I recently had Cameron Branch on the podcast and one thing that he discussed was the concept of trauma and past-lives. You can watch that episode here, if you care to.
Cameron and I agree on a lot of things and I consider him to be a Rationalist however, past traumas is an area that we fundamentally disagree on.
It is a trap that our Western society continues to erode to.
Now i’m well aware that trauma is a concept so entrenched in our contemporary western thought that for me to deny its existence seems quite audacious, even cruel.
Though it is not only me that denies it’s existence but 1 of the 3 largest psychological minds in human history does so as well, Alfred Adler.
This article will serve as the psychological foundation upon which I will embed the conceptualisation that past traumas, as we contemporarily understand it in western society, does not exist.
Adler denies trauma—he does not believe that trauma is an immutable force that dictates human behaviour nor identity.
“Meanings are not determined by situations, but we determine ourselves by the meanings we give to situations.” - Alfred Adler.
Adler believed that past trauma healing is fundamentally untenable as trauma in itself has no autonomy.
On the back of this i would argue that “Healing Past Trauma” is a poor attempt of even an assumption as to a solution for the emotional recovery of African Americans, or Australian Aboriginals, and we will soon get to why.
However, this is not a dismissal of suffering or trivialisation of the pain of those who endure hardships. We all ancestrally have endured hardships.
Rather, it is a challenge to the deterministic narratives that bind people to their past, robbing them of agency, freedom, and the power to transform their lives.
Let’s begin…
To receive new posts and support my work,
consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Tyranny of Aetiology
The dominant psychological framework of our time is called Aetiology and it tells us that we are shaped, even defined, by the events of our past.
This is the essence of aetiology: the belief that every effect has a cause, and thus for understanding the origins of our pain is the key to overcoming it.
The trauma narrative, rooted in Freudian thought, reinforces this view.
It posits that adverse experiences—abuse, neglect, loss—leave psychic wounds that dictate our present struggles and limit our future possibilities.
But this perspective is not liberating; it is confining.
To accept trauma as an unavoidable force is to accept a form of determinism that denies the inherent freedom, the free will, of human beings. It reduces us to passive recipients of life, victims of circumstance, and prisoners of memory.
Not even memory, its essence resides not within the frontal cortex of conscious thought but within the subliminal layers of the mind—those regions shaped by repetition and practice, attuned to instinctive reactions.
A captive of circumstance is far more burdened than a captive of the mind, for the true chains of the instinctual realm weigh heavier than those forged by thought.
So is there an alternative?
Yes.
Teleology
Reframing Experience: Teleology Over Aetiology
At the heart of the philosophical debate between Freudian, Jungian, and Adlerian schools of psychology lies a fundamental question: are we shaped by our past, or do we shape ourselves by the goals we set?
Freudian and Jungian approaches, rooted in aetiology, suggesting that human behaviour is driven by the unconscious forces of the past.
In contrast, Alfred Adler’s teleological perspective, a lesser known and praised of the 3, champions the transformative power of consciously chosen goals.
Freud and Jung, while differing in focus, share the belief that uncovering the hidden causes of our present behaviours is essential to psychological healing.
Freud argued that “unexpressed emotions will never die.” suggesting that unresolved issues from the past inevitably shape our future.
Similarly, Carl Jung stated, “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life.” For Jung, understanding the archetypal and symbolic forces rooted in our collective and personal pasts is crucial to reconciliation if you are to move forward.
Freud and Jung have profoundly influenced psychology, but their backward-facing focus risks fostering a sense of determinism. Freud’s claim that “unexpressed emotions will never die” and Jung’s assertion that “until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life” suggest that healing hinges on uncovering the hidden forces of our past. While this provides valuable insights, it positions individuals as prisoners of their history, bound by traumas and unconscious influences that dictate their futures.
Alfred Adler’s teleological perspective, on the other hand, offers a liberating alternative.
Rather than being defined by past experiences, Adler argues we are driven by future goals and purposes.
This forward-looking approach empowers individuals to focus on what they strive to achieve rather than what they have endured. While acknowledging the past's role in shaping us, Adler emphasises that it is not the ultimate determinant of our lives. His philosophy reframes the question from Why am I like this? to What can I become?, allowing for a more dynamic and optimistic understanding of human potential.
Cameron Branch also touched on this idea during our podcast discussion, offering a profound perspective. He suggested that rather than simply envisioning the outcomes you desire in your future, focus instead on the person you are within that vision. Imagine the character, values, and habits of that version of yourself, and begin living as that person would.
To receive new posts and support my work,
consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Adlerian Teleology: The Power of Goals
Adlerian psychology rejects this fixation on causality. Instead, Adler asserted:
"No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences—the so-called trauma—but instead, we make of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining."
This teleological approach shifts the focus from what happened to us to what we aim to achieve.
Adler argued that human behaviour is purposeful and goal-oriented. Rather than being enslaved by the past, we are architects of our present, using our experiences as material to build the future we desire.
The Goal-Defining Difference
Freud and Jung saw healing as a process of uncovering and interpreting the past.
When Jung introduces the concept of the Shadow, he does not offer a definitive solution but instead draws upon the Christian notion of sin and replacing it with the word shadow. Yet, even this Christian theological framework resonates more closely with Adler's perspectives and answers, it does not fall short as Jung does.
Adler believed that understanding one’s present goals is fundamentally more critical than dwelling on ones shadow.
He famously said, “We cannot think, feel, will, or act without the perception of some goal.” and he meant this at the microcosm of the act of simply sitting. Even behaviours that seem irrational or harmful serve an underlying goal, often tied to the individual’s pursuit of safety, validation, or connection.
In the Book ‘The Courage to be disliked’ by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. there is a fantastic passage called TRAUMA DOES NOT EXIST, where a youth is speaking to a Philosopher on the mountain and they cross this path. The Philosopher touched on the same Adler quote.
The passage goes as such;
YOUTH: Wait a minute! Are you denying the existence of trauma altogether?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, I am. Adamantly.
YOUTH: What! Aren't you, or I guess I should say Adler, an authority on psychology?
PHILOSOPHER: In Adlerian psychology, trauma is definitively denied. This was a very new and revolutionary point. Certainly, the Freudian view of trauma is fascinating. Freud's idea is that a person's psychic wounds (traumas) cause his or her present unhappiness. When you treat a person's life as a vast narrative, there is an easily understandable causality and sense of dramatic development that creates strong impressions and is extremely attractive. But Adler, in denial of the trauma argument, states the following: No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences—the so-called trauma-but instead we make out of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining.
YOUTH: So, we make of them whatever suits our purposes?
PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Focus on the point Adler is making here when he refers to the self being determined not by our experiences themselves, but by the meaning we give them. He is not saving that the experience of a horrible calamity or abuse during childhood or other such incidents have no influence on forming a personality; their influences are strong. But the important thing is that nothing is actually determined by those influences. We determine our own lives according to the meaning we give to those past experiences. Your life is not something that someone gives you, but something you choose yourself, adn you are the one who decides how you live.
This is a great book, i recommend you read it.
For instance, a person who isolates themselves may seem to be a victim of past rejection. But Adlerian thought suggests that their isolation serves a goal—perhaps to avoid going our, doing a task, or even to elicit care and attention from others.
The goal becomes the principle of the motion.
Let’s continue…
YOUTH: Okay, so you're saying that my friend has shut himself in his room because he actually chooses to live this way? This is serious.
Believe me, it is not what he wants. If anything, it's something he was forced to choose because of circumstances. He had no choice other than to become who he is now.
PHILOSOPHER: No. Even supposing that your friend actually thinks I can't fit into society because I was abused by my parents, it's still because it is his goal to think that way.
YOUTH: What sort of goal is that?
PHILOSOPHER: The immediate thing would probably be the goal of 'not going out'. He is creating anxiety and fear as his reasons to stay inside.
YOUTH: But why doesn't he want to go out? That's where the problem resides.
PHILOSOPHER: Well, think of it from the parents' view. How would you feel if your child were shut up in a room?
YOUTH: I'd be worried, of course. I'd want to help him return to society; I'd want him to be well, and I'd wonder if I'd raised him improperly. I'm sure I would be seriously concerned, and try in every way imaginable to help him back to a normal existence.
PHILOSOPHER: That is where the problem is.
YOUTH: Where?
PHILOSOPHER: If I stay in my room all the time, without ever going out, my parents will worry. I can get all of my parents' attention focused on me. They'l be extremely careful around me, and always handle me with kid gloves. On the other hand, if I take even one step out of the house, I'll just become part of a faceless mass who no one pays attention to. I'll be surrounded by people I don't know, and just end up average, or less than average. And no one will take special care of me any longer... Such stories about reclusive people
are not uncommon.
YOUTH: In that case, following your line of reasoning, my friend has accomplished his goal, and is satisfied with his current situation?
PHILOSOPHER: I doubt he's satisfied, and I'm sure he's not happy either. But there is no doubt that he is also taking action in line with his goal. This is not something that is unique to your friend. Every one of us is living in line with some goal. That is what teleology tells us.
By recognising this and reframing, the individual gains agency to choose a different path and not be a mental prisoner of the past, which does not currently exist beyond the mind.
It is not the parental or systematic neglecting of the past that is self isolating the individual but the goal of not risking being neglected is self isolating the individual.
In other words: The Goal is the emotion, the feeling, action.
The Goal of the child is the action of sitting and looking out the window.
To receive new posts and support my work,
consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Why Teleology Offers a Better Path Forward
Teleology empowers individuals by rejecting the deterministic grip of the past.
While the Freudian and Jungian focus on unearthing unconscious motivations that can offer insights, it often leaves individuals dwelling on what cannot be changed.
Adlerian psychology, by contrast, is future-oriented. It emphasises growth, responsibility, and the truth in possibility of transformation.
As Adler put it, “The only normal people are the ones you don’t know very well.” His humour underscores a profound truth: we all struggle, but our struggles do not define us. What matters is the meaning we assign to our experiences and the goals we set in response.
In embracing teleology, we understand that past traumas is not real.
We recognise that while the past informs us, it does not control us. It does not even exist beyond our minds.
By defining clear, purposeful goals, we reclaim our agency and open ourselves to a life of intentionality and growth.
This is not just a more hopeful philosophy; it is a more liberating one.
It’s a more factual one.
It offers the freedom to rewrite our narratives and to live not as victims of circumstance, but as authors of our own lives.
The Role of Emotion
Critics of this position often argue that trauma is not just a story we tell ourselves but a visceral, emotional reality. They point to conditions like PTSD as evidence that trauma is rooted in the body and brain, beyond the reach of mere reinterpretation.
Yet even emotions, powerful as they are, do not dictate behaviour.
Emotions are not forces that control us; they are tools we use to navigate the world. Anger, fear, sadness—these are not involuntary reactions but responses shaped by our goals.
Anger arises when we seek to assert dominance or correct a perceived injustice.
Fear emerges when we aim to protect ourselves.
Emotions, like memories, are subject to interpretation and serve purposes we often choose unconsciously.
The Danger of Determinism
To cling to the concept of trauma is to cling to determinism, the belief that our lives is the inevitable result of past causes which futuristically affect what we cannot change.
This view is not only false but profoundly disempowering.
It denies free will and fosters a culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to view themselves as powerless agents against the forces of their history, in some cases the bloodline of their history, and in past-life cases; the souls history.
This is a significant psychological burden for a person to bear.
In rejecting trauma, I do not reject human suffering.
I reject the notion that past suffering has any determination in future actions.
Life is difficult.
Pain is unavoidable.
Suffering is part of life.
But what defines us is not what happened to us but what we choose to do from now.
Reject trauma.
Trauma does not exist.