xvi
CONTENTS
| PAGE | ||
Letter II.—Jung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
238 | |
| For the patient any method that works is good, though some more valuable than others—The doctor must choose what commends itself to his scientific conscience—Why the author gave up the use of hypnotism—Three cases quoted—Breuer and Freud’s method a great advance in psychic treatment—Evolution of author’s views—Importance of conception that behind the neurosis lies a moral conflict—Divergence from Freud’s sexual theory of neurosis—The doctor’s responsibility for the cleanliness of his own hands—Necessity that the psychoanalyst should be analysed—He is successful in so far as he has succeeded in his own moral development. | ||
Letter III.—Loÿ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
244 | |
| Opportunism v. scientific honour—Psychoanalysis no more than hypnotism gets rid of “transference”—Cases of enuresis nocturna, and of washing-mania treated by hypnosis—On what grounds should such useful treatment be dispensed with?—The difficulty of finding a rational solution for the moral conflict—The doctor’s dilemma of the two consciences. | ||
Letter IV.—Jung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
248 | |
| Author’s standpoint that of the scientist, not practical physician—The analyst works in spite of the transference—Psychoanalysis not the only way—Sometimes less efficacious than any known method—Cases must be selected—For the author and his patients it is the best way—The real solution of the moral conflict comes from within, and then only because the patient has been brought to a new standpoint. | ||
Letter V.—Loÿ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
252 | |
| “What is truth?”—Parable of the prism—All man attains is relative truth—Fanaticism is the enemy to science—Psychoanalysis a method of dealing with basic motives of the human soul—Must not each case be treated individually?—Morals are above all relative. | ||
Letter VI.—Jung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
256 | |
| Definition of psychoanalysis—Technique—So-called chance is the law—Rules well-nigh impossible—The patients’ unconscious is the analysts’ best confederate—Questions of morality and education find solutions for themselves in later stages of analysis. | ||
Letter VII.—Loÿ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
258 | |
| Contradictions in psychoanalytic literature—Should the doctor canalise the patient’s libido?—Does he not indirectly suggest dreams to patient? | ||
Letter VIII.—Jung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
261 | |
| Different view-points in psychoanalysis—Vide Freud’s causality and Adler’s finality—Discussion of meaning of transference—The meaning of “line of least resistance”—Man as a herd-animal—Rich endowment with social sense—Should take pleasure in life—Error as necessary to progress as truth—Patient must be trained in independence—Analyst is caught in his own net if he makes hard-and-fast rules—Through the analyst’s suggestion only the outer form, never the content, is determined—The patient may mislead the doctor, but this is disadvantageous and delays him. |
