Few historians acknowledge the large influence of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on psychology. I’m not just talking about his influence on Sigmund Freud and the concept of the unconscious mind.
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”) as irrational driver of human psychology had set the background for Freud’s concept of a subconscious. Nowadays, it’s widely accepted that wild impulses often prompt us to seek short-term pleasures at the cost of long-term suffering.
Carl Jung (1875-1961) was also profoundly influenced by Schopenhauer’s views on the unconscious, but developed them further. Jung created the concept of collective unconscious, a layer shared by humans across cultures and throughout history.
Archetypes and the collective unconscious
According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains the archetypes (universal symbols) employed by all humans; those help shape the myths and folklore of each culture.
Jung believed that archetypes (such as the lonely hero, the intransigent innovator, the wandering ghost, the restless soul or the evil force) exist in all cultures. You can find versions of the archetypes in children’s stories around the world.
It is not a coincidence that archetypes exist, argued Jung. In his view, archetypes represent fundamental human attitudes to situations that occur in all cultures. They supply templates that are recognizable in every human society.
Schopenhauer would have dismissed the idea of a collective unconscious as speculative and meaningless. In contrast to the theory of the will developed by Schopenhauer, the concept of a collective subconscious does not explain human motivation.
Even if it was true that all cultures use similar metaphors or story patterns, it doesn’t mean that human beings are driven by those stories. Even if all individuals know the archetype of the hero, only a few people are going to display heroic behaviour.
Schopenhauer’s views compared to Carl Jung’s
Schopenhauer conceived the theory of the will from his own empirical observations, and looked for confirmation in history. He did not make up that human beings prioritize their essential desires, that is, survival, reproduction, pleasure, etc. He built a sophisticated philosophy upon solid facts.
Conversely, Jung made up assumptions that find no bearing in reality. For instance, he affirmed that all persons go through a journey of individuation to reach their highest potential.
I cannot see any facts that support Jung’s assumption. If you look around, you won’t fail to see large numbers of people who show zero interest in achieving their highest potential. I would love to see Jung’s assumptions become reality, but their appeal does not render them true.
Schopenhauer was well aware of the passivity displayed by vast numbers of people. He wouldn’t have subscribed to Jung’s expectation of individuals realizing their highest potential by combining their personal and collective unconscious.
Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious is cumbersome, contrived and subjective; the “collective unconscious” feeds on Schopenhauer’s theory of the will, but adds extraneous factors that are untraceable and unmeasurable.
Alfred Adler and the inferiority complex
Schopenhauer’s influence also extends to the great Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler (1870-1937), who combined primal drives (the theory of the will) with goals set by individuals; the problem is that Adler drew the wrong conclusions and created considerable chaos.
Adler adopted Schopenhauer’s definition of the unconscious as repository of basic, universal instincts; however, Adler came up with the theory that humans are primarily driven by self-improvement and the desire to overcome feelings of inferiority.
If they fail in their attempts, argued Adler, they might suffer from an inferiority complex and depression. What happens if they succeed? According to Adler, they might then suffer from a superiority complex.
In contrast to the simplicity and accuracy of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, Adler built an edifice of delusions. His assumption that people are all driven by self-improvement and the pursuit of perfection is obviously untrue.
I wonder if Adler had ever taken a walk in the poor areas of Vienna. Did he find numerous homeless people driven by self-improvement and the pursuit of perfection? Did they tell him about their inferiority complex? The idea seems contrived and unrealistic.
Schopenhauer’s views compared to Alfred Adler’s
In his books “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer gave practical advice to readers about how to minimize the negative impact of the will, reduce suffering, and increase happiness.
In contrast, books by Alfred Adler, in particular “The theory and practice of individual psychology”(1923), fail to provided any hands-on recommendations.
He explores at length the concept of inferiority complex but fails to provide any short-term cure.
Adler describes individuals that feel chronically inadequate, but cover their shame through aggressiveness or withdrawal. In his book, he recommends a therapy focused on understanding the patient’s unique history and perspective. Does it sound like a suitable approach for solving problems here and now?
Schopenhauer’s concept of the unconscious is very realistic, streamlined and straightforward. It explains key phenomena in human psychology without creating unnecessary complications and ramifications.
You could spend years speculating about Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious and Adler’s individual perception of inferiority, but I doubt that you’ll be better off at the end.
Schopenhauer’s philosophical model is superior to imitators because it help us make good decisions here and now. Don’t let speculations consume energies that can be put to a better use.
If you are interested in applying reason to solving problems here and now, I recommend you my book titled “Rationality is the way to happiness.”
Related articles
Examples of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Schopenhauer and Kant, a comparison
Schopenhauer and the unconscious
Critique of Schopenhauer’s views on the unconscious