On Mills' ‘Jung's Metaphysics’

In: International Journal of Jungian Studies
View More View Less
  • a Divinity and Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Despite his patient attempt to reconstruct Jung's metaphysics, Jon Mills fails to show that Jung was a metaphysician or even a philosopher of science and perhaps even a scientist. Mills seems to equate metaphysics with the postulation of immaterial entities – notably, archetypes. But on the one hand metaphysics can be materialist as well as dualist. On the other hand it is a speculative enterprise. A metaphysician would not simply announce the existence of immateriality but would seek to prove that immateriality fits the nature of reality as already known. Jung's metaphysics, which for him means sheer pronouncements, constitutes neither psychologism nor idealism, as Mills seems to agree. But Jung is not a Kantian, either. Jung should be treated as a great psychologist, but not as a thinker.

  • Jung, C. G.(1969). The concept of the collective unconscious. In H. Read& others (Eds.), The archetypes and the collective unconscious(pp. 4253). Collected Works, 9i(2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jung, C. G.(1973–1974). Letters. 2vols. (Gerhard Adler& Aniela Jaffé, Eds.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Segal, R.(2014). Explanation and interpretation. In R. Jones(Ed.), Jung and the question of science(pp. 8297). London and New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 43 34 1
Full Text Views 20 8 1
PDF Downloads 11 8 1