BOOK REVIEWS yi
If this view is correct, it becomes almost impossible to study psychology apart from metaphysics, and accordingly Professor Putnam is frequently engaged in urging the desirability of introducing meta- physical considerations into psychology, psychiatry and psycho-analysis. As is well known, Professor Putnam's position has not so far recommended itself to the majority of psycho-analysts, and this not necessarily because they reject his metaphysics, but probably rather because they have remained unconvinced of the importance or accuracy of his doctrines on their psychological side. Few if any psycho-analysts, or indeed psychogists of any school, have so far admitted that Putnam's supposed universal desire to give complete expression to the universe or even to the individual organism represents a useful formulation of the ultimate conations of the human mind, and as long as adequate empirical support for this side of Putnam's doctrine is lacking, it would seem to be un- desirable to complicate the already sufficiently difficult psychological problems by resort to metaphysics. Furthermore, it must be admitted that the psychological evidence Putnam himself adduces in favour of his views is verj- deficient. We are nowhere shown the actual working of the supposed desire to express the whole personality; there is an almost complete failure to reveal this desire as an active and important factor in the mental life and mental conflicts of Professor Putnam's patients. Professor Putnam's views with regard to the operation of this desire, so far from emerging naturally from his case descriptions, give the impression of being to a very large extent purely theoretical con- structions deviftd of foundation in clinical and psychological experience.
Professor Putnam would seem indeed to be himself often doubtful about the practical use and application of his doctrines, as when he says (p. 87) . ' I do not feel quite sure how much positive use psycho- analysts can make of these philosophic principles in the actual treatment or training of their patients. It is my belief that some use can be made of them, just as use has been made of them in the teaching of children in the Kindergarten. The primary requisite, however, is that we as physicians should have these principles m our minds, for without them we cannot do adequate justice in thought to our patients' deepest cravings and intuitions'. And again (p. 412), 'for many situations, and in the case of many patients, as when the main problem is the discovery of well defined causes of specific phobias, it does appear unnecessary to deal much, if at all, witii considerations relating to the " whole meaning " or possibilities of development or "aspirations" of the individual as a whole. In other cases however . , . this is, I think, not true'.
In one place, however, Professor Putnam does attempt to give a definite formulation of the practical consequences of his doctrine (pp. 305 ff,}, but it appears — to the reviewer at least — that we may agree with all the more important points here raised without necessarily
