscious mind and the unconscious mind exist. That said, however, when one flies into a rage and shouts at another person, it is “I as a whole” who is choosing to shout. One would never think of emotions that somehow exist independently—unrelated to one’s intentions, as it were—as having produced that shouting voice. When one separates the “I” from “emotion” and thinks, It was the emotion that made me do it, or The emotion got the best of me, and I couldn’t help it, such thinking quickly becomes a life-lie.
YOUTH: You’re referring to the time I yelled at that waiter, aren’t you?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. This view of the human being as “I as a whole,” as an indivisible being that cannot be broken down into parts, is referred to as “holism.”
The Courage to Be Disliked Page 11