In contrast to the fragmentary prescriptions often given by psychologists, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) aimed at one comprehensive explanation for the world, including all living creatures.
His work “The world as will and representation” (1818), he argues that the will (“life force”) prompts all living creatures to ensure their own survival and reproduction, seeking short-term pleasure as well but without considering the costs and risks.
According to Schopenhauer, human motivation is heavily in the sphere of influence of the will. Humans are often prompted by the will to engage in harmful decisions and behaviour. It’s a pressure that every person must face.
Nonetheless, there are solid ways to escape or minimize the influence of the will. Schopenhauer presented those strategies in his essays published as “Parerga and Paralipomena” in 1851.
Schopenhauer and William James on psychology
Unfortunately, contemporary psychologists have overlooked Schopenhauer’s insights. For instance, William James (1842- 1910) adopted a so-called pragmatic approach to psychology, and deprived it of philosophical depth.
In his work “Principles of Psychology” (1890), James called for studying only observable phenomena and dismissing any general theory that cannot be experimentally confirmed. Such an approach precludes wide-ranging discussions; it narrows the field of vision to little theories about little phenomena.
Indeed, James predicated pragmatism in science. If a theory leads to good results, he argued, then it must be true. However, he failed to differentiate between correlation and causality.
Without general principles, it is not possible to interpret and explain complex phenomena. The fact that event B takes place after event A indicates correlation, but doesn’t mean that A has caused B. Schopenhauer exposed this logical error in his book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” that he had published in 1814.
William James on positive thinking
For instance, James held positive thinking in high regard; he considered it proven that positive thinking leads to good results because he had seen cases where optimistic persons had indeed attained their goals.
Schopenhauer would have contested those cases. He would have given examples where optimistic individuals have caused their own demise by taking excessive risks; he would asked for definite proofs and a general theory explaining why positive thinking works.
William James and the stream of consciousness
When it comes to perception and thinking, James wrote in detail about the “stream of consciousness” as a form of high mental performance, where individuals can unconsciously link items and events and come up with valuable insights.
Schopenhauer would have remained sceptic about the whole concept of “stream of consciousness” and its value; humans are intelligent and creative, but there is no reason to attribute great value to random thoughts.
According to Schopenhauer, the opposite is true. Unless you take measures against the dire influence of the will, your life is going to become a “stream of consciousness” driving you in the wrong direction.
Schopenhauer acknowledged that prudence, foresight, stress reduction, and personal effectiveness require stead intellectual effort. They require volition and action. They won’t happen in an automatic manner.
The default position is acting mindlessly, without assessing the costs and risks. James was mistaken in his admiration for mindlessness. “Automatic thinking” can occasionally produce a good output, but most often than not, it’s just random noise.
Schopenhauer and Alfred Adler on psychology
Generally speaking, opponents to Schopenhauer’s ideas fail to put forward a philosophical framework. If they propose new concepts, those concepts are often floating in a vacuum.
For instance the Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler (1870-1937) wrote extensively about the “inferiority complex.” There are many people affected by such a complex, he believed, and aberrant behaviour can be explained by a pursuit of superiority, or by the compensation of feelings of inferiority.
Adler’s theory raises curiosity, but does not withstand close examination. Why on earth would large numbers of people feel inferior? And if they do, why is psychoanalysis the preferred solution? If humans are rational, why can they not correct their own thinking errors?
Alfred Adler and the inferiority complex
Schopenhauer would have been annoyed by Adler’s lengthy exposition about the feelings of his patients. Adler’s references to the unconscious are contradictory and confusing. Sometimes the unconscious prompts people to act against their interests or take oversized risks, but Adler fails to explain why.
According to Adler, the greater the feeling of inferiority that a person has experienced, the deeper his emotional troubles. In those emotional inadequacies, Adler saw the seed for desires of superiority that can lead to aggressiveness.
Adler’s theories give us food for thought, but fail to address the big questions of human motivation. In this respect, I regard Schopenhauer’s philosophy as more enlightening and practical.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to your own life and for analysing problems, I recommend you my book “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer and Freud: similarities and differences
Schopenhauer’s influence on Freud
Schopenhauer’s biography (1 of 5): The first turning point
Schopenhauer’s biography (2 of 5): the path to the theory of the will