Mind, Nature, and Religious Experience in William James and Carl Gustav Jung

This paper examines how William James (1842-1910) and Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) developed fundamentally different philosophical frameworks for understanding consciousness, nature, and religious experience. Through close textual analysis of primary sources and engagement with recent historiographical debates, this study demonstrates that James's evolution from "supernaturalist" phenomenology to religious naturalism grounded in radical empiricism differs fundamentally from Jung's psycho-epistemological framework emphasizing archetypal structures. The analysis reveals how their divergent ontological commitments—James's neutral monism versus Jung's careful distinction between psychological and metaphysical reality—led to distinct methodological approaches to religious phenomena. James evaluated religious experiences pragmatically for their transformative "fruits," while Jung interpreted them as symbolic expressions of individuation processes. These findings contribute to understanding how early psychology navigated between scientific materialism and religious phenomena, offering insights relevant to contemporary consciousness studies. Rather than imposing anachronistic categories, this historically grounded analysis clarifies both thinkers' actual positions while exploring their enduring significance for psychology and philosophy of mind.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2025-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17216343
Primary Topic
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mind, Nature, and Religious Experience in William James and Carl Gustav Jung

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
article

Mind, Nature, and Religious Experience in William James and Carl Gustav Jung

article en

Abstract

This paper examines how William James (1842-1910) and Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) developed fundamentally different philosophical frameworks for understanding consciousness, nature, and religious experience. Through close textual analysis of primary sources and engagement with recent historiographical debates, this study demonstrates that James's evolution from "supernaturalist" phenomenology to religious naturalism grounded in radical empiricism differs fundamentally from Jung's psycho-epistemological framework emphasizing archetypal structures. The analysis reveals how their divergent ontological commitments—James's neutral monism versus Jung's careful distinction between psychological and metaphysical reality—led to distinct methodological approaches to religious phenomena. James evaluated religious experiences pragmatically for their transformative "fruits," while Jung interpreted them as symbolic expressions of individuation processes. These findings contribute to understanding how early psychology navigated between scientific materialism and religious phenomena, offering insights relevant to contemporary consciousness studies. Rather than imposing anachronistic categories, this historically grounded analysis clarifies both thinkers' actual positions while exploring their enduring significance for psychology and philosophy of mind.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Universidade Metodista de São Paulo (BR), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.