Talk:James Hillman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 

LACKS NPOV[edit]

This article appears to lack NPOV. It says much more about what Hillman is against than what he is for. In particular, the claims against Jung, from whose work the author freely admits Hillman's work is derived, are unsubstantiated. Although I am not sufficiently expert to change this, I do not see, in my reading of Jung, the extreme weight on the ego that the author ascribes to him, without reference. Therefore it is impossible to see what particular phase of Jung's work he is referring to. I would like to see a Jung expert weigh in on this.

This lack of NPOV extends to the section on dream interpretation where the author uses the phrase 'a la Jung' which looks like a snide crack at Jung rather than a neutral comparison of Hillman's and Jung's approaches.Diogenes 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would you like a Jung expert to weigh in? Why not go to the source, read Hillman, and come to your own conclusions. Start with Suicide and the Soul, The Myth of Analysis, and Re-visioning Psychology. Finish them, and you'll be ready for the utterly radical work of The Dream and the Underworld. Be forwarned: he'll turn everything you think about psychology on its head.

Jungians are notoriously critical of Hillman, largely, I think, because he's stolen Jung's thunder.69.86.105.192 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

as a major contributor to this article, i have to wonder, diogenes, about your arguments.
  • the article indeed says what Hillman is for. please note everything after the introductory quote.
  • the article explicity states the Hillman is indeed indebted to Jung, as well as others (influences); yet he also moves beyond Jung. Jung's psychology focused greatly on the self and its constellations (which includes, but is not exclusive to, the ego), as noted, yet it remained focused on the self (or Self, with a capital "S"). Hillman moved beyond that to focus on psyche. if you would like a reference for Jung, please observe the Jung page- it is one reason why someone (not me) linked to it here.
  • the phrase "a la jung" is not a "snide crack" at Jung, but implies that compensation is a theory underpinning Jung's position of dream interpretation which keeps the dream within the realm of ego/self. Hillman's position differes substanitally from that.Platypusjones 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A Question of Scope[edit]

All and all, I like this article a lot. Thanks to all who have contributed to it.

It seems that the section 'The Soul's Code' is disproportionately long when compared to other parts of the article. I don't think the Acorn Theory has reached the prominence of many of Hillman's other ideas. For instance the role of psychopathology, Hillman's critique of modern and postmodern psychology or his move of emphasizing the less literal- Each of these ideas seems more central to Hillman's thought than the Soul's Code or the Acorn Theory.

    • thank you. i agree ; perhaps with the contributer's permission, we can move it to it's own page and link it here.
I think you should just get rid of it. It's epigenesis 101. It goes back as far as Aristotle. More recently, Keirsey even used the specific acorn example when he described his epigentic theory of personality (some 20 years prior to Hillman's book). There is nothing original about "his" idea.

Personal Life?[edit]

I can't find any information about Hillman personally -- family? spouse? children? All the pages on politicians mention family life. I think that this is an important facet of the life of a thinker and gives some important insight into them.

  • Hillman talks about some aspects of personal life in the book "InterViews" with Laura Pozzo. At the same time, he has also kept his personal life somewhat private.

He was married to Patricia Berry, another jungian psychologist, and then divorced. I believe he remarried. I am unsure of any children.

removal of link[edit]

i removed the link to the dissertation, because in my estimation it was unsuitable for the hillman page. the external links direct the reader to sites about hillman; pacifica is where hillman's writing are in the library. if the dissertation link is to be included as an external link, it might be better suited on the archetypal psychology page.Platypusjones (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


removal of Spring publications paragraph[edit]

I've removed the paragraph referring to Spring publications forthcoming editions of Hillman's work. It appeared to be an advert, with much of the text being identical to that on Spring's own website: [1] Jablett (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

good call.Platypusjones (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote in introduction...[edit]

A few thoughts:

  • Is the quote appropriate for the introduction? It doesn't seem very in line with wikipedia's expectations of an intro paragraph.
  • Is the parenthetical parts of the quote in the original or elaborations made by the person who inserted the quote?

--Rhetth (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

the parenthetical information is part of the direct quote. please see the reference for support. as far as its placement...when i added it originally if was offset and not part of the intro. it could be moved, but i think it is of utmost important to keep. in all of my reading of hillman, and there's alot to read, i think he synopsizes his work clearly, concisely, and confidently in that statement. thanks for the questions.Platypusjones (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories are wrong[edit]

Hillman shouldn't be listed in both the Psychoanalysts and the Jungian psychologists categories; they're mutually exclusive. One or the other should go. Skoojal (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic article[edit]

This has got to be the lamest article on James Hillman I've seen on the entire internet. There is so much sophisticated and beautiful material which can be drawn from hisa books, yet almost none of his better books have been utilized to craft an entry. I hope someone comes along and makes a worthy article out of this entry, and if they don't then I'll come back and do it myself in a few months when I've got the time.

Looks like a few juvenile Jungians whacked it together. Sigh 124.185.145.155 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Soul[edit]

I've added a section on Hillman to the soul article, in case anyone would like to improve/expand it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Juvenile Jungians! I like that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.40.144 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Directory Project Links[edit]

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology, paranoia, imagination and Jaques Lacan[edit]

According to Hansen's book on the Trickster and the paranormal (see the article Trickster for complete reference), Hillman has written on parapsychology, imagination and the paranormal, and has been compared with Jacques Lacan. This information would increase the comprehensiveness of this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

I came to the Wiki entry to learn more about the author of INSEARCH: Psychology and Religion Published by Scribners. I hope a qualified person will see to improving the article because this reference is missing from Hillman's bibliography. Wonder how many others are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czuttel (talkcontribs) 23:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Citation style[edit]

Several citations in this article use the scientific format (e.g. Hillman, 1991), but the bibliography does not use that format, and in fact there are no entries in the bibliography to correspond to those citations. I have tagged the article accordingly and the individual citations as well.Wwallacee (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

The general tone of this article needs to be tightened up. There is a casual, "first draft" quality which is not suitable to an encyclopedia. For instance, assertions are made in many places that are unreferenced and appear to be opinion rather than fact.Wwallacee (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)