|
2007. vol. 4. No. 4
|
Special Theme of the Issue.
With Or Without Religion? Continuation of the Discussion
|
6–12
|
The author investigates the point of view of Andrei Lorgus who draws an analogy between the «soul and psyche» relationship and the «mathematics and physics» relationship. The question is posed whether the category of soul can be seen as intellectual scaffold which anticipates formation of mathematics or is it a mathematical construction itself. St. Augustine’s review of mathematics formation and conception of soul analysis allows doubting the Lorgus’ analogy. The arguments of Vladimir Slobodchikov are discussed, and the author considers them to be very weak. The author draws a conclusion that psychology and religion, as disciplines of thought and the discourses, are independent and that they are bound together by the unity of human experience. The experience of Christian life and salvation may become (and constantly becomes) a matter both of theology and psychology. Since psychology and religion as social institutes are independent, they should not compete in the educational domain, either. Although, it becomes a different matter when the church or the science begin to have pretensions to the whole humanity, the whole power. |
|
13–17
|
During Soviet times the humanities either served a ruling ideology and considered it a basis of their scientific character, or were founded on methodological principles and categories of natural sciences. The time has come to get free of occupation of scientific thought by materialism, «the omnipotent and the only true doctrine», on the basis of interested and responsible immersion into the content of reflections of authoritative home researchers and philosophers. According to St. Paul’s explanation, the faith is realization of the expected and assurance in the invisible (Hebr. 11.1). The universe of psychological knowledge must include altogether the strictly scientific, unscientific and even parascientific knowledge. |
|
18–19
|
What are the criteria for recognition of one or another scientific direction as being scientific or unscientific? Does anybody possess a right to bring in a scientific verdict? The reality is that the Christian psychology exists. Somebody may take it as premature but de facto the Christian psychology has become a territory where a great number of specialists work, and not recognizing it is «a Caesar’s thing». |
|
20–24
|
An article is shaped in the logic of authors’ answers to the speeches of A.V. Lorgus, V.I. Slobodchikov and V.N. Rozin which were given within a framework of the discussion «Psychology — with or without religion?» The author insists that the mixture of conceptions of «soul» and «spirituality» by Christianity-oriented psychologists is unacceptable, as well as taking the «reconciling and anodyne» position of a professional philosopher in the polemics about the subject of psychology. Unwillingness of participants of the discussion to seriously talk about the issues concerning quite aggressive attempts of the church to force its way through the modern secular Russian educational sphere is also emphasized. |
New Participants of the discussion
|
25–34
|
The materials of the discussion about the relationship between religion and psychology are being considered. It is stated that psychology can be scientific and ecclesiastic. However the dialogue between these two psychologies is hardly possible because their statements are grounded differently: the scientific psychology is substantiated by experience and logic, the ecclesiastical one – by the authority of the Holy Writ and church hierarchs. Moreover, many of the discussed issues arose due to the simple fact that the level of scientific psychology development is not high. |
|
35–45
|
The article observes some of the important problems of formation of the system of psychological knowledge which is oriented towards the «Holly Paternal» Orthodox Christian Tradition. It is emphasized that such form of psychic reality description is equal in rights to the systems of description which exist in the academic psychological science. Reader’s attention is drawn to those aspects of study of psyche and internal world of a person which are not present in academic psychology but are revealed within Orthodox Christian anthropological and psychological tradition. First of all the matter concerns the sphere of studying of mystic religious experience, manifestations of human spirituality, nature and functioning of moral principles of the man, process of understanding of the highest spiritual senses of existence. |
|
46–52
|
Writers, researchers and theorists have long searched for models and theories to explain the belief in something beyond the self to something greater (God, creator, higher power). This paper discusses the concepts of religion, spirituality and the self and how these approaches attempt to encompass all spiritual and religious beliefs for all people. Finally, the concept of self construal is discussed and, how this framework in itself, can include all religious and spiritual beliefs for all traditions and, all people. |
|
53–57
|
Why not the religious (poly-confessional) but just the Christian psychology should be developed? Why non-religious spirituality is impossible? The author considers that «Christianity-oriented psychology» failed to give a convincing answer to these questions and to suggest its heuristic interpretation of psychological categories. |
|
58–63
|
An article separates the meaning of faith as the most significant psychic phenomena, religion as a cultural form of «spiritual navigation» (V.M. Rozin) and church as a social institution. The psychological distinction between the «external» declarative and the deep «internal» religiousness is emphasized, as well as the importance of psychology in assessing the degree of authenticity of religious orientations. |
|
64–74
|
Church as an institution of religion is unable to cope with «unspiritualness» even with an excellent understanding of the social and economic reasons of this phenomenon. This problem cannot be solved without consolidation of efforts of science, education and ethics. Religion and science have their parallel, but leading to the common aim. The line of demarcation between religion and psychology should not be importunately drawn. |
|
75–79
|
It is the author’s opinion that the differentiation of scientific and religious doctrines lies in the ways they answer the question about the determinants of human activity. Theologians’ works, multitudes of ethic principles, complex models and principles of analysis stated in religious and esoteric doctrines are taken as the positive influence factors. Religious doctrines’ aspiration for monopolization of rights of the knowledge about the sense of human life and about the basis of the ethic rules are taken as the negative influence factors. |
|
80–89
|
An article offers a new view on religious discourse reception. It is viewed from the standpoint of «new hedonistic logic» which is elaborated by the author in a framework of «attractive-analysis» project. The key concepts of this approach such as «hedonistic and trans-gradient narrative» and «cis-trans» are discussed. Some particular narrative situations where the connection of the religious and the hedonistic is distinctly observed are investigated in the light of the given concepts. |
|
90–95
|
The article observes the issues of modern spiritual and religious foundations of home psychology and, in the first place, its psychic correction and psychodiagnostics directions. The conclusion is drawn about the lack of «Christianization» of psychological science. Neo<heathen spiritual roots of some of theses modern inquiry psychodiagnostics and psychic correction influences based on the latter are traced. |
|
96–100
|
Different lines of contraposition of research (theoretical and experimental) and Christian psychology are analyzed in the article. The author proves the principal incompatibility of the thinking modes underlying these disciplines and expresses pessimistic prognoses of the lot of research psychology in this country in the future. |
|
101–112
|
Self-concept is typically seen as individualistic or social<relational; sometimes it is viewed as biological, ecological, or temporal. These constitute differing vantages that lack conceptual integration. The construct of self-expansiveness provides a way for self-concept to be seen as expanding from a narrow individualistic identification to larger biological, ecological, social, and temporal identifications—and even to very expansive transpersonal identifications. It is presented as an integrating framework useful for holistically understanding the self-concept in a way devoid of reliance on religious concepts, yet capable of addressing many religious concerns. In addition, empirical research on this construct is reviewed. |
Responces to Criticism and Final Comments
|
113–120
|
The author agrees with many theses in the A. Gostev’s speech and with the conclusion which finishes the article of the latter: «If psychology wants to be a science which is adequate to its name, it should not only acknowledge the «God’s made» status of the human soul and its metaphysical relation with the universe but also to compare itself with the present spiritual and moral condition of people». But the author notes that, again, we are offered the universal and the only correct interpretation of man, the Christian and «Holly Paternal» interpretation this time, as if our culture were homogenous and there were no different cultures and subcultures within, different types of socialization of man, different types of people and psyche. Contrary to anthropological approach of Gostev another approach emerges which proceeds from notions of transitivity of our time, «fluid sociality», plurality of ways of human development and types of modern personality. |
|
121–123
|
An article presents author’s laconic reaction to remarks of some psychologists who joined the discussion during its second stage. At that the expressed judgments about the positions of new debaters bear not so much an evaluative character but rather a sorted one which allows to differentiate the most typical views on the problem of comparison of scientific and religious knowledge. Rather wide range of debaters’ opinions allows concluding that substantially the discussion has been realized. |
Work in Progress
|
124–131
|
In the article the problem of sign and symbolic forms of mediation is posed as well as the problem of symbolic and other forms of imagery reflection. The issues of functions of symbolic mediation and symbolic and sign mediation sequence of appearance during ontogeny are discussed. The conditions of emergence of symbolic mediation are viewed. |
|
132–139
|
The paper is devoted to the results of studying some indices of socio-psychological adaptation of children with special educational needs. Problem situations (difficulties) which occur in communication with peers and adults, the circle of child's contacts, and relationships with classmates were taken as such indices. |
|
140–148
|
The analysis of top-down and bottom-up processes of information processing during emotion recognition was carried out. The empirical part of the work is devoted to summarizing the results of three studies which focused on the strategies of information processing used during emotion recognition. Two types of such strategies are stably distinguished. They are relevant to rational and intuitive modes of social cognition. The correlations of the strategies with the other individual characteristics are revealed. |
|
149–160
|
The concept of «emotional intelligence» is one of the most discussed in modern psychology. Emotional intelligence tests are published in scientific and popular literature but it is not always obvious whether they measure namely intelligence or, however, a definite set of personality traits. The authors have made an attempt to create a measure for diagnostics of emotional intelligence as an ability to solve divergent and specific tasks which are concerned with emotions. As a result of several stages of experts’ evaluation a set of questions has been formed which were approved in a pilot study which revealed the existence of gender specificity and no professional specificity of emotional intelligence. Two groups of schoolchildren were compared with respect to the mentioned indices: the first of which studied according to a profound curriculum in some subjects and the other one studied according to the general curriculum. The differences between the two groups were obtained in respect to all of the mentioned phenomena. Part of them is evidence to a better socio-psychological adaptation of schoolchildren from specialized classes whereas the other differences stand for a higher level of adaptation of children with special educational needs who study in usual classes. The obtained results allow formulating practical recommendations on how to increase the level of socio-psychological adaptation of children with special educational needs. |
Reviews
|
|