The twentieth century brought strong criticism of the views on the unconscious presented by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). I am referring specifically to the works of Carl Rogers, Wilhelm Reich and William James.
Their definitions of the unconscious are based on the ideas developed by Schopenhauer, but only after having narrowed them down to a point where they are almost unrecognisable.
In their own ways, Carl Rogers, Wilhelm Reich and William James emphasize particular aspects of Schopenhauer’s concept of the unconscious. As a result, they have obscured the original concept and deprived it of its ability to explain human action.
Let’s first recapitulate what Schopenhauer put forward in his two major books “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), and four years later in “The world as will and representation.”
According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) drives all living creatures to ensure their survival and reproduction. Even if adopt countermeasures, you will not succeed in escaping the influence of the will. You can minimize its negative effects, but you cannot shut it down.
Schopenhauer defined the will as a blind, irrational force. It is a definition that matches Sigmund Freud’s conception of the unconscious. Although Schopenhauer had employed historical examples and Freud had referred to psychiatric cases, they are speaking about the same phenomenon.
Freud’s “General introduction to psychoanalysis” (1917) is taking over the theory of the will created by Schopenhauer one hundred years earlier, but without giving Schopenhauer proper credit.
Schopenhauer compared to William James
In the United States of America, philosopher William James (1842-1910) gave a deep turn to theory of the unconscious. It’s worth mentioning that James had been a philosophy professor until 1889, when his position was re-baptised “professorship of psychology.”
James defined the unconscious as a dynamic, ever-changing and fluid process; he viewed it as a constant stream of thoughts under the surface of our perceptions, decisions and actions.
The conception of the unconscious put forward by James is depriving Schopenhauer’s insights of their explanatory value. I fail to see any consistency in James’ arguments. He threw away Schopenhauer’s theory of the will to put in place an amorphous doctrine.
Schopenhauer’s views on the unconscious had supplied very solid arguments to understand human behaviour, especially the short-sighted, impulsive actions that generate most problems in society.
In contrast, the stream of consciousness advocated by James has only created confusion. In his “Principles of Psychology,” published in 1890, James theorized that the unconscious obeys primarily to subjective factors. He did not believe in influences from a universal energy or driver.
By removing universal principles, James fell into subjective speculations; he called his philosophy “pragmatism” because it is supposed to help individuals make decisions without a fixed frame of reference.
Despite its name, pragmatism is profoundly impractical. It’s based on wishful thinking alone. Do you really expect people to make good decisions without consistent principles? What is the point of analysing a random stream of thoughts?
While Schopenhauer had provided solid practical advice to readers, James pushed them towards chaos. His later books are only adding to the confusion. In “The will to believe”(1907) and “Pragmatism” (1907), James promotes subjectivism at the expense of facts, reason, and consistency.
Schopenhauer compared to Carl Rogers
The humanistic psychology favoured by Carl Rogers (1902-1987) relies on the unconscious for personal growth and self-actualization, but is tinted by deep relativism and subjectivism.
Rogers rejected the definitions of the unconscious created by Schopenhauer (the theory of the will) and Freud (the split of the mind in unconscious, preconscious, and conscious). Rogers regarded those definitions as too deterministic.
According to Rogers, each individual is driven by the desire to improve himself and actualize his full potential. I won’t deny that Roger had good intentions, but does his theory hold water? Can it really help people make beneficial decisions?
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will is supported by historical and current observations; it’s obvious that the will (“life force”) plays a role in human motivation, and that it sometimes drives people to make disastrous choices.
If you want to improve the quality of your decisions, it is in your interest to study Schopenhauer’s advice; conversely, I fail to see the benefit of studying Roger’s explanations on the “self-concept” and “ideal self.”
Roger’s book “Client-centred therapy” (1951) endorses deep subjectivism and gives no guidelines for improving one’s life. I cannot share Roger’s optimism in believing that all individuals pursue personal growth and self-actualization.
Why am I so sceptical? Because I have witnessed too many examples of passivity, apathy or defeatism. I’ve serious doubts that subjectivism can prompt individuals to seize opportunities and make the best of their lives.
Once shouldn’t be too quick in dismissing Schopenhauer as too pessimistic and endorsing Rogers because of his optimism. A feasible philosophy needs to be based on reality, not on nice feelings and wishful thinking.
Schopenhauer compared to Wilhelm Reich
From all modern psychiatrists, Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) was, in his early work, the closest to Schopenhauer’s concept of the unconscious. Unfortunately, as of 1940, Reich attempted to capture the life force (which he had re-baptised “orgone”) in a machine that failed to deliver the expected results.
Reich was an early associate of Freud but went his own way as of 1923. Reich regarded Freud’s theories as decoupled from first-hand clinical observations, which gave more weight to the life force (survival, procreation, etc.) as motivational driver.
In his book “The function of the orgasm” (1927), Reich was indirectly endorsing Schopenhauer’s theory of the will, even if Reich employed biological arguments instead of philosophical.
Like Schopenhauer, Reich theorized that a life force drives the universe (living creatures, in particular) and that mental or physical illness arises when individuals attempt to oppose their unconscious.
I find Reich’s advice to readers interesting, but less practical than Schopenhauer’s. For instance, I fail to see how readers can benefit from Reich’s theory of the “character armour,” which is supposed to describe emotional or physical rigidities that arise from opposing the life force.
Everybody can draw some benefit from studying the works of Carl Rogers, William James, and Wilhelm Reich. However, their direct or indirect critique of Schopenhauer’s philosophy has still to demonstrate its value.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in daily life, I recommend you my book titled “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer and Kant, a comparison
Schopenhauer and the unconscious
Impact of Schopenhauer’s views on the unconscious
Schopenhauer and the nature of truth