I do not believe so. Given the two presuppositions that he starts out from, it is valid, interesting and weighty. The one presupposition, I would say, has the character of a misunderstanding of my position, the other one is a certain difference in the basic conception of psychology between him and me, a difference of emphasis. It is a misunderstanding that I conceive of the individual as irrelevant.
Mankind exists in the form of individuals.
Without them, there would be no thought, no art, no social life, no dreams. Just as birth and death, eating and sleeping, working and love-making are constants, so the importance of the individual is a constant. The parentheses are to indicate that here, with this comment, I have left the otherwise psychological level of my discourse and shifted to another, the extrapsychological discourse of common sense or everyday consciousness. Seen from outside, from the perspective of outer reality or common sense, the shaman, the chief, the Pharaoh, the great artist, the alchemist were, of course, individuals. My thesis is that the individual is logically, psychologically obsolete.