You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This work of Dr. Jung, consisting of some eleven chapters, sets forth in a more comprehensive way than any of his former writings his ideas and theories and the contrasts between the results of his own experiences and those of Professor Freud. If the reviewer should point out the chapters which most interested him he would mention the chapter on Archaic Man and the one on The Basic Postulates of Analytical Psychology, although there are running all through the book the evidences of a distinct point of view which is developed in each chapter from the standpoint of the topic treated therein.
Dr. Jung is convinced of the spiritual needs of man, and he feels that the present chaotic condition of the world and the prevalence of neurotic types of reaction are in no small part due to the failure to find satisfactions for this need as a result of the discrediting of religion and the developing of an intellectual type of realism. He is opposed as a satisfactory technique for psychotherapy to what he calls the exclusively reductive type of analysis of Freud, and feels that the emphasis upon the “shadow” side of man is an unfortunate aspect of psychoanalysis. He draws the analogy between the development of the body and of the psyche and believes that the powers that are imbedded in the organism and which are exprssed in the unconscious have as decidedly beneficent possibilities as the reverse, and that in accordance with a general law of the conversion into the opposite these forces may operate either for good or for evil. He also places great stress upon causes of the neurosis which lie in the present as opposed to the doctrine that these causes must always be sought in the past. A patient is not tubercular simply because he was infected several years ago, but he is tubercular because he then has tuberculosis with the presence of active foci of infection. In one particular it would seem that he is hardly fair to the Freudian point of view in his statement that the Freudian the