The soul concept has been forbidden to use in the academic psychological literature for over a hundred years. It was replaced (suppressed) by the concept of “psyche”, “consciousness”, “self-esteem”, etc. The paper raises the issue of the need to reconsider the concept of human soul as the fundamental basis of human mental activity. We emphasize the multidimensional concept of soul, a number of traditional fields of theoretical and applied psychology the directly being attributed to it, for example, the study of thinking, memory, perception, sensations, emotions, etc. We discovered that among the accepted meanings of the soul (more than ten listed in the paper) only one is known to fall out of the academic and psychological requirements, namely understanding the soul in terms of “spiritual part of human beings”. The fundamental conclusion consists in the fact that the soul properly never escaped the issues of academic psychology. On the contrary, it has been in the focus of scholars. In order to differentiate between the competence of psychology and theology we propose a distinction between “inner” and “outer” psychic manifestations. Within such a divide, the “outer” side will face the entire material world almost directly and entirely meet the requirements of the subject matter of science, whereas the “inner” side is connected with psychology through the reality, habitually referred to as spirituality, which in addition to theological interpretations can be deemed in terms of moral and philosophical value sphere and intelligible reason of human existence.
This approach allowed us to consider the issue of “spiritual” and “personal” relations, to establish relationships between personality psychology and the religious and secular approaches. It is shown that without taking into account the methodological correlation with these approaches the psychological category is reduced to simply identifying personal individual features, and motivational and volitional performance.
methodology of science;
By: Bratus, Boris S.;
An important feature of the present stage of human knowledge development is the introducing psychology in the spiritual context. An interest in the scientific community to such spiritual and psychological realities as subjectivity, individuality, personality, “spiritual I” consciousness, conscience, human morality is increasing. These concepts are united by the fact that they do not fit in the objectively oriented areas of psychology that study the general properties and regularities of mental functioning. To consider them properly we have to differentiate the diverse scientific types and processes for obtaining psychological knowledge.
The paper presents a historical and methodological review of studies on the problem of human psychology. We identified and analyzed methodological orientations of psychological human anthropology: theocentric, and sociocentric personcentric. For each of them we found certain philosophical and ideological concepts that define the fundamental principle of human in man, which were fruitfully absorbed by psychology and allowed to deploy the relevant areas of research.
Correlation of sociocentric and personcentric scientific approaches allows to raise the issue of insufficient research of theocentric methodology for the problem of human psychology. Psychological anthropology is an implementation of theocentric methodology at the present stage of rational psychological knowledge development.
Psychological anthropology has become a new methodological platform endowed with considerable heuristic potential.
The content of psychological anthropology is a
description of the phenomena of the inner world of a human individual,
revealing the bases and conditions for the development of subjective reality in
the ontogeny. The article defines the basic categories and formulated the basic
provisions of the psychological anthropology. We justified a new interpretation
of the principle of development in psychology. The results of structural and
content analysis of human subjectivity, normative models, marginal quality, and
the superordinate form of human existence are presented.";s:4:"TYPE";s:4:"html";}