A response to Jon Mills paper, 'Jungs Metaphysics'
General Material Designation
[Article]
First Statement of Responsibility
Mark Saban
.PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC
Place of Publication, Distribution, etc.
Leiden
Name of Publisher, Distributor, etc.
Brill
SUMMARY OR ABSTRACT
Text of Note
Mills' paper tackles an important question for Jungian studies: what are the underlying metaphysical assumptions behind analytical psychology? However, his attempt to pursue this inquiry is undermined by a strong but unsupportable insistence by Mills that Jung intended to present himself primarily as an ontologist. I also argue that various further inaccuracies and misreadings lead Mills into a fundamental misunderstanding of the intentions and aims that characterise Jung's psychology. Mills' paper tackles an important question for Jungian studies: what are the underlying metaphysical assumptions behind analytical psychology? However, his attempt to pursue this inquiry is undermined by a strong but unsupportable insistence by Mills that Jung intended to present himself primarily as an ontologist. I also argue that various further inaccuracies and misreadings lead Mills into a fundamental misunderstanding of the intentions and aims that characterise Jung's psychology.