Nietzsche — and earlier, Spinoza, as well as his contemporary Schopenhauer — synthesized the legacy of critical philosophy from the 18th century, pointing towards the future of 20th-century depth psychology. Since then, the unconscious part of the psyche has exerted a decisive influence on human perception, an idea that evolved significantly within Western thought, especially with Freud, who introduced it into the framework of modern intellectual anxiety. In his introductory lectures, Freud considered psychoanalysis to be the third blow to humanity’s naïve self-importance. The first was Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, and the second was Darwin’s theory of evolution. Psychoanalysis revealed not only…

Just like Copernicus and Kant, but on a new level, Freud brought forth the fundamental realization that what we call “reality” of the “objective world” is symbolically shaped, largely by unconscious forces that drive the psyche. This further undermined human narcissism, relativizing truth and demystifying the cognitive endeavor. Freud sought to systematically explore the philosophical implications of structural psychology’s discoveries. In part, this was due to Jung’s study of critical philosophy, though Freud’s own views diverged from those of Jung on several fronts.

Archetypes and Evolution

In his works Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism, Freud clearly invoked the concept of a collective inheritance of primal memories. He spoke of the transmission of archetypal experiences and traumas through the unconscious of the human race. The same idea of inherited or racial archetypal memories is implied in his metapsychology, particularly in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where Freud discusses Oedipus, the myth of the primal horde’s murder, and analytically distinguishes the psychic structure into the Superego, Ego, and Id. He also examined the dual nature of fundamental drives, such as Eros and Thanatos, essentially accepting instincts as archetypes. However, his reductionist assumptions and scientific-positivist framework significantly limited the exploration of archetypes and the collective unconscious. Freud himself acknowledged these mythological constructs as dramaturgical metaphors and figurative allegories, vital for understanding the human drama, just as much as his agnostic-scientific worldview.

The idea of the collective unconscious, where psychic material and archetypal images such as dreams, memories, and seminal images are transmitted across generations over millennia, is a hallmark of both Freud’s and Jung’s thought. The difference lies in Freud’s intent to free the human psyche from the immaturity of metaphysical beliefs, whereas Jung’s psychology drew from religious experience for many of its core categories and saw religion as a necessary evolutionary factor in human history and mental health. Thus, the Freud-Jung conflict, beyond the differences in temperament, can be understood as an epistemological dispute between agnosticism and transcendent belief. On a deeper level, it was a duel between a new mythology, a substitute for faith, and a mythological system seeking to revive ancient gods. Freud aimed to exorcize the ancient myths of irrationalism and belief in the supernatural, while Jung sought to restore the old worship and sacred myth, advocating for the “beauty and purpose of ancient religion.”

Freud, a true product of humanist enlightenment, believed in the illumination of reason and science, despite recognizing that this symbolic form itself constitutes rationalization and idealization. He insisted, however, that it was the only symbolic form that self-regulates and self-corrects, making it a non-dogmatic, non-authoritarian system of knowledge. Jung, on the other hand, foresaw the existential void caused by the disenchantment of the techno-scientific world and strove to preserve magic by reinstating metaphysical elements and the sacredness of life, as expressed in ancient myths.

Time and Eternity

The metaphysical, psychological, sociological, and biographical reasons differentiating Freud from Jung can be summed up in their different perceptions of time. Freud had a primarily linear view of time, acknowledging and accepting the definitive and irrevocable mortality of humans and the finite nature of their possibilities. He sought to reconcile humanity with the inevitable entropy of creation, which would return humans to the inorganic state of matter. In this natural state of non-being, humans would find peace and rest — a being that, during life, could not balance its relationship with the environment, existing in a state of imbalance and asymmetry, which creates an awareness of time, the self, and the impending death. The arrow of time is determined by increasing entropy, following the path that a system naturally takes toward equilibrium.

Jung, by contrast, had a cyclical view of time. His vision included the Dreamtime of archaic ages, where humans’ natural alignment with the cycles of life — rooted in a deep belief in reincarnation and resurrection — calmed and assuaged the fear of death. The subconscious fear of death was negated by the rejuvenating promise of cyclical time. In this pre-personal state of being, according to Jung, the creature harmonized with its environment and had no reason to change, existing in a timeless state.

Evolutionary History or Archetypal Repetition?

Evolutionary history or undifferentiated repetition of the same archetypal cosmic pattern? Time or Timelessness, Matter or Spirit, Civilization or Nature — these are some of the distinctions or oppositions that contrast Freudian epistemology with Jungian thought, and they continue to trouble metaphysical, or philosophical, history. If we accept the cyclical rotation of archetypal structures, we accept the metaphysics of a necessary, autonomous pattern that repeats endlessly without differentiation — a metaphysics of essence, or in other words, a fixed and unchanging human nature. This implies an ontology of a timeless and eternal world that repeats endlessly. On the other hand, if we accept a linear view of evolutionary history, we recognize continuous differentiation and changes that are not tied to inherited forms or archetypes of human experience, signifying an acceptance of the eternal becoming of creation.

In one view, structure repeats itself; in the other, structure is open and ever-forming. We could say that the archetypal structures of unchanging elements and the evolutionary natural history of change coexist, co-shape, and co-transform. Archetypes act as molds shaping experiences, and experiences shape the mold in return — without the mold and experience ever fully merging or splitting — much like a feedback loop that metabolizes opposites, nullifies them, and integrates them into the spherical space-time continuum that transforms indefinitely.

The Invisible Rhythm

A radical approach sees these forces — archetypal patterns and evolutionary changes — neither as competing nor as complementary, nor does it synthesize them into an undifferentiated unity. What appears as duality is governed by a unified and multiplying rhythm: the two manifestations are neither identical nor separate; they act both together and distinctly. We can incorporate dual oppositions into spherical space-time and its transformations, which differentiate it indefinitely. Spherical space-time, inseparable from the void, is not fixed — it is both created and destroyed simultaneously. By moving beyond distinctions, crossing through them, we can contemplate the enigmatic center from which subsequent differentiations and oppositions emerge, containing this center even as they ignore it.

The evolutionary process of enriching consciousness is the understanding of evolutionary processes through consciousness itself, closing the feedback loop between matter and mind, leading to a crossing over into the greater Whole. This has already happened — space-time “wraps around itself” to form the sphere of timelessness. Not a timeless equilibrium (where past, present, and future collapse, and thought, reason, and consciousness dissolve into the abyss of Nothingness), but a universal time of consciousness, where past, present, and future coexist synchronously.