Psychology a Religion? In statu nascendi (Journal of Analytical Psychology)
Shamdasani, S, (2003) Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science (Cambridge University Press)
Smith, R. C, (1996) The Wounded Jung: Effects of Jung’s Relationships on his Life and Work (Northwestern University Press)
Stevens, A, (1999) On Jung (Penguin Books)
Footnotes
Chapter 1
1: Lavin, T, 2005, points out that Jung originally referred to his work as Complex Psychology and that a very close colleague of Jung’s, Professor C. A. Meier continued to do so even after Jung’s other close colleagues began to refer to his work as Analytical Psychology.
2: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p17-35
3: Shamdasani, S, 2003
4: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p17
5: ibid
6: In his book, “Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science” Jung historian, Sonu Shamdasani, discusses a debate between Jung and E. A. Bennet. The debate is about the scientific credentials of Jung’s psychology. Jung claims that his psychology is scientific because of its applicability. Jung could not see any more applicable theories anywhere else. What Jung meant by applicability was “its application as a principle of understanding and a heuristic means to an end as it is characteristic of each scientific theory.” (Jung C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p98)
Jung’s view was that a theory had
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29