Jung on Truth

“It is of course a fundamental mistake to imagine that when we see the non-value in a value or the untruth in a truth, the value or the truth ceases to exist. It has only become relative. Everything human is relative, because everything rests on an inner polarity; for everything is a phenomenon of energy. Energy necessarily depends on a pre-existing polarity, without which there could be no energy….”

Jung (1943)[1]

“There are truths which belong to the future, truths which belong to the past, and truths which belong to no time.”

Jung (1938)[2]

“In the old days everybody had revelations. The principle that worked for 2000 years was that someone had the truth and could reveal it. The backbone of the Catholic Church is the claim to the possession of the eternal truth. It is invested in the Pope and you must simply accept it. But for us this does not settle it. No one would say now that the truth has been revealed to him, we cannot build on Revelation. We believe in the honest attempt to understand psychological facts. If you take these things seriously enough, in the spirit of scientific devotion, they will have the same effect that was formerly reached by authoritative revelation.”

Jung (1929)[3]

“Saying the right thing at the wrong moment is no good. Always the two must come together. We assume that the right word cannot do harm, that the truth is useful at any moment, but that is not so, it may be perfect poison, and nowhere does that become so clear as in analysis. Such an intruder, no matter how true it is, no matter how valuable if the patient could realize it, is nevertheless perhaps inopportune and therefore nonsense.”

Jung (1930)[4]

“It goes without saying that, in my professional work, I have come to know a great many modern men and women, … Those I am thinking of are by no means sickly eccentrics, but are very often exceptionally able, courageous, and upright persons who have repudiated traditional truths for honest and decent reasons, and not from wickedness of heart. Every one of them has the feeling that our religious truths have somehow become hollow. Either they cannot reconcile the scientific and the religious outlook, or the Christian tenets have lost their authority and their psychological justification.”

Jung (1932)[5]

“A truth is a truth, when it works.”

Jung (1913)[6]

“That is how we know the truth: the truth is that which helps us to live – to live properly.”

Jung (1939)[7]

Students often suggest ideas for courses, and, given our current national travail with a politics and media full of “fake facts” and “alternate realities,” one recent suggestion was for a course on critical thinking. This seemed very timely, so I set to work. As usual, I found myself wondering what Jung had to say about truth and how to determine truth from falsehood. This essay considers Jung’s definitions of truth, the various types of truth he identified, his criteria for truth, features of truth which he described, and, finally, other ideas Jung had which are relevant to critical thinking.

Definitions of Truth

The dictionary offers five definitions of truth: “1. that which is in accordance with the fact or facts; 2. the fact or facts; matter or circumstance as it really is; 3. a fixed or established principle, law, etc; proven doctrine; verified hypothesis; 4. that which is true, real or actual, in a general or abstract sense; reality; 5. the quality or nature of being true, exact, honest, sincere, or loyal.”[8]–all of these linked to reality, objectivity, factuality, the situation on the ground.

As we might expect, given his intuitive nature and his work as a psychiatrist, Jung was both more subtle and more practical in how he defined “truth.” He used an allegory to “contrive a working definition of the concept ‘Truth’,”[9] likening the truth to how sunlight is broken up into different rays by a prism:

“Imagine a gigantic prism in front of the sun, so that its rays are broken up, but suppose man entirely ignorant of this fact…. Men living in the blue-lit region will say, ‘The sun sends forth blue light only.’ They are right and yet they are wrong: from their standpoint they are capable of perceiving only a fragment of the truth. And so too with the inhabitants of the red, yellow, and intermediate regions. And they will all scourge and slay one another to force their fragmentary truth on the others–until, grown wiser through traveling in each other’s regions, they come to the unanimous view that the sun sends out light of different colors. That is a more comprehensive truth, but it is still not the truth. Only when a giant lens has recombined the split-up rays, and when the invisible, chemical, and heat rays have given proof of their specific effects, will a view arise more in accordance with the truth, and men will perceive that the sun emits white light which is split up by the prism into different rays with different qualities, and that these rays are combined by the lens into a beam of white light.”[10]

Jung did travel widely[11] and did come to recognize the “white light” with its diverse colors. He saw this “white light” as “the common property of mankind,”[12] a “common truth”[13] which has many paths leading to it. In a letter to Roswitha N. in 1957, Jung described how this “common truth” develops: “… each of us has first to stand by his own truth, which is then gradually reduced to a common truth by mutual discussion.”[14] (We might imagine Jung’s dismay at our current lack of “mutual discussion” in the polarized climate of American society in 2018!)

Elsewhere Jung described “truth” as “only a name which we give to things,”[15] not something to be generalized: “… a truth is never generally a truth. It is only a truth when it works, and when it doesn’t work, it is a lie, it is not valid.”[16]

In his work with patients, Jung dealt with “psychological truth,”[17] which he regarded not as “metaphysical insights [but as] habitual modes of thinking, feeling, and behaving which experience has proven appropriate and useful.”[18] Experience and utility were two key qualities in Jung’s definition of truth. On this he was explicit: “That is how we know the truth: the truth is that which helps us live–to live properly.”[19]  According to Jung, believing in “fake facts” and adhering to “alternate reality” are not how we can hope to “live properly.”

Types of Truth

Jung used many adjectives to describe truth, e.g. “objectively valid truth”[20] and “impartial truth”[21] (the kind of truth forensic scientists testify about in legal trials), “statistical truth”[22] (which deals with situations in the aggregate and which Jung equated with natural laws), “traditional”[23] and “inherited truths”[24] (for which Jung felt modern people have “an ineradicable aversion”),[25] “one-sided truth”[26] (which the adherents of schools of philosophy or religious sects “cling to… unwilling to give up a beautiful, grounded theory in exchange for a paradox);”[27] Jung was an advocate for “paradoxical truth”[28] because  this type of truth holds the tension of opposites and thus fosters movement, growth and change). Jung also speaks of “profound truths”[29] (the sort that “kept the medieval thinker passionately attached to the problems of alchemy”),[30] “spiritual truth”[31] (which Jung, quoting Augustine, recognized “gradually turns into something material”),[32] “ultimate”[33] or “absolute”[34] truth (which “would be accessible only to omniscience, having knowledge of all possible concatenations and combinations; but that is not possible for us, because the number of concatenations and combinations is infinite”).[35] Four other types of truth Jung speaks about repeatedly: psychological truth, metaphysical truth, revealed truth, and utilitarian truth. Each of these warrant more discussion.

Psychological truth. As a psychiatrist (i.e. a doctor of the psyche) Jung put a premium on psychic truths: He noted in his Answer to Job that

“‘Physical’ is not the only criterion of truth: there are also psychic truths which can neither be explained nor proved nor contested in any physical way.”[36]

and he insisted that

“A psychological truth is … just as good and respectable a thing as a physical truth, which limits itself to matter as the former does to the psyche.”[37]

This idea of psychic truth is not one most modern Western people find satisfactory, and Jung recognized this:

“We in the West believe that a truth is satisfactory only if it can be verified by external facts. We believe in the most exact observation and exploration of nature; our truth must coincide with the behavior of the external world, otherwise it is merely “subjective.”[38]

Given that Jung worked with individuals’ dreams and feelings, of course he dealt with the subjective realm, and he took exception to the scientific ethos of our culture, with its disparagement of subjectivity.[39]

Psychological truth involves “coming to terms with the unconscious,”[40] holding the tension of opposites,[41] enduring the mind cramp that follows when we confront paradoxes, and fidelity to “truths of the blood,”[42] i.e. those beliefs that are inextricable parts of ourselves. Jung saw, from his work with neurotics, just what it meant for a person to deviate from his/her “truths of the blood:”

“Deviation from the truths of the blood begets neurotic restlessness, and we have had about enough of that these days. Restlessness begets meaninglessness, and the lack of meaning in life is a soul-sickness whose full extent and full import our age has not as yet begun to comprehend.”[43]

Many of Jung’s patients showed up in his consulting room suffering from this “soul-sickness” that resulted from betrayal of their true nature.

Metaphysical truth. Jung was tormented for much of his professional life with being labeled a “mystic” who dealt with metaphysical truth.[44] Jung regarded himself as an “empiricist,”[45] not a metaphysician, but he did recognize the connection between psychological and metaphysical truths:

“Psychological truth by no means excludes metaphysical truth, though psychology, as a science, has to hold aloof from all metaphysical assertions. Its subject is the psyche and its contents. Both are realities, because they work. “[46]

As a scientist, Jung refused to get drawn into metaphysical arguments, which were not susceptible to “rational criticism.”[47] He noted that

“Quite apart from the impossibility of ever proving or refuting the truth of a metaphysical assertion, the very existence of the assertion is a self-evident fact that needs no further proof, and when a consensus gentium allies itself thereto, then the validity of the statement is proved to just that extent. The only thing about it that we can understand is the psychological phenomenon, which is incommensurable with the category of objective rightness or truth.”[48]

Jung understood that metaphysical claims have been a feature of human history for thousands of years, and when a group of people share belief in such claims, they come to have a “validity” which cannot be proven objectively. We cannot, for example, argue that this or that religion is “true” in any objective way. Metaphysical truths operate on a different basis. Jung explains:

“In metaphysical matters what is “authoritative” is “true,” hence metaphysical assertions are invariably bound up with an unusually strong claim to recognition and authority, because authority is for them the only possible proof of their truth, and by this proof they stand or fall. All metaphysical claims in this respect inevitably beg the question, as is obvious to any reasonable person in the case of the proofs of God.”[49]

Only by appealing to an authority, e.g. a Pope or Patriarch, minister or priest, can metaphysical statements claim to be true. But Jung was adamant that we should never externalize a locus of authority.[50] Faced with the task of determining whether a metaphysical statement is true or false, Jung would have us

“submit what we think to the very Old Man; if he agrees we are probably on the right road and not very far from truth. But if the Old Man should disagree, we know we are on an errand of our own and we run big risks.”[51]

By “Old Man” Jung means the Self, the archetype of wholeness that lies within every person, our source of wisdom and a reliable guide in living. In this regard, Jung warns us against dogmatism:

“If we are convinced that we know the ultimate truth concerning metaphysical things, this means nothing more than that archetypal images have taken possession of our powers of thought and feeling, so that these lose their quality as functions at our disposal.”[52]

By “archetypal images” taking possession of our powers, Jung means that we have been seduced by the numinosity of powerful symbols which are found in all major religions.[53] Such a seduction results in an inability to analyze or apply our thinking and feeling functions effectively.

Revealed truth. Jung had extensive correspondence with religious figures from many denominations, all of whom operated within the context of revealed truth.[54] As the son of a Swiss pastor, Jung was very familiar with revealed truth, in its Christian version. But just as he grew away from adherence to Christianity, so he recognized that many other

“… modern men and women, … very often exceptionally able, courageous, and upright persons… have repudiated traditional truths for honest and decent reasons, and not from wickedness of heart. Every one of them has the feeling that our religious truths have somehow become hollow. Either they cannot reconcile the scientific and the religious outlook, or the Christian tenets have lost their authority and their psychological justification.”[55]

Jung recognized that revelation just doesn’t cut it anymore:

“In the old days everybody had revelations. The principle that worked for 2000 years was that someone had the truth and could reveal it. The backbone of the Catholic Church is the claim to the possession of the eternal truth. It is invested in the Pope and you must simply accept it. But for us this does not settle it. No one would say now that the truth has been revealed to him, we cannot build on Revelation.”[56]

To the theologian who claimed to “possess the means of deciding the truth,… referring to the truth of revelation,”[57] Jung would ask “Which revealed truth, and where is the proof that one view is truer than another? Christians themselves do not appear to be at one on this point.”[58]

Given Jung’s dismissal of revelation as a valid basis for determining truth, one might be inclined to assume he had no use for religion. Not so! Jung considered religio, i.e. that innate impulse for reflection and “careful consideration …[of] powers…helpful … enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved,”[59] to be essential to psychological health: “Man is never helped in his suffering by what he thinks of for himself; only suprahuman,… truth lifts him out of his distress” and fosters “further spiritual development.”[60] Where did Jung suggest we seek this “suprahuman” truth? Within, in the depths of our soul, where we will find the “symbolical truth”[61] that offers healing and meaning.

Utilitarian truth. Why did Jung put a premium on symbolical and suprahuman truths? Because they worked, that is they were effective in Jung’s healing endeavors with his patients:

“I call an idea right or true when it is helpful: that is the only criterion. For instance, how can you know whether a certain fruit is good or poisonous? You eat it and then you’ll see; if it is good and nourishing, if it doesn’t poison you, that is what I call true. And in the same way, if a truth feeds me when I need it, I say this is a good truth.”[62]

Ever the empiricist, Jung relied on truths (unusual or unique though they were in some cases) which resonated with “the innermost experience… of the individual.”[63]  These useful truths were not “head trips,” abstract statements or dogma, but experiences: “The needful thing is not to know the truth but to experience it.”[64]

Utilitarian truths “agree with our functioning.”[65] Jung told the students in his seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathrusa that “… when a certain truth is absent, you will suffer and be miserable, and if it can be accepted and agrees with your system, it is good stuff. That is my only criterion; if it agrees, it works.”[66]

Jung’s Criteria for Truth

Which brings us to the next section. Jung was well-versed in philosophy[67] and admitted to the English journalist Gordon Young[68] that he was an intellectual, but he had little patience with abstract disquisitions about truth. As a doctor, Jung was focused not on philosophical speculations but on addressing his patients’ suffering. In a Foreword he wrote for a book by Father Victor White, Jung described his situation:

“While they [philosophers and Christian theologians] are busy wrangling, the doctor has an urgent case on his hands. He cannot wait for age-long systems to be settled, but will seize upon anything that is “alive” for the patient and therefore effective.”[69]

Effective, useful, “agreeing with our functioning”–these were Jung’s criteria of truth.

Naturally, what might be useful or agreeable to one person might not be so for another, and Jung recognized this. He never treated two patients the same way,[70] nor did he expect that one person’s truth would be the same as another’s: the “very Old Man” in Mr. X might not define truth in the same way as in Mr. Y.

Nor did Jung limit his criteria for truth to the physical. As we noted above, he considered psychic truths to be every bit as valid, in the psychological realm, as physical truths are in the physical world.

Features of Truth

As we might expect, given the psychological context within which Jung worked, the prosaic qualities we usually assign to “truth”–factual, legal, rational etc.–Jung rarely mentions. Instead, his works describe the truth as lying “hidden”[71] within us, evolving as we grow and change, resonating as an “innermost experience”[72] and something that “possesses us,”[73] rather than being something that we possess.

Jung stressed the “living truth,”[74] which “dwells in the inner man,”[75] and has a dynamic quality, turning from something spiritual “gradually… into something material, becoming no more than a tool…”.[76] Jung’s truth is paradoxical, containing opposites or “antinomies,”[77] the tension of which we are to hold consciously so we don’t fall into one-sidedness. Why is this important? Because, according to Jung, “Through one-sidedness the psyche disintegrates and loses its capacity for cognition.”[78] Also lost is a dynamic quality that fosters progress or inner development.

The “psyche will naturally evolve” our personal truth “if [it is] not fatally interfered with by the non-psychic, i.e., the external world.”[79] While we live in the world “out there,” we simultaneously work with our “innermost experience” which “penetrates to the heart”[80] and “‘shines’ in us, but it is not of us,”[81] that is, this inner truth comes from the Self, our inner divine core. It is simple, convincing, and relative.

Working with patients from many different countries and cultures, and traveling widely throughout his life, Jung understood that truth is relative.

“If I call something true, it does not mean that it is absolutely true. It merely seems to be true to myself and/or to other people. If I were not doubtful in this respect it would mean that I implicitly assume that I am able to state an absolute truth. This is an obvious hubris….”[82]

Dogmatists, those who claim to have THE truth, have succumbed to the sin of pride, for “all we ever attain is a relative truth.”[83] But Jung felt

“such relative truth suffices for the time being if it serves to explain the most important concatenations of fact in the past, to light up those of the present, and to predict those of the future, so that we are in a position to adapt through our knowledge.”[84]

This truth helps us make sense of the past, offers understanding of our time, and fosters our adaptation to changing conditions.

Change is central to Jung’s psychology, since his patients came to him expressly for the purpose of healing, i.e. achieving some sort of transformation that relieved them of their suffering. So Jung understood that what was “truth” for a patient at the beginning of their work together would not necessarily be the same months or years later. In the context of Jung’s psychology truth was

“… temporarily valid because it is meant only for a particular situation. If the situation changes, a new ‘truth’ is needed, therefore truth is always relative to a particular situation. So long as the symbol is the true and redeeming answer to the corresponding situation, it is true and valid, indeed “absolute.” But if the situation changes and the symbol is simply perpetuated, it is nothing but an idol, having an impoverishing and stultifying effect, because it merely makes us unconscious and provides no explanation and enlightenment.”[85]

Truth is always relative to an individual also, which is why Jung rejected all manner of “cookbook” approaches to analysis, and never used the same treatment protocol with different patients. Considering truth on the collective level, Jung recognized the historical relativity of truth too:

“There are truths which belong to the future, truths which belong to the past, and truths which belong to no time.”[86]

So, Jung explained,

“it is always a question of development, of time; the best truth for a certain stage is perhaps poison for another…. There is an extreme uncertainty about truth; we are confronted with the utter impossibility of creating anything which is generally true.”[87]

We can only aspire to create a personal truth, an understanding of truth that is relative to our time, place, situation, and “historical layer.”[88]

Ideas Relevant to Critical Thinking

Jung’s discussion of “historical layer” brings us to the final section of this essay. We are living in a time of confusion, beset as we are with “fake facts,” and print and social media making wild claims and assertions. Why is this? In part, because sensationalism sells, and selling means making money, which (given the materialism at the base of our American character)[89] feeds our greed. But Jung offers another reason, which is that

“the population consists of different historical layers. There are people who, psychologically, might be living in the year 5000 BC, i.e., who can still successfully solve their conflicts as people did 7000 years ago. There are countless troglodytes and barbarians living in Europe and in all civilized countries, as well as a large number of medieval Christians. On the other hand, there are relatively few who have reached the level of consciousness which is possible in our time. We must also reckon with the fact that a few of our generation belong to the third or fourth millennium A.D. and are consequently anachronistic.”[90]

Jung reminds us that not everyone in our society lives and thinks on the same level. Some still believe that bombing the living daylights out of an enemy is an appropriate response to international disputes.[91] Some leaders in our (supposedly) civilized country think it is fine to tear three-year-old children from their parents, or to hold rallies where they incite their audience to violence.[92] There are also groups in our world who still practice stoning for adultery and beheadings for criminals.[93] There are people in our midst who believe we can control Nature, that technology will solve all our problems, and that everything is not connected to everything (and everyone) else.[94]

Jung is not alone in warning us about the nature of our time. The author of the second letter to Timothy predicted that

“… the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”[95]

The Internet is full of these “teachers”/entertainers/hackers/propagandists eager to tickle the ears of those who are vulnerable to their pitches and eager to live in a world of make-believe. But Jung knew that people who “turn aside to myths” and live out of touch with reality eventually discover that life doesn’t work very well.

Jung reminds us that truth is relative, but this does not mean that all statements or claims about reality are equally valid: some foster hatred, division, disunity and despair; others inspire, uplift, heal and unify. The key, as Jung says, is utility: Does this or that claim work, that is, does it serve well-being and foster positive change? In our endeavor to discriminate truth from falsehood we can pose such questions to ourselves.

We can also take note of those “few of our generation [who] belong to the third or fourth millennium A.D….” who, thanks to their highly developed consciousness, can offer us inspiration and direction, e.g. the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa. Wisdom figures like these remind us that we always have the choice about what we focus on. Another wise man urged us to focus on “whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things,”[96] for truth lies in positives like these things.

Sue Mehrtens is the author of this and all the other blog essays on this site. The opinions expressed in these essays are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of other Jungian Center faculty or Board members.  Honesty, as well as professional courtesy, require that you give proper attribution to the author if you post this essay elsewhere.

Bibliography

Hannah, Barbara (1976), Jung: His Life and Work, A Biographical Memoir. New York: G.P. Putnam.

Jung, C.G. (1961), “Freud and Psychoanalysis,” Collected Works, 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1956) “Symbols of Transformation,” Collected Works, 5, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press

________ (1966), “Two Essays on Analytical Psychology,” CW 7. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1960), ”The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche,” CW 8. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1959), “Aion,” Collected Works, 9ii. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1970), “Civilization in Transition,” CW 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” CW 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1953), “Psychology and Alchemy,” CW 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1967), “Alchemical Studies,” CW 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1963), “Mysterium Coniunctionis,” CW 14. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1976), ”The Symbolic Life,” CW 18. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1965), Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books.

________ (1975), Letters, ed. Gerhard Adler & Aniela Jaffé. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1977a), C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, ed. William McGuire & R.F.C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1984), Seminar on Dream Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1998), Jung’s Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, ed. James Jarrett. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Klein, Naomi (2014), This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lanza, Robert, with Bob Berman (2009), Biocentrism. Dallas TX: Benbella Books.

Otto, Rudolf (1958), The Idea of the Holy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tart, Charles (2009), The End of Materialism. Oakland CA: New Harbinger Press.

Young, Gordon (1977), “The Art of Living,” Jung Speaking, eds. William McGuire & R.F.C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[1] Collected Works 7 ¶115. Hereafter Collected Works will be abbreviated CW.

[2] Ibid. ¶324.

[3] Jung (1984), 184.

[4] Ibid.,, 530.

[5] CW 11 ¶516.

[6] CW 4 ¶578.

[7] CW 18 ¶686.

[8] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, II, 2093.

[9] CW 4 ¶610.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Jung traveled to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Africa and India, as well as making multiple trips to the United States.

[12] CW 13 ¶395.

[13] “Letter to Roswitha N.,” 17 August 1957; Letters, II, 384.

[14] Ibid.

[15] CW 8 ¶735.

[16] Jung (1998), 49.

[17] Jung (1984), 79.

[18] CW 9ii ¶50.

[19] CW 18 ¶686.

[20] CW 8 ¶734.

[21] Jung (1984), 204.

[22] CW 11 ¶967.

[23] Ibid. ¶516.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] CW 7 ¶56.

[27] Ibid.

[28] CW 12 ¶19.

[29] CW 7 ¶361.

[30] Ibid.

[31] CW 13 ¶306.

[32] Ibid.

[33] CW 7 ¶379.

[34] CW 8 ¶815.

[35] CW 4 ¶612.

[36] CW 11 ¶553.

[37] CW 8 ¶806.

[38] CW 11 ¶778.

[39] Cf. Tart (2009) and Lanza (2009) for more on our current paradigm and its attitude toward subjectivity.

[40] CW 13 ¶210.

[41] Cf. CW 6 ¶790 & CW 10 ¶779 for more on Jung’s concept of holding the tension of opposites.

[42] CW 8 ¶815.

[43] Ibid.

[44] For more on Jung and the labels applied to him, see the essay “All the Labels: Jung’s Frustration at Being Misunderstood,” archived on this Web site.

[45] CW 18 ¶1502.

[46] CW 5 ¶344.

[47] CW 7 ¶323.

[48] CW 12 ¶35.

[49] CW 14 ¶784.

[50] CW 7 ¶s263-264 & CW 9i ¶238.

[51] Jung (1984), 79.

[52] CW 14 ¶787.

[53] For an in-depth discussion of numinosity, see Otto (1958). Jung took over Otto’s terminology.

[54] See Letters I, 97, 117-119, 191, 195, 215, 216, 229, 235, 245, 256, 339, 353, 355, 359, 368, 372, 381, 382, 391, 398, 401, 406, 408, 412, 414, 415, 419, 448, 449, 452, 457, 466, 471, 474, 479, 481, 483, 489, 490, 501, 506, 514, 516, 539, 555, 566; II, 11, 13, 24, 39, 50, 52, 58, 71, 79, 128, 129, 133, 139, 144, 155, 163, 208, 212, 225, 238, 244, 251, 254, 257, 267, 268, 334-336, 369, 391, 422, 434, 471, 482 516, 518, 536, 544, 546, 552, 554, 566, 575, 581, 584, 603, 621, 625, 630.

[55] CW 11 ¶516.

[56] Jung (1984), 184.

[57] CW 11 ¶452.

[58] Ibid.

[59] CW 11 ¶8.

[60] Ibid. ¶531.

[61] CW 5 ¶335.

[62] Jung (1998), 242-243.

[63] CW 18 ¶1292.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Jung (1998), 242-243.

[66] Ibid.

[67] As a teenager Jung read many of the philosophy books in his father’s library; Jung (1965), 61.

[68] Young (1977), 443.

[69] CW 11 ¶452.

[70] Hannah (1976), 202.

[71] CW 12 ¶364.

[72] CW 18 ¶1292.

[73] CW 4 ¶608.

[74] CW 12 ¶199.

[75] Ibid. ¶301, note 16.

[76] Ibid. ¶302.

[77] CW 18 ¶1413.

[78] Jung (1965), 351.

[79] CW 11 ¶778.

[80] CW 18 ¶1292.

[81] CW 9ii ¶264.

[82] CW 18 ¶1584.

[83] CW 4 ¶612.

[84] Ibid.

[85] “Letter to Kurt Plachte,” 10 January 1929; Letters, I, 60-61.

[86] CW 7 ¶324.

[87] Jung (1998), 49.

[88] CW 11 ¶463.

[89] Jung described Americans’ love for the “yellow god,” i.e. gold/money; CW 10 ¶s102 & 946.

[90] CW 11 ¶463.

[91] E.g. the Bush administration bombing Iraq.

[92] E.g. Donald Trump.

[93] E.g. Saudi Arabia with its sharia law code.

[94] Cf. Klein (2014) for a refutation of all these erroneous beliefs.

[95] 2 Tim. 4:3-4.

[96] Phil. 4:8.