In retrospect, I can see that for most of my adolescent and early-mid adult life, I was engaged in the common modern practice of "looking inside myself" for answers to the chronic life problems of dissatisfaction and alienation.
Such is part of a very fundamental assumption, which is very common, that the main problems of life are psychological; and that changing our assumptions and attitudes is the way to cure them.
Because this is a fundamental (i.e. metaphysical) assumption; it cannot be disproved by experience, because it is itself the way that experience is structured.
For instance, the ancient Greek philosophers seem first to have articulated the fundamental problems of 'change' which I often term 'entropic'; that is disease, ageing and death - for the ancients these were what needed to be explained - and they were dealt with by assuming some other mode of reality that was Not subject to these kinds of change.
The same applies to some religions, including Christianity; which assumes that 'entropic' problems are fundamental to this mortal life, but can be solved by resurrection into Heaven.
Other religions solve 'entropic' problems by positing a perfection of changeless bliss, which is real whereas ''entropic' change, as we experience it, is either an illusion, or at least merely temporary - hence less fundamental.
But all of these regard 'entropy' as a problem of existence - not of psychology.
However; for mainstream modern Man; these are re-framed as psychological problems. A disease is not necessarily disease, nor is ageing; these can be reframed by a change of attitude. The 'problems' of disease and ageing are seen as being caused by attitudes to them; and the solution of 'problems' of disease and ageing, is therefore to change these attitudes.
Sex (male and female) is not fundamental, but can be re-shaped open-endedly by the spread of different attitudes. These assertions are not disproveable within the assumption that psychology is fundamental
Even death has (often) been reframed by such ideas that death is not part of life, therefore not our concern; or that (it is assumed) we won't be there to experience death - so we shouldn't worry about it. Or asserting that we can know nothing of death, therefore we should ignore the subject (and we will, presumably, find out later, whether there is anything to worry about or not).
In sum; the usual modern idea is that psychology is real, but nothing else is real; and when there are problems these are psychological problems, and have psychological solutions. This constitutes much of current politics: even 'science' is now defined in terms of a consensus (a psychological process) between persons/ committees who are accorded (by a decision, i.e. by psychological mechanisms) the authority to form binding consensus.
It is futile, therefore, to argue that even death/ sex or disease is a 'fact of life' in a system that regards only psychology as real; and where the realities of psychology are part of the system. It is, like all systems, closed and circular; all justifications come from within the system, and nothing out-with the system is relevant, because anything out-with is unconceivable within the system.
And why the system has landed on psychology as the ultimate nature of reality is a question than can only be asked from outside the system!
This is not a problem - except that he only coherent way to reject the system is to reject it as a whole, and its valuations.
Reality can be understood on the basis of other assumptions; but we aren't going to get these from the system - we must do this for ourselves...
Which is something that Christians have reason to believe that we can do, each as an individual; because even without the system to feed-us its approved attitudes, we are not alone; but are actual children of God.
And the Christian God is understood to be creator of the real system; therefore out-with 'the system' of psychological explanations.