I would not have been led to the writing of this history of psychology, this counter-history, had it not been for reading James Hillman’s (1975) Re-Visioning Psychology as a grad student. More on that anon in the last chapter. However, a comment he made in dialogue with Sonu Shamdasani (Hillman & Shamdasani, Reference Hillman and Shamdasani2013) demands a reply. Hillman said that “the history of psychology really means the history of the soul, and if psychology is to move it has to speak to the soul and it has to speak about the soul. That would be the objectification, but it has to speak to it” (p. 38). For the most part, this book speaks about the soul, about the ways it was ignored, expelled, preserved, rethought. About the ways it became irrelevant and relevant again and again. Does this book speak to the soul? What possibly could that question mean? There are many objectifications of the soul in this book, along with claims that it cannot be an object. This question of speaking to the soul is the formal cause of the book, and as Marshall McLuhan and Eric McLuhan (Reference McLuhan and McLuhan2011) proposed, the formal cause, the logos, of a book is the readership. The soul, illusory and real.