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. In 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 minimise the influence of the will. Schopenhauer presented those strategies in his essays published as “Parerga and Paralipomena” in 1851. Unfortunately, contemporary psychologists have overlooked Schopenhauer’s insights. For instance, #williamjames (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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opponents-to-schopenhauers-views-on-psychology/