(PDF) Whether jung was a kantian? success fail Aug DEC Jan 20 2019 2020 2021 2 captures 01 Aug 2020 - 20 Dec 2020 About this capture COLLECTED BY Collection: Save Page Now TIMESTAMPS ArticlePDF AvailableWhether jung was a kantian? November 2016 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.163993 Authors: Valentin Balanovskiy Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University Download full-text PDFRead full-text Download full-text PDF Read full-text Download citation Copy link Link copied Read full-text Download citation Copy link Link copied Citations (1) References (18) Abstract Researchers often talk about a powerful heuristic potential of the Kantian heritage, but sometimes they do not show concrete examples in defense of this opinion outside Kantianism and Neo- Kantianism. This article contains an attempt to demonstrate that on the example of how efficiently C.G. Jung used Kant's ideas to construct the theoretical basis of analytical psychology in general and his conception of archetypes in particular, we can see the urgency of Kant's heritage not only for his direct spiritual successors. In addition the question is discussed: why did Jung claim that epistemologically he took his stand on Kant?. Discover the world's research 19+ million members 135+ million publications 700k+ research projects Join for free Public Full-text 1 Content uploaded by Valentin Balanovskiy Author contentAll content in this area was uploaded by Valentin Balanovskiy on Apr 04, 2018 Content may be subject to copyright. ! 118! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS. International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! [Recibido: 17 de septiembre de 2016 Aceptado: 30 de septiembre de 2016] ! Whether Jung Was a Kantian? VALENTIN BALANOVSKIY• Independent Researcher, Russia Abstract Researchers often talk about a powerful heuristic potential of the Kantian heritage, but sometimes they do not show concrete examples in defense of this opinion outside Kantianism and Neo- Kantianism. This article contains an attempt to demonstrate that on the example of how efficiently C.G. Jung used Kant’s ideas to construct the theoretical basis of analytical psychology in general and his conception of archetypes in particular, we can see the urgency of Kant’s heritage not only for his direct spiritual successors. In addition the question is discussed: why did Jung claim that epistemologically he took his stand on Kant? Keywords Transcendental Idealism, Analytical Psychology, Psychic and Physic Experience It would be mistake to propose that German thinkers of XVIII century, which contributed to psychology to become an independent discipline (first in a form of philosophical psychology), dealt only with conscious (‘light’) part of the soul. Unconscious (‘dark’ or ‘vague’) contents of the psyche also became a subject of research very soon, exactly already in works of G. Leibniz (Leibniz 1921, p. 15-18). That is why it is not surprising that I. Kant, despite he was a champion of studying of the conscious structure of the soul, contributed a lot in emergence of philosophy and psychology of the unconscious. The measure of Kant’s influence to the studies of the unconscious was precisely defined by A. Nicholls and M. Liebscher, who published a collective monograph on the topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! • Valentin Balanovskiy (Ph.D., independent researcher, Russia) studied philosophy at Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University of Russia. The author specializes in history of philosophy. Key scientific interests are Kant’s transcendental philosophy, Jung’s analytical psychology, history of Russian philosophy, particularly Vladimir Solov’ev’s philosophical system, Alexander Bogdanov’s empiriomonism and tectology (the universal theory of organization), monodualism and energy theory of Nicolas Grot. Contacts: v.v.balanovskiy@ya.ru, https://independent.academia.edu/Balanovskiy/ Whether Jung Was a Kantian? ! 119! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! C ‘Thinking the Unconscious: Nineteenth Century German Thought’. They write that ‘with the possible exception of Leibniz, Immanuel Kant arguably determined the way in which unconscious phenomena were understood in nineteenth-century German thought more than any other philosopher of the eighteenth century’ (Nicholls, Liebscher 2010, p. 9). But what is the probability that transcendental idealism was in demand in XX century? There are many chances that the answer would be: Yes, it was in demand. So what are the facts? I will try to demonstrate this point of view on the example of perceiving Kant’s main ideas by C.G. Jung – outstanding thinker of the XX century, the creator of psychology of the collective unconscious. What are the grounds to believe that in Jung’s conception – analytical psychology, which heuristic potential goes far beyond psychotherapy and successfully implements in philosophical anthropology, studies in philosophy religion, culture or art, – has trails of transcendental idealism? For example Jung himself maintains that Kant is his philosopher (Shamdasani 2003, p. 168); epistemologically he takes his stand on Kant’s philosophy (Jung 2015, p. 294). Moreover Jung regretted that in his student years he could not spend enough time in studying Kant (Jung, Jaffé 2003, S. 108). Furthermore Jung in his wrings turned directly to Kant’s personality or works more often, than to other philosophers, even A. Schopenhauer1. But what if Jung confused about his philosophical identity? What if he was crucially improper Kantian, as P. Bishop, S. De Voogt, L. Huskinson identify him? Did Jung arrange his analytical psychology in accordance with Kant’s basic postulates? Let’s consider these issues. As it often happens, there are radically different opinions on the issue of Jung’s attitude to transcendental philosophy. The only one thing, which is undoubted, is that there are not so much works on this topic. The most characteristic opinions were expressed by a narrow range of researchers. E.g. adherents of the point of view that Jung perceived a lot from Kant’s heritage and founded analytical psychology on the methodological basis of transcendental idealism are W.A. Shelburn, who tried to make a rational reconstruction of theory of the collective unconsciousness through the prism of Kant’s ideas (Shelburn 1976); D.T. Brent, whose PhD thesis was ‘Jung's Debt to Kant: The Transcendental Method and the Structure of Jung's Psychology’ (Brent 1977); E. Bär, who demonstrated in his article (Bär 1976, p. 114-123) that Kant’s notion ‘idea’ is logically isomorphic to Jung’s notion ‘archetype’; D. Vuksanovic (Vuksanovic 1996, p. 121-130); and S. Palmquist, who dedicated a range of works to concordance between some Kant’s and Jung’s ideas2. The last researcher in his time proposed an idea of ‘Kant-Jung Book’ (KJB). This is an interesting multi-level project, which is aimed to demonstrate that Kant’s and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 It is a simple statistical fact. In Jung’s collected works Kant and his writings was mentioned 89 times (Adler, Hull 1979, p. 386-387). The 2nd place belongs to Schopenhauer – 87 times (Ibid., p. 598-599). But it should be mentioned that Jung predominantly turned to Schopenhauer to criticize him. With Kant Jung predominantly agreed. 2 E.g., (Palmquist 1997), (Palmquist 2000), (Palmquist 2005, p. 1-27). ! ! ! ! 120! ! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! Valentin Balanovskiy Jung’s ideas may be represented as complementary to each other like Yin and Yang are manifestations of the single Tao. Their opponents, who time to time criticize even the idea that Kant’s and Jung’s conceptions may have common places, are P. Bishop3, who in his book ‘Synchronicity and Intellectual Intuition in Kant, Swedenborg, and Jung’ claimed that Jung corrupted Kant’s apriorism (Bishop 2000, p. 49); S. De Voogt 4; and L. Huskinson, who tried to demonstrated in her book (Huskinson 2004) irrelevance between such crucial notions as Jung’s ‘archetype’ and Kant’s ‘idea’, because the first is the result of historical all- humankind experience, which roots in instincts and has an emotional nature, and the second roots in our reason and has absolutely a priori nature. In my humble opinion, this difference in views is caused by a complexity of the subject of research, first of all, by complexity of put into compliance and comparing Kant’s and Jung’s terms. Such situation is normal, if we keep in mind that transcendental idealism and analytical psychology are the subjects of different brunches of the knowledge: history of philosophy and clinical psychology or may be history of psychotherapy. That is why in number of cases researchers choose really irrelevant parts of Kant’s and Jung’s theories for a comparison, to establish a correspondence between which is impossible or almost impossible indeed. At the same time more suitable for the comparison material remains unclaimed. That is why I propose to confide in Jung, who was not bad expert in transcendental idealism and the best expert analytical psychology. So, following the Jung’s thought, where should we search similarities between transcendental idealism and analytical psychology? For example, Palmquist proposes at first to explore architectonic level of Kant’s and Jung’s systems. To implement this approach, he offers to compare Jung’s psychological types and Kant’s categories of the understanding. How does it possible? According to Palmquist (Palmquist 1997, p. 168), psychological types seem to be the best Jung’s attempt of systematization the conception of archetypes of the collective unconsciousness – and this can be used as a key for understanding of fundamental similarity between ideas of both of the thinkers. If I briefly try to reconstruct and simplify Palmquist’s arguing, it would be something like this: 1) there are 12 categories of the understanding in Kant’s system, which are divided to 4 groups; 2) in Jung’s system we also can find 12 basic archetypes, which can be divided to 4 groups; 3) ergo Kant’s and Jung’s systems are similar in their architectonic. I think that Palquist’s version has big heuristic potential and in general structurally and formally right. But, at the same time, such interpretation can cause a lot of questions too. For example, why does Palmquist in one of his works (Palmquist 2005) try to compare Jung’s archetypes and Kant’s categories indirectly through the notion ‘psychological type’? To compare Kant’s notion ‘idea’ and Jung’s notion ‘archetype’, like Huskinson clearly demonstrated (Huskinson 2004, p. 75-77), is definitely bad idea. Indeed, it would !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 E.g. (Bishop 1996, p. 107-140), (Bishop 2000), (Bishop 2009, S.133-156). 4 E.g. (De Voogd 1977, p.175-182), (De Voogd 1984, p. 204-228). Whether Jung Was a Kantian? ! 121! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! C be better to compare almost identical for transcendental idealism and analytical psychology term ‘idea’. Jung defines it as something purely noumenal, which has no empirical admixture. A possible difference between Kant’s and Jung’s views on the nature of idea may be found in the historical genesis of ideas. The difficulty is that Jung had a hypothesis on the historical genesis of ideas, but Kant hadn’t, if I confuse nothing. According to Jung, ideas emerged as a result of long-time process of abstraction of the most characteristic and general features from concrete contents of every-human psyche. Now they are pure a priori noumenal structures, which are independent from any possible experience (Jung 1976, p. 437). At the same time, he, following Kant, underlines that ideas as concepts of reason “may perhaps make a possible transition from the concepts of nature to the practical concepts, and in that way may give support to the moral ideas themselves” (Ibid., p. 438) and that their “essence is not just something derived, but, psychologically speaking, exists a priori, as a given possibility for thought combinations in general. Hence, in accordance with its essence (but not with its formulation), the idea is a psychological determinant having an a priori existence” (Ibid.). It should be noted that Jung’s point of view reflects an antinomic nature of the issue of ideas’ genesis. Indeed it seems that even Kant, if he could, would not dispute that both of hypotheses – 1) ideas are purely a priori, or 2) ideas are the result of abstraction from concrete contents of the psyche – would be simultaneously right or wrong – it is beyond of the possible experience, so, who knows? For example, Huskinson believes that Jung takes his stand on empiricism in the issue of ideas’ genesis and thus he is out of the Kant’s way. But I think that Jung demonstrated enough to identify him as a person, who arranged his point of view with Kant. Such interpretation, according to which Jung is empiricist in resolving the issue of ideas’ genesis, allows Huskinson to criticize even the possibility of comparing Kant’s and Jung’s conceptions with each other. The fact is that she concentrates on the part, where Jung writes that in ‘Psychological Types’ term ‘idea’ deeply connected with term ‘image’ or ‘primordial image’(Ibid., p. 437-438). Huskinson’s arguments can be reconstructed in this way: if idea is derived from some image, ergo it has an empirical affective-nature (Huskinson 2004, p. 77). But in Kant’s system idea is a priori noumenon. Thus Jung’s ‘empirical’ idea incomparable with Kant’s a priori idea. Furthermore, primordial image is nothing, but archetype. That is why Jung’s archetypes and Kant’s ideas are principle incomparable too. Huskinson writes that ‘Jung’s self-proclaimed allegiance to Kant is unfounded’ (Ibid.), because Jungian archetype, with its instinctive and emotionally affective constitution, is therefore contrary to the Kantian Idea that constitutes merely intellectual and practical functioning. Thus, the rationality and intellectual functioning of the Kantian Idea is antithetical to the irrational feeling aspect of the Jungian archetype. And this irrationality is antithetical to the practical, and thus ‘moral’, functioning of the Kantian Idea. […] Indeed, perhaps the most significant ! ! ! ! 122! ! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! Valentin Balanovskiy difference between Jung’s archetype and Kant’s Idea is that the latter has not a constitutive but a regulative function (Huskinson 2004, p. 77). But, firstly, as I mentioned above, Jung permits a moral usage of ideas (Jung 1976, p. 438). Secondly, the fact is that for Jung primordial image (or archetype) is purely deprived of something empirical, because archetype as itself cannot be directly given even in myth of dreams. It only can be given as phenomenon, which called ‘archetypal image’ (Jung 1975, p. 213)5. So, I can say, that in analytical psychology there is nothing more noumenal as a primordial image or archetype. Thirdly, when we are talking about constitutive status of ideas or archetypes in analytical psychology, we should always remember that archetypes have constitutive status not in nature, but in psyche. Doesn’t it correlate with Kant, for whom ideas are negative and regulative in cognition of the nature, but positive and constitutive in morality (Kant, KpV, AA 05: 3-6), or sphere of relationships between human psyches? It should be noted that according to Jung, if somebody becomes to perceive archetypical image as something real, i.e. an object of the outer world, then either it is illness, or normal thing for very archaic culture. Anyway, the main intention of Huskinson’s argumentation seems to be right – once more I underline that to compare archetypes and ideas is a bad venture. At the same time Huskinson makes an important remark, which unfortunately remains undeveloped in her book, that ‘archetype’ is closer in meaning to the term ‘category’, because both of them relate to some a priori principle, which arranges our experience. Indeed something like this we can find in Jung’s works6. Let’s deal with this hypothesis. The task now is to find out, why Jung decided to compare his archetypes with Kant’s categories of the understanding? In this context it is impossible to disagree with Palmquist, who regrets that unfortunately, Jung does not provide any details concerning his understanding of the relationship between the archetypes and the categories. One obvious difference is that, in contrast to Kant’s highly logical map of the categories, Jung shies away from providing a systematic description of the archetypes. He makes it clear that the shadow and the anima (or animus) are the two main archetypal personalities, and that several others […] are of secondary importance; but he also claims to have discovered numerous others. How Kant’s categories can be regarded as ‘applications’ of these archetypes is far from evident (Palmquist 2004, p. 14-15). Perhaps, an essence of Jung’s apriorism is the key to understand a connection between archetype and category. So, what does it about? For example, Jung writes that “there is no !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 Also see on the topic: (Shelburn1976, p. 63-72). 6 E.g. see (Jung 1984, p. 120), (Jung 1972, p. 190). Whether Jung Was a Kantian? ! 123! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! C human experience, nor would experience be possible at all, without the intervention of a subjective aptitude. […] Ultimately it consists in an innate psychic structure which allows man to have experiences of this kind. Thus the whole nature of man presupposes woman, both physically and spiritually. His system is tuned in to woman from the start, just as it is prepared for a quite definite world where there is water, light, air, salt, carbohydrates, etc. The form of the world into which he is born is already inborn in him as a virtual image. Likewise parents, wife, children, birth, and death are inborn in him as virtual images, as psychic aptitudes. These a priori categories have by nature a collective character” (Jung 1972, p. 190). In other words, according to Jung there are some a priori structures in our souls – archetypes, which cannot be given in any experience, but at the same time which are the necessary condition for any possible psychic experience. I.e., for example, if it is impossible to cognize relationships between natural phenomena without categories of relation (which mere a priori forms of the understanding, not real objects or properties of real objects), it is also impossible to understand and create family relationships without Father, Mother and Child archetypes (which are not exist in the outer world on their own, but mere a priori forms of psyche). Thus if Kant found out that physical experience, thanks to which we are functioning in the natural world and able to cognize it objectively, is impossible without a priori forms of sensibility and understanding, then Jung found out that psychic experience, thanks to which we are functioning in the human world and able to cognize human senses, emotions and relationships, is impossible without a priori forms of psyche – archetypes of the collective unconsciousness. And if Kant created a system of transcendental idealism, which is extremely suitable for orientation in the world of things, existing in the reality (esse in re) and existing in the intellect (esse in intellectu), then Jung indicated a third world between these two – the world of things, existing in the psyche (esse in anima) (Jung 1976, p. 45-46). Because the world of esse in anima directly connected with the unconsciousness, methods of its studying would be a little bit different from methods, which were used by Kant for studying conscious phenomena and given-in-senses reality. That is why, in my opinion, it is not correct, following Bishop (Bishop 2000, p. 49), to accuse Jung of distorting of Kant’s ideas. Particularly Jung is blamed of introducing of synchronicity – an especial principle for describe a unique type of acausal connection between psychical and physical phenomena, which is strongly different from traditional views on determinism in natural sciences. But Jung was forced to develop synchronicity conception by the pressure of facts, which cannot be explained by means of the old paradigms7. Also we should keep !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 See: (Jung 2011, S. 457–553). ! ! ! ! 124! ! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! Valentin Balanovskiy in mind that psyche is not stone, which moves in vacuum with a constant velocity, ergo its studying is required in nonstandard methods. There is another one moment, connected with the issue of studying the world of esse in anima, which allows for critics to identify Jung as ‘improper’ Kantianist. This is about a searching for substance (or substrate) of the psychical. To describe, what could it be, Jung developed a conception of ‘psychoid’ or ‘psychoid factor’. According to him ‘psychoid factor’ is a transcendent psychical, a bridge between the matter and the pure spirit (Jung 1975, p. 216). To be precise, this is the border itself between the matter (instincts) and the spirit (archetypes)8, which cannot be directly studied by us, unlike animate and inanimate nature and pure ‘spiritual’ or mental objects (like ideas and notions), which are available for our direct researching. So, psychoid factor itself always remains beyond the frames of possible cognition. Despite of all differences, it is possible to maintain that Kant’s and Jung’s apriorism and rational approach to the study of the psyche are similar. Thus transcendental idealism an analytical psychology may be represented as two parts of unified knowledge, like in its time were represented classical mechanics and relativistic physics. This would become obvious, if we will try to analyze this issue from some metalevel. Something like that Palmquist offers in his KJB-project. Answering the question, formulated in the header of this article, I have to admit that Jung, of course, wasn’t pure or extremely proper Kantianist. But it is undoubtedly that Kant’s ideas influenced him strongly and primarily were used to build epistemological basis of analytical psychology. Summarizing, firstly, it should be noted that continuity between thoughts of great thinkers shows that the genesis of fruitful conceptions is an ongoing process. Thus philosophical knowledge may be cumulative like natural science’s knowledge. It is important, because allows us to speak about some kind of the truth for humanitarian knowledge in situation, when fruitful ideas give shoots in conceptions, which belong to different trends and epochs. For example, Aristotle was one of the first, who derived categories through the analysis of natural language. Kant abstracted categories of the understanding from real logic forms of possible judgments, which are more complex objects, than Aristotle’s categories. At his turn, Jung derived his ‘categories’ – archetypes – from ‘judgments’ (or propositions) of figurative language of a myth that is more complex task, because the object of analysis is hidden under the cover of collective unconsciousness. As we can see from this example, transcendental idealism is suitable not only for cognition of the consciousness, like E. Husserl and K. Popper showed, but also for cognition of such a complex and meaningful object as the collective unconsciousness. Secondly, the fact that Jung perceived a range of Kant’s ideas allows us to engage interdisciplinary research at the junction of philosophy and psychology to understand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 See more: (Eckman 1986, p. 88-99). Whether Jung Was a Kantian? ! 125! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! C human nature better. For example, it seems to be possible to make an integral model of the psyche within bounds of European apriorism. As Palmquist offers, Kant’s philosophy we can use to describe conscious part of the psyche, and Jung’s conception to model unconscious part of the psyche by means of the aprioristic methodology. Bibliography Adler, G., Hull, R.F.C. (eds.) (1979) Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 20: General Index, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bär, E. (1976), “Archetypes and Ideas: Jung and Kant”, Philosophy Today, no 20, pp.114- 123. Bishop, P. (2009), “Schwärmerei und Geisterseherei, Aufklärung und analytische Psychologie. Kant und Swedenborg aus der Sicht von C.G. Jung”, F. Stengel (Hrsg.), Kant und Swedenborg. Zugänge zu einem umstrittenen Verhältnis, Berlin, New York, S.133-156. ———— (2000), Synchronicity and Intellectual Intuition in Kant, Swedenborg, and Jung, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY. ———— (1996), “The Use of Kant in Jung's Early Psychological Works” Journal of European Studies, no 26, pp. 107-140. Brent, T. D. (1979), Jung's Debt to Kant: The Transcendental Method and the Structure of Jung's Psychology, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. De Voogd, S. (1984), “Fantasy Versus Fiction: Jung's Kantianism Appraised”, Papadopoulos, Renos & Saayman, Graham eds., Jung in Modern Perspective, Hounslow, pp. 204-228. ———— (1977), “C.G. Jung: Psychologist of the Future, ‘Philosopher’ of the Past” Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought, pp.175-182. Eckman, B. (1986) “Jung, Hegel, and the Subjective Universe”, Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought, pp. 88-99. Huskinson, L. (2004), Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites, Bruner-Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group, Hove. Jung, C.G. (2015), Letters, ed. by Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé, tras. R.F.C. Hull, vol.1: 1906-1950, Princeton University Press, Princeton. ———— (2011), “Synchronizität als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhänge”, Gesammelte Werke, Band 8: Die Dynamik des Unbewussten, Patmos Verlag, Ostfildern, S. 457–553. ———— (1984), Dream Analysis: Notes on the Seminar Given in 1928-1930, ed. W. McGuire, Princeton University Press, Princeton. ———— (1976), “Psychological Types”, Collected Works of C.G. Jung, ed. by G. Adler & R.F.C. Hull, vol. 6, Princeton University Press, Princeton. ———— (1975), “On the Nature of the Psyche”, Collected Works of C.G. Jung, ed. by G. Adler & R.F.C. Hull, vol. 8, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 159-236. ! ! ! ! 126! ! CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS International Journal of Philosophy N.o 4, Noviembre 2016, pp. 118-126 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163993 ! Valentin Balanovskiy ———— (1972), “The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconsciousness”, Collected Works of C.G. Jung, ed. by G. Adler & R.F.C. Hull, vol. 7, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 123-304. Jung, C.G., Jaffé, A. (2003), Erinnerungen, Träume, Gedanken von C.G. Jung, Walter Verlag, Zürich, Düsseldorf. Leibniz, G.W. (1921), Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, E. Flammarion, Paris. Nicholls, A., Liebscher, M. (2010), “Introduction: Thinking the Unconscious”, Thinking the Unconscious: Nineteenth Century German Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-25. Palmquist, S. (2005), “Kant’s Categories and Jung’s Types as Perspectival Maps To Stimulate Insight in a Counseling Session”, International Journal of Philosophical Practice, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 1-27. ———— (2000), Kant's Critical Religion: Volume Two of Kant's System of Perspectives, London. ———— (1997), Dreams of Wholeness: A course of introductory lectures on religion, psychology and personal growth, Philopsychy Press, Hong Kong. Shamdasani, S. (2003), Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shelburn, W.A. (1976), C.G. Jung’s Theory of the Collective Unconscious: a Rational Reconstruction, PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Florida. Vuksanovic, D. (1996) “Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy of Consciousness in Light of the Jungian Tipology of Personalities”, Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal, vol. 29, no 1, pp. 121-130. Citations (1) References (18) Kant and Jung on the prospects of Scientific Psychology Article Full-text available Jul 2017 Valentin Balanovskiy This study aims to show a similarity of Kant’s and Jung’s approaches to an issue of the possibility of scientific psychology, hence to explicate what they thought about the future of psychology. Therefore, the article contains heuristic material, which can contribute in a resolving of such methodological task as searching of promising directions to improve philosophical and scientific psychology.To achieve the aim the author attempts to clarify an entity of Kant’s and Jung’s objections against even the possibility of scientific psychology and to find out ways to overcome those objections in Kant’s and Jung’s works. The main methods were explication, reconstruction and comparative analysis of Kant’s and Jung’s views.As a result it was found, that Kant and Jung allocated one and the same obstacles, which, on their opinion, prevent psychology to become a science in the strict sense. They are: 1) coincidence of subject and object in psychology; 2) impossibility to apply quantitative mathematic methods in psychology; 3) pendency of the issue of psychophysical parallelism. However, Kant and Jung indicated ways to resolve formulated by them fundamental difficulties. All those ways lay through the searching a principle of interaction and connection between the psychic and the physical. View Show abstract Kant's Categories and Jung's Types as Perspectival Maps To Stimulate Insight in a Counseling Session Article Full-text available Jul 2005 Stephen Palmquist After coining the term “philopsychy” to describe a “soul-loving” approach to philosophical practice, especially when it welcomes a creative synthesis of philosophy and psychology, this article identifies a system of geometrical figures (or “maps”) that can be used to stimulate reflection on various types of perspectival differences. The maps are part of the author’s previously established mapping methodology, known as the Geometry of Logic. As an illustration of how philosophy can influence the development of psychology, Immanuel Kant’s table of twelve categories and Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types are shown to share a common logical structure. Just as Kant proposes four basic categories, each expressed in termsof three subordinate categories, Jung proposes four basic person­ality functions, each having three possible manifestations. The concluding section presents four scenarios illustrating how such maps can be used in philosophical counseling sessions to stimulate philopsychic insight. View Show abstract Archetypes and Ideas: Jung and Kant Article Jan 1976 Eugen Bär View Jung, Hegel, and the subjective universe. Article Jan 1986 Barbara A. Eckman Discusses Jungian and Hegelian attempts to overcome or circumvent the subject–object dualism propounded by Kant and the Enlightenment. Jung's conception of psychoid archetypes being the basis of reality is suggested as overcoming both the epistemological distinction and the modern spiritual problem of alienation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) View Show abstract Jung's debt to Kant : the transcendental method and the structure of Jung's psychology / Article Brent T. David Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Philosophy, March 1977. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 187-190). View Show abstract Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of A Science Article Jan 2005 Sonu Shamdasani Book description: After decades of myth making, C.G. Jung remains one of the most misunderstood figures in Western intellectual history. This comprehensive study of the origins of his psychology provides a new perspective on the rise of modern psychology and psychotherapy. It reconstructs the reception of Jung's work in the human sciences, and its impact on the social and intellectual history of the twentieth century. The book creates a basis for any future discussion of Jung by opening new vistas in psychology. View Show abstract Nietzsche and Jung : The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites / L. Huskinson. Book Jul 2004 Lucy Huskinson Was Jung's interpretation and assessment of Nietzsche accurate? Nietzsche and Jung considers the thought and personalities of two icons of twentieth century philosophical and psychological thought, and reveals the extraordinary connections between them. Through a thorough examination of their work, Nietzsche and Jung succeeds in illuminating complex areas of Nietzsche's thought and resolving ambiguities in Jung's reception of these theories. The location and analysis of the role played by opposites in the whole self according to Jung is considered, revealing the full extent of Nietzsche's influence. This rigorous and original analysis of Jungian theory and its philosophical roots, supported by Jung's seminars on Nietzsche's Zarathustra, leads to the development of a fresh interpretation of the theories of both. The shared model of selfhood is put into practice as the personalities of Nietzsche and Jung are evaluated according to the other's criteria for mental health, attempting to determine whether Nietzsche and Jung were themselves whole. Nietzsche and Jung demonstrates how our understanding of analytical psychology can be enriched by investigating its philosophical roots, and considers whether the whole self is a realistic possibility for each of us. This book will prove fascinating reading for students in psychology, philosophy and religion as well as practicing Jungian analysts. View Show abstract The Use of Kant in Jung's Early Psychological Works Jan 1996 J Eur Stud 107-140 ----(2000), Synchronicity and Intellectual Intuition in Kant, Swedenborg, and Jung, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY. ----(1996), "The Use of Kant in Jung's Early Psychological Works" Journal of European Studies, no 26, pp. 107-140. Schwärmerei und Geisterseherei, Aufklärung und analytische Psychologie. Kant und Swedenborg aus der Sicht von Jan 2009 133-156 P Bishop Bishop, P. (2009), "Schwärmerei und Geisterseherei, Aufklärung und analytische Psychologie. Kant und Swedenborg aus der Sicht von C.G. Jung", F. Stengel (Hrsg.), Kant und Swedenborg. Zugänge zu einem umstrittenen Verhältnis, Berlin, New York, S.133-156. Fantasy Versus Fiction: Jung's Kantianism Appraised Jan 1984 204-228 S De Voogd De Voogd, S. (1984), "Fantasy Versus Fiction: Jung's Kantianism Appraised", Papadopoulos, Renos & Saayman, Graham eds., Jung in Modern Perspective, Hounslow, pp. 204-228. Philosopher' of the Past" Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought Jan 1977 175-182 C G Jung ----(1977), "C.G. Jung: Psychologist of the Future, 'Philosopher' of the Past" Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought, pp.175-182. Show more Advertisement Recommendations Discover more Project Philosophical foundations of C. G. Jung's analytical psychology Valentin Balanovskiy View project Project Russian Philosophical and Psychological Thought of the End of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries and Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung: Influence, Reception, Criticism Valentin Balanovskiy Ideas, as well as a personality of C.G. Jung are still the subject of great interest among professional community and a wide range of readers in Russia and foreign countries. However, there are not so many fundamental works, which explicate philosophical foundations of analytical psychology. At that the majority of such researches (which are still very rare) deal only with ideas of the narrow range of philosophers, whose influence admits Jung himself. More often in such works are mentioned only two names – I. Kant and A. Schopenhauer. Regarding an influence of Russian philosophical and psychological thought on the analytical psychology, it would be truth to say that in this area was made almost nothing. Hence, a reconstruction of historical-philosophical context and systemic philosophical conceptualization of Jung’s discoveries are strongly far from its finish. This research project is aimed to fulfill designated above lacuna in a studying of the philosophical foundations of analytical psychology. I plan to make a stress on a studying of different links between Russian philosophical and historical-philosophical thought and analytical psychology. These links are not limited to only perceiving and creative development of Jung’s ideas, as we can see by the example B.P. Vysheslavtsev (his ethics of transfigured Eros). These links spread much further and predominantly appear in the influence of monodualism of N. Grot, transcendentalism of E. Medtner, conception of destruction of S. Spielrein, and (according to E.V. Chernosvitov) on the forming of theoretical basis of Jung’s concept and the method of analytical psychology. Implementation of the project will allows integrating Jung’s heritage in more wide historical-philosophical context that will help to increase essentially a scope of the use of analytical psychology, which has a strong, but still insufficient explored, heuristic potential. The project also will give necessary material for an adequate estimation of Russian thinkers’ (Grot, Medtner, Spielrein, Vysheslavtsev) contribution to the development of Russian and foreign philosophy and psychology. To resolve this task it is particularly planned to introduce in scientific discourse the archive sources, which regard the issue of Vysheslavtsev’s and Jung’s mutual influence. ... [more] View project Project Role of the Transcendental Reflection in Implementation of the Power of Judgment by Judges Valentin Balanovskiy Elina Plotnikova According to Kant all activity of the subject - theoretical, practical and aesthetic - is connected with the implementation of the power of judgment. However, at the stage of making a judgment - th eoretical, practical or aesthetic – there is a high probability of an improper blending of the contents of consciousness, which leads to errors. In theoretical activity, flaws of the power of judgment can lead to false conclusions, in practical – to making wrong decisions that can cause damage both to the subject himself and to the subjects or objects with which he interacts. This becomes especially urgent in the context of making adjudications, on which people's lives depend. In "Critique of Pure Reason" Kant gives an example of a judge with flaws of power of judgment, who knows perfectly the laws, but does not know how to apply his knowledge to specific cases. It is therefore extremely important to understand why judges make errors when they implement the power of judgment, what are these errors are and how to avoid them. In particular, a means of minimizing the risk of error due to wrongful blending of dissimilar contents of consciousness in making judgments is transcendental reflection – is a complex differentiation tool that is inherent in our consciousness. It functions at three different levels: meta-level, transcendental level, and the level of formal logic. The study of the features of the functioning of transcendental reflection in judicial practice will allow not only to better understand the cause of the errors, but also to develop recommendations for their elimination. ... [more] View project Project C. G. Jung and N. O. Lossky on the Improving of Personality and Society: Comparative Analysis, Criticism, Modeling of Possible Scenarios of Future Valentin Balanovskiy With the development of new technologies and the automation of production and management processes, with the advent of more free time, the personal qualities of the individual and his ability to co ordinate with others will play an increasingly important role. Artificial assistants, as well as the new system of distribution of economic benefits, will allow many to rid themselves of the need to independently provide basic needs. On the one hand, it is good. On the other hand, the availability of leisure and new opportunities can be a great challenge. An undeveloped, poorly motivated person in the absence of external incentives and constraints, such as the need to independently meet their needs and interact with others, and with the availability of technological means, may pose a threat to themselves and society. On the one hand, such a person without the pressure of external circumstances may simply begin to degrade. On the other hand, progress gives everyone new opportunities. Now, any person becomes a big boss with a staff of artificial assistants. Thus, from how developed and mentally healthy the individual will depend how he will use his free time and technological resource. In turn, Jung and Lossky not only point the way to improving the personality through identifying and overcoming unconscious and egoistic inclinations, but also give an answer to the question of how a transformed personality can contribute to the evolution of society. ... [more] View project Article Full-text available Kant's trace in the concept of K. G. Jung: Why look? Where to look? January 2015 Valentin Balanovskiy Researchers often talk about a powerful heuristic potential of the Kantian heritage, but sometimes they do not show concrete examples in defense of this opinion outside the Kantianism, and the Neo-Kantianism. This paper contains an attempt to demonstrate that on the example of how efficiently C.G. Jung used Kantian ideas to construct the theoretical basis of the analytical psychology in general ... [Show full abstract] and his conception of archetypes in particular, we can see the urgency of Kant's heritage not only for the Kantian spiritual successors. In addition the question is discussed, why Jung said that epistemologically he takes his stand on Kant. View full-text Article Full-text available Un-thought out metaphysics in analytical psychology: A critique of Jung's epistemological basis for... September 2011 · The Journal of analytical psychology Robin McCoy Brooks The author investigates the relation of Kant, Schopenhauer and Heidegger to Jung's attempts to formulate theory regarding the epistemological conundrum of what can and what cannot be known and what must remain uncertain. Jung's ambivalent use and misuse of Kant's division of the world into phenomenal and noumenal realms is highlighted in discussion of concepts such as the psychoid archetype which ... [Show full abstract] he called 'esse in anima' and his use of Schopenhauer's concept of 'will' to justify a transcendence of the psyche/soma divide in a postulation of a 'psychoid' realm. Finally, the author describes Jung's reaction to Heidegger's theories via his assertion that Heidegger's 'pre-given world design' was an alternate formulation of his concept of the archetypes. An underlying theme of the paper is a critique of Jung's foundationalism which perpetuates the myth of an isolated mind. This model of understanding subjectivity is briefly contrasted with Heidegger's 'fundamental ontology' which focuses on a non-Cartesian 'understanding' of the 'presencing of being' in everyday social and historical contexts. View full-text Chapter Full-text available A Critique of C.G. Jung’s Theoretical basis for Selfhood: Theory vexed by an Incorporeal Ontology April 2019 Robin McCoy Brooks https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429261763 In Chapter 5 , Robin McCoy Brooks critiques aspects of C.G. Jung’s epistemological basis for psychic reality that contributes to a view of the self that is ungrounded in biological life and the material world because of his para-psychological biases. Thus, Jung’s attempt to establish the prominence of the objective psyche as a foundation to the ... [Show full abstract] other sciences of his era had the unfortunate effect of disregarding the material realities inherent in self- formation. The author investigates the historical contexts to which Jung was inured as a means of determining what of his corpus regarding a disembodied self remains relevant today amidst our present scientific revolution and analytical psychology’s contemporary identity crises. The critique into Jung’s prevailing psychical biases focuses on the historical tensions that contributed to Jung’s ambiguous relationship to natural ( Naturwissenschaften ) and human ( Geisteswissenschaften ) sciences throughout his lifetime that led him to rely on new- Kantian philosophical ideas (a foundational ontology) and turn away from contemporary developments advanced by philosophical phenomenology and Freud’s biological model of personhood. Brooks contends that analytical psychology today has been dealt a fatal theoretical blow if we do not radically reconsider the indivisibility of material and more than material realities as viable influences in self- formation. View full-text Article Full-text available Kant and Jung on the prospects of Scientific Psychology July 2017 · Estudos Kantianos [EK] Valentin Balanovskiy This study aims to show a similarity of Kant’s and Jung’s approaches to an issue of the possibility of scientific psychology, hence to explicate what they thought about the future of psychology. Therefore, the article contains heuristic material, which can contribute in a resolving of such methodological task as searching of promising directions to improve philosophical and scientific ... [Show full abstract] psychology.To achieve the aim the author attempts to clarify an entity of Kant’s and Jung’s objections against even the possibility of scientific psychology and to find out ways to overcome those objections in Kant’s and Jung’s works. The main methods were explication, reconstruction and comparative analysis of Kant’s and Jung’s views.As a result it was found, that Kant and Jung allocated one and the same obstacles, which, on their opinion, prevent psychology to become a science in the strict sense. They are: 1) coincidence of subject and object in psychology; 2) impossibility to apply quantitative mathematic methods in psychology; 3) pendency of the issue of psychophysical parallelism. However, Kant and Jung indicated ways to resolve formulated by them fundamental difficulties. All those ways lay through the searching a principle of interaction and connection between the psychic and the physical. View full-text Discover the world's research Join ResearchGate to find the people and research you need to help your work. Join for free ResearchGate iOS App Get it from the App Store now. Install Keep up with your stats and more Access scientific knowledge from anywhere or Discover by subject area Recruit researchers Join for free LoginEmail Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login PasswordForgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with LinkedIn Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · HintTip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login PasswordForgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with LinkedIn Continue with Google No account? Sign up Company About us News Careers Support Help Center Business solutions Advertising Recruiting © 2008-2020 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved. Terms Privacy Copyright Imprint