As a history of a strain of thought, this is quite good! Despite your caveat, though, I am not sure that this article quite makes clear enough just how unsupported almost every claim of fact (and there are very many!) is.

This leaves one with the vaguely unsatisfying feeling of learning a history of a bunch of bright people pontificating at length about empirical matters that they don't understand and therefore--even without knowledge that we've gained since about e.g. the neuroethology of invertebrates--is probably wrong to a substantial degree.

So, indeed, this is quite distant from contemporary thought. Of course not everything is wrong because one can't be too wrong without even casual observation vehemently disproving one's ideas. But what do we do, upon learning these beliefs (and without also learning how confused some of them likely were)? My initial inclination would be to dismiss Jung, Bergson, and Deleuze, like Freud, as spinners of mythology that has little more relationship to the actual state of affairs than did Greek mythology to actual states of affairs; Greek mythology reflected the cares and (lack of) knowledge of ancient Greeks, and so does this reflect somewhat more modern cares and (lack of) knowledge.

This seems rather unsatisfactory, though, especially without either a clear refutation of the ill-founded ideas as ill-founded, or a reason for optimism that despite taking a non-scientific approach to a (now) clearly scientific matter, there is still something of lasting value.