The Unconscious Mind

Abstract

DR. SCHOFIELD objects to my strictures on his extensive application of “the unconscious” as an explanatory principle that solves (for him) all problems of the relations of body and spirit. And he persists in confusing the question of the validity of “the unconscious” with the question of the propriety of so extending the use of the terras “mind” and “mental” as to make them applicable to brain activities that do not involve affections of consciousness. This extended use of the words I myself, following Dr. Bastian, have urged and adopted, but to do this is not to commit oneself to the hypothesis of “the unconscious mind.” Dr. Schofield's use of this phrase implies the assumption of a factor in mental life that is neither neural process nor conscious process, but an utterly unknown, unknowable and mysterious third agent, more or less intervening between the two known processes. This I hold to be a radically vicious hypothesis, not merely because it is unverifiable (for, in spite of the dictum of J. S. Mill, that appears to be an insufficient ground for condemnation), but (1) because it invokes an agency of an absolutely unknown order, (2) because it is not necessary and does not help us to give a consistent description of the facts, (3) chiefly because it serves merely as a cloak disguising our ignorance and must tend to make those who adopt it content to remain ignorant. Dr. Schofield's position seems to be based solely on the following argument:—