You wrote: "All theory is autobiography."

Really? All theory?

I'd certainly agree that most theories in psychology tend to have autobiographical origins or slants, but what about physics, mathematics, aerodynamics? Where's the autobiography in Newton, Einstein, Kepler?

I'm not saying arguments can't be made, but I think they'd take a lot more doing than coming up with autobiographical interpretations of Freud and Jung.

it would take a lot more doing, but it is not unheard of or impossible to imagine autobiographical elements at work in even "hard" science. Examples abound. For instance, check out the book Born to Rebel by Frank Sulloway. It's an analysis of Darwin based, in part, on birth order. Sounds hokey but it isn't. Sulloway is brilliant and so is his analysis....

Ok, so theory could arise out of personal experience, and in that sense, it has some subjective qualities that are somewhat autobiographical.

But theory seperates itself from this subjectivity through careful empirical investigation (IMO, ideally experimental). If the data doesn't fit, the theory is axed or shifted. Of course, this is resisted by the theorizer and the data is sometimes slanted because of this. But theory is still way more than autobiography.

Then again, what do Frued or Jung know about empiricism? (or people who do primarily qualitative work). For them, it obviously is harder to escape their own biases and experiences.

Re the fued between the two, I suspect it had waaaaay more to do with differences in views than some repressed homosexuality for eachother. Frued of course viewed religion as a lie; Jung saw its base as the core of human motivation and connection. Kind of hard to reconcile after that difference, eh?

Jung also posited a male archetype in everyone. Kind of covenient you left that out of your post while noting how female obsessed Jung was.

I had a prof once who worshipped Frued and hated Jung in ways that went way beyond differences of viewpoint. This sounds all too familar. You really think Jung wanted to kill Frued? I mean, he could throw books with his mind (haha), so he could've done it!

I realize this is a short entry, but at what point do you come close to demonstrating sexual feelins had anythin to do with them splitting?

Some of this stuff is so weak on here.

I did. That's what they both said. Freud that "unruly homosexual feelings" got in the way of his relationship with Jung; Jung that he could not get close to men because closeness recalled sexual feelings that then repulsed him.... What more do you want?

Thanks for the tip on the Sulloway book. I'll take a look. Funny you mention Darwin, because I've just finished writing a book in which I argue that much of Darwinian theory is highly autobiographical (having to do with Darwin's Victorianism, his lack of sexual experience, the death of his mother, his libertine grandfather, and so on). So I'd certainly agree that Darwin's experience is embedded in his theories, but not that Darwinian theory is comparable to Newton, Einstein, etc. I think it would be tough to show that some element of Newton's personal experience is reflected in the nature of gravity or the behavior of bodies in movement through space.

i'd like to read your book! congrats on finishing it. what's the title?