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.
Budapest, April 7, 1916
Dear Professor,
I have read Kaplan's book and admit that there is something clever and new in it. But I deny that this book really treats Psychoanalytic Problems,
as its title indicates. Ψα. takes up only a very small space in it. The main thing for him is philosophy and the psychology of consciousness. Certainly, I found individual points that I would be capable of criticizing ([would] in part acknowledge, in part reject, or establish as already known)—but the major part of the book is concerned with things and is caught up in terminology that doesn't correspond at all to ours and that would require in-depth study in fields that are far removed from me. So I can't consider myself competent to judge this book and request that you entrust this task to someone else. The critique that I would write would not do justice to all parts of the book. My private opinion of this book is that Kaplan is not a real psychoanalyst, but is using the next best opportunity to forget the ucs. and the sexual.
I want to discuss Flournoy's book1 in detail.
The stay in Vienna2 did me much good. As confirmation of the fact that I belong to the type of “not-wanting-to-act,” I can tell you that I already gave up a relationship earlier when it was threatening to be realized. But I can't resist coming back to the fact that this type is, after all, probably a variation of that type of case whose ucs. is “not a match” for what is cs. desired. (Infantilism.)
The weather is also marvelous here, but I often think of the beautiful Sunday afternoon in Vienna. Frau G. sends regards; the error has already been cleared up.3
Kind regards.
Yours,
Ferenczi