I don't think I get the author's take. He is essentially saying that happiness is indeed a goal, and usefulness is the means to it. But then there is this trui

I don't think I get the author's take. He is essentially saying that happiness is indeed a goal, and usefulness is the means to it. But then there is this truism: > Happiness can’t be a goal in itself. Why not? And the following non sequitur: > Therefore, it’s not something that’s achievable. Just because something is not a goal, that does not mean it is not achievable, because a goal is just the expression of desire. Anything could be a goal, like going to Mars, but that does not mean it is achievable. Anyway, it may be that I'm not quite into this self help trend. I in fact think it could be toxic, even.