What do you think?
Rate this book
Psyche: On the Development of the Soul, Part One: The Unconscious
Of all precursors, Carl Gustav Carus (1789–1869) claims the closer attention of psychology because his presentation of the unconscious shows him to be mainly a psychologist ... In distinction to the thought surrounding him and out of which he emerged, Carus describes psychological processes in detail and yet holds to a holistic view, placing the unconscious and the psyche within a meaningful universe whose main focus for him is “life.” In the human, life manifests as psyche, the first level of which is the unconscious. He sees man primarily as a psychological being, through whose unconscious he is connected with all life both as nature and as that spiritual principle which inheres in and transcends nature. His position thus stands counter to the Western tradition’s long identification of psyche with the conscious mind only and the human being with the spirit. By insisting upon the unconscious level to the psyche and the psyche as the fundament of man, he introduced into the nineteenth-century’s warring camps called “science” and “religion” a holistic perspective. Without leaving the actualities of the psyche and its unconscious, he maintains an idealistic vision. We might call his position “psychological idealism.” It refuses the traps both of psychology as empirical science and idealism as philosophical metaphysics.
–James Hillman
–James Hillman
- GenresPsychologyPhilosophy
85 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1846
2 people are currently reading
115 people want to read
About the author
Carl Gustav Carus
125 books11 followersCarl Gustav Carus (3 January 1789 – 28 July 1869) was a German physiologist and painter, born in Leipzig, who played various roles during the Romantic era. A friend of the writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, he was a many-sided man: a doctor, a naturalist, a scientist, a psychologist, and a landscape painter who studied under Caspar David Friedrich.
Carl Jung credited Carus with pointing to the unconscious as the essential basis of the psyche.
Although various philosophers, among them Leibniz, Kant, and Schelling, had already pointed very clearly to the problem of the dark side of the psyche, it was a physician who felt impelled, from his scientific and medical experience, to point to the unconscious as the essential basis of the psyche. This was C. G. Carus, the authority whom Eduard von Hartmann followed. (Jung [1959] 1969, par. 259)
Carl Jung credited Carus with pointing to the unconscious as the essential basis of the psyche.
Although various philosophers, among them Leibniz, Kant, and Schelling, had already pointed very clearly to the problem of the dark side of the psyche, it was a physician who felt impelled, from his scientific and medical experience, to point to the unconscious as the essential basis of the psyche. This was C. G. Carus, the authority whom Eduard von Hartmann followed. (Jung [1959] 1969, par. 259)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 10, 2020
This was an incredibly interesting book. I should mention what goes into rating a book like this for me. If the subject matter is highly original, and the discussion is really thought provoking, I am usually compelled to give a book the highest rating. It isn't necessary that I agree with all of the points in a given work. Indeed, I'm not sure it's even possible for me to agree with everything in any book I read. But if the work is engaging, original and thought provoking, I have no problem according a book five stars.
Carl Gustav Carus is one of the earliest writers to provide a sustained discussion on the unconscious. Of course, philosophers were already aware of this element of the human mind, but references were more peripheral in their works. Schelling referred to the unconscious in his works often, but never really discussed it at length. Carus may have even been influenced by Schelling. He quotes him directly in this work (Pg. 55). It is well known that Jung was influenced by Carus. Carus is considered a pioneer in the field of psychology. His relationship with philosophical Idealism also seems far less antagonistic than Herbart's was. Indeed, one can easily conclude that Carus was a student of the Idealists - Schelling in particular.
Carus accords to the unconscious a primary place in human development. He certainly provides some compelling points in this regard. The very formation of our bodies is a process that takes place unconsciously in the womb. The mother has no conscious role in this. Obviously, the act of procreation itself contains a conscious element, but it can hardly be denied that sexuality contains a strong unconscious element (e.g. specifically in regards to the process of arousal). Carus sees this same unconscious process everywhere, even in plants and the structure of the cosmos. Carus notes, as did Herbart, that the lines between conscious and unconscious perception can be tenuous. You are usually unaware of your breathing, but it can be controlled consciously if need be. The same goes for blinking. Both of these are necessary functions that stand on the threshold of consciousness. Herbart mentioned the act of falling asleep as a good example of how tenuous the line between conscious and unconscious perception can be. One knows usually what time one goes to bed, but almost no one perceives the exact moment they fall asleep. Memory also is unconscious until it enters consciousness through active recollection. The fact that all of our organ activity, e.g. circulation, digestion, etc, take place without our conscious involvement is a primary example of the unconscious at work. These facts, for Carus, indicate the primacy of the unconscious. This is certainly an interesting hypothesis. One wonders how freedom, creativity, etc, can be found in processes that seem strictly mechanistic though. In fact, Carus is aware of this issue. He sees the unconscious as embodying cosmic necessity, while consciousness embodies freedom (Pg. 55-56). It would be hard for me to accord a primary place to a mechanical process that is purely deterministic. That being said, Carus doesn't note the interesting dichotomy that exists in unconscious activity. Dreamlife is largely unconscious. It is also hardly as deterministic as organ function. Indeed, it can appear chaotic on first impression. I believe that dreams are filled with archetypes, and are thus, a meaningful language. Dreams are not actually chaotic (unless they are being influenced by pathology and/or from the demonic realm), but one can hardly make the case that dreamlife is purely logical and deterministic. This does bring up the question of whether there are various levels of the unconscious. Certainly, we can ascribe certain functions to very specific parts of the brain - the medulla oblongata for organ function for instance - but this doesn't really resolve the issue of how the unconscious can play almost a paradoxical role in human life. Carus doesn't even note these contrasting roles of the unconscious. It was left for Jung to explore the unconscious in its role as a collective storehouse of intuitive archetypes. Carus doesn't discuss this at all, but certain statements he makes could be seen to imply that the unconscious is a shared cosmic foundation for all life.
I can't totally subscribe to Carus' take on the unconscious. He thinks that the unconscious is an absolutely pure state and is incapable of pathology. He attributes mental pathologies like depression to problems with organ function. This diagnosis is as archaic as attributing melancholy to the humours and black bile. This sort of hypothesis has been proven false, I think. I don't think there is any evidence that the unconscious mental life is any more resistant to pathology than the conscious one is. Evidence of mental pathology can be just as readily discerned in dreamlife as in waking life. I wouldn't discount diet as contributing to mental pathology to a degree; indeed, it probably does play a role. A more discernible role has to be accorded to life occurrences, trauma, brain damage/deterioration, etc. Chemical imbalances, in my view, are just symptoms of some underlying issue. Why there was an imbalance in the first place is an important question. The imbalance itself could be the sign of trauma. In Greek, "trauma" simply means "wound." But It's interesting that the word "trauma" (Träume) is also the German word for "dreams." It seems pretty obvious to me that mental trauma itself contains a strong unconscious component. Mental pathology must almost certainly stem from unconscious damage. This does point to some kind of primacy as Carus says, but it also negates Carus' position that the unconscious is impervious to pathology.
Carus accords to the conscious and unconscious a unifying element. He terms this "Idea." He was probably influenced by Plato and his forebears here. At the same time, he seems to point to this "Idea" being bipartite (pg 34-35 in this edition). He later says that uniformity is attributable to individual replication (i.e. a single human being in cell regeneration), and diversity to dyadic replication (i.e. male and female individuals in procreation). He sees this duplicity as a constant separation and merging together. It's not hard to see here his debt to early Greek philosophy, but his "idea" contains just as much merit as it did then. It almost seems to intuit the DNA helix. I don't want to overstate the similarities, but the DNA helix is certainly bipartite and carries a unifying information. One can easily see "idea" as an analogue of "information" here. The information that DNA carries must find its culmination in an individual person. Psychologists since the time of Carus have also noted the tendency of the unconscious to hide certain information from the conscious mind. It is assumed that this is to protect the conscious person from the pain of trauma, but it is also known that the conscious person suffers incredibly from unresolved trauma, so the role of the unconscious here is often only beneficial to the individual in the short term, not in the long term.
One other thing I want to comment on is the role Carus attributes to the unconscious in creativity. I found this quote incredibly interesting:
"Many artists, poets and thinkers have said that if the idea behind a significant work is retained within the soul for a long time the work benefits. Any premature attempt to bring this idea into a work of art or of science might hinder its being perfected within. Frequent conscious effort naturally and genuinely adds to the work, but the unconscious growth of the concept with the soul is a more important factor. A return into the unconscious furthers and strengthens individual concepts, thoughts and sequences of thoughts."
One should keep in mind that Carus was also an artist, so the above was experienced empirically for him. I can certainly attest to the truth of this quote. I've had dreams where my subconscious related the same information. In a dream I had, the creation of someone's art was likened to the fermentation of wine that must occur within the artist before it is ever brought out. I recognized pretty much immediately the truth behind this idea. I have a tendency to think about how long Michelangelo stared at a block of marble before even taking his chisel to it.
Fascinating book. It truly caused me to reflect deeply on his insights. I highly recommend it. Any of my criticisms are due to the early period that psychology was in at the time. Psychology as a scientific discipline was in its infancy. It would be unfair to hold a lack of empirical knowledge against Carus. He was incredibly astute given the time period this work was composed in. Like Goethe, his mentor, he actually was influential in the field of empirical science. It wasn't until much later that the scientific discipline of psychology would have substantial data to base its foundation on.
Carl Gustav Carus is one of the earliest writers to provide a sustained discussion on the unconscious. Of course, philosophers were already aware of this element of the human mind, but references were more peripheral in their works. Schelling referred to the unconscious in his works often, but never really discussed it at length. Carus may have even been influenced by Schelling. He quotes him directly in this work (Pg. 55). It is well known that Jung was influenced by Carus. Carus is considered a pioneer in the field of psychology. His relationship with philosophical Idealism also seems far less antagonistic than Herbart's was. Indeed, one can easily conclude that Carus was a student of the Idealists - Schelling in particular.
Carus accords to the unconscious a primary place in human development. He certainly provides some compelling points in this regard. The very formation of our bodies is a process that takes place unconsciously in the womb. The mother has no conscious role in this. Obviously, the act of procreation itself contains a conscious element, but it can hardly be denied that sexuality contains a strong unconscious element (e.g. specifically in regards to the process of arousal). Carus sees this same unconscious process everywhere, even in plants and the structure of the cosmos. Carus notes, as did Herbart, that the lines between conscious and unconscious perception can be tenuous. You are usually unaware of your breathing, but it can be controlled consciously if need be. The same goes for blinking. Both of these are necessary functions that stand on the threshold of consciousness. Herbart mentioned the act of falling asleep as a good example of how tenuous the line between conscious and unconscious perception can be. One knows usually what time one goes to bed, but almost no one perceives the exact moment they fall asleep. Memory also is unconscious until it enters consciousness through active recollection. The fact that all of our organ activity, e.g. circulation, digestion, etc, take place without our conscious involvement is a primary example of the unconscious at work. These facts, for Carus, indicate the primacy of the unconscious. This is certainly an interesting hypothesis. One wonders how freedom, creativity, etc, can be found in processes that seem strictly mechanistic though. In fact, Carus is aware of this issue. He sees the unconscious as embodying cosmic necessity, while consciousness embodies freedom (Pg. 55-56). It would be hard for me to accord a primary place to a mechanical process that is purely deterministic. That being said, Carus doesn't note the interesting dichotomy that exists in unconscious activity. Dreamlife is largely unconscious. It is also hardly as deterministic as organ function. Indeed, it can appear chaotic on first impression. I believe that dreams are filled with archetypes, and are thus, a meaningful language. Dreams are not actually chaotic (unless they are being influenced by pathology and/or from the demonic realm), but one can hardly make the case that dreamlife is purely logical and deterministic. This does bring up the question of whether there are various levels of the unconscious. Certainly, we can ascribe certain functions to very specific parts of the brain - the medulla oblongata for organ function for instance - but this doesn't really resolve the issue of how the unconscious can play almost a paradoxical role in human life. Carus doesn't even note these contrasting roles of the unconscious. It was left for Jung to explore the unconscious in its role as a collective storehouse of intuitive archetypes. Carus doesn't discuss this at all, but certain statements he makes could be seen to imply that the unconscious is a shared cosmic foundation for all life.
I can't totally subscribe to Carus' take on the unconscious. He thinks that the unconscious is an absolutely pure state and is incapable of pathology. He attributes mental pathologies like depression to problems with organ function. This diagnosis is as archaic as attributing melancholy to the humours and black bile. This sort of hypothesis has been proven false, I think. I don't think there is any evidence that the unconscious mental life is any more resistant to pathology than the conscious one is. Evidence of mental pathology can be just as readily discerned in dreamlife as in waking life. I wouldn't discount diet as contributing to mental pathology to a degree; indeed, it probably does play a role. A more discernible role has to be accorded to life occurrences, trauma, brain damage/deterioration, etc. Chemical imbalances, in my view, are just symptoms of some underlying issue. Why there was an imbalance in the first place is an important question. The imbalance itself could be the sign of trauma. In Greek, "trauma" simply means "wound." But It's interesting that the word "trauma" (Träume) is also the German word for "dreams." It seems pretty obvious to me that mental trauma itself contains a strong unconscious component. Mental pathology must almost certainly stem from unconscious damage. This does point to some kind of primacy as Carus says, but it also negates Carus' position that the unconscious is impervious to pathology.
Carus accords to the conscious and unconscious a unifying element. He terms this "Idea." He was probably influenced by Plato and his forebears here. At the same time, he seems to point to this "Idea" being bipartite (pg 34-35 in this edition). He later says that uniformity is attributable to individual replication (i.e. a single human being in cell regeneration), and diversity to dyadic replication (i.e. male and female individuals in procreation). He sees this duplicity as a constant separation and merging together. It's not hard to see here his debt to early Greek philosophy, but his "idea" contains just as much merit as it did then. It almost seems to intuit the DNA helix. I don't want to overstate the similarities, but the DNA helix is certainly bipartite and carries a unifying information. One can easily see "idea" as an analogue of "information" here. The information that DNA carries must find its culmination in an individual person. Psychologists since the time of Carus have also noted the tendency of the unconscious to hide certain information from the conscious mind. It is assumed that this is to protect the conscious person from the pain of trauma, but it is also known that the conscious person suffers incredibly from unresolved trauma, so the role of the unconscious here is often only beneficial to the individual in the short term, not in the long term.
One other thing I want to comment on is the role Carus attributes to the unconscious in creativity. I found this quote incredibly interesting:
"Many artists, poets and thinkers have said that if the idea behind a significant work is retained within the soul for a long time the work benefits. Any premature attempt to bring this idea into a work of art or of science might hinder its being perfected within. Frequent conscious effort naturally and genuinely adds to the work, but the unconscious growth of the concept with the soul is a more important factor. A return into the unconscious furthers and strengthens individual concepts, thoughts and sequences of thoughts."
One should keep in mind that Carus was also an artist, so the above was experienced empirically for him. I can certainly attest to the truth of this quote. I've had dreams where my subconscious related the same information. In a dream I had, the creation of someone's art was likened to the fermentation of wine that must occur within the artist before it is ever brought out. I recognized pretty much immediately the truth behind this idea. I have a tendency to think about how long Michelangelo stared at a block of marble before even taking his chisel to it.
Fascinating book. It truly caused me to reflect deeply on his insights. I highly recommend it. Any of my criticisms are due to the early period that psychology was in at the time. Psychology as a scientific discipline was in its infancy. It would be unfair to hold a lack of empirical knowledge against Carus. He was incredibly astute given the time period this work was composed in. Like Goethe, his mentor, he actually was influential in the field of empirical science. It wasn't until much later that the scientific discipline of psychology would have substantial data to base its foundation on.
July 16, 2015
Mind blowing in how well-written this is and the questions it poses for the human experience of one's own Psyche. He does postulate some quite distinctly interesting ideas, but I've never understood them to be as complex as they are now. They have a fever to them which really can only be met through the understanding of the biological and nervous underpinnings.
If there ever was a percursor to modern Nueropsychology it would be in Carus and who would think he would be a pupil of the tormented Caspar Friedrich?
If there ever was a percursor to modern Nueropsychology it would be in Carus and who would think he would be a pupil of the tormented Caspar Friedrich?
December 29, 2020
Written in 1846, Psyche is a penetrating volume. As a biologist Carus was unmatched and here he looks inward seeking the truth of the inner world. Modern readers will likely be disturbed by his use of terms like 'soul' and 'spirit' but close examination reveals his use of these terms is perfectly scientific from his own perspective.
A reading of it is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
A reading of it is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews