[270] in connection with the doctrine of man.^a I spoke about the word "doctrine of man^b" when I referred to the impossibility of using the word "anthropology," because it itself is a victim of that development which I called the estrangement^c of man from himself, in his self-interpretation. So we must speak of the doctrine of man. I prefer this word to "psychology^d." My friend Kurt Goldstein^e, to whom I have referred several times in these lectures, says there is no such a thing as "psychology" because if you speak of "psychology," you assume that that which is the object of psychology is something which in NO way can be separated from the totality of man's biological and physical reality, and that, he believes, cannot be done. I think he is right in this. Of course there are always abstract relations which CAN be separated, but if they are, they are not only true but also wrong JUST BECAUSE they are separated. Remember when I spoke about gestalt^f, that this was the decisive point, that the ANTI-gestalt thinking is always based on separating functions or parts from the whole and then subjecting itself to partial analysis in terms of stimulus and response, of COURSE coming to results which SEEM to reduce man, in the Cartesian^g sense, to a machine. If you realize, however, that this is an abstract procedure which must be re-integrated into the whole of the living gestalt, then you immediately see that here a methodological prejudice ruins the real understanding of what man is. Now on this basis I want to say what I believe are the important INdirect contributions of depth psychology^h to the whole of our understanding of man and world, and especially to the doctrine of manⁱ..