On ne peut comprendre la position de cette œuvre, annoncée dès 1840 comme devant être tout à la fois 'ironique et polémique', sans savoir précisément ce à quoi elle s'oppose. On ne peut saisir le sens de cette opposition si on ne découvre ce qui en constitue le 'point archimédique'. Pour avoir compris cette triple exigence, l'auteur de cet essai fait découvrir dans le monde intellectuel danois du XIXe siècle, qu'il ressuscite, un monde si proche du nôtre qu'on s'en reconnaît (...) presque contemporain, jusqu'à souhaiter apprendre de Kierkegaard le secret d'une exemplaire résistance à la malhonnêteté et à l'irresponsabilité des 'brigands semi-cultivés' qui font de notre époque, comme de la sienne, une 'époque de désagrégation' et de notre société, plus encore que de la sienne, une société du 'nivellement'. Mais il avertit aussi bien que ce n'est pas en cherchant à tout savoir sur Kierkegaard qu'on apprendra quoi que ce soit de Kierkegaard. (shrink)

What makes the person truly human? This is the question that is systematically investigated by Vergote in this fine collection of papers. The integrating themes of the various studies reported here are the exploration of human experience, and the achievement of humanity by the individual. The main question is approached from a variety of angles and focuses on the central issues of human existence.

What makes the person truly human? This is the question that is systematically investigated by Vergote in this fine collection of papers. The integrating themes of the various studies reported here are the exploration of human experience, and the achievement of humanity by the individual. The main question is approached from a variety of angles and focuses on the central issues of human existence.

According to the author, psychology of religion should be the study of the personal experiences, tensions, conflicts and resolutions to conflict within a specific, clearly identified religion. The author opposes philosophical-psychological preconceptions which tend to eliminate the proper psychological reality of dynamic conflicts . With Freud, Evan-Pritchard and Needham, he affirms the historical dimension of civilizations and religions, and elaborates its consequences. He examines in this context work by Maslow on extrinsic and intrinsic religion and by Rokeach on mental-psychological dogmatism. (...) He stresses the largely preconscious motivations and processes that are at play in the personal interests and defense mechanisms operating in the various forms of belief and unbelief and in their changes. This preconscious reality is the psychological one par excellence and is the appropriate object for subtle psychological investigations. (shrink)

In this paper I will alternate between the position of a psychoanalyst who reflects on psychoanalysis as a moral philosopher, and that of a psychoanalyst who views moral concepts from an analyst’s point of view. By psychoanalysis I mean the clinical practice and observations deriving from Freud’s ideas and theoretical constructions, as well as the necessary theoretical underpinnings on which it rests.Jungian theory and practice, though inspired by Freud, differ sharply from Freudian theory and practice — as much as Lamarck (...) differs from Darwin. This is why Jung himself referred to his own theory as ‘analytic psychology’. To conflate them under a single category as theologians are sometimes prone to do, even before E. Drewermann, is a misleading therapeutic and scientific ecumenism. In addition, the word ‘sublimation’ occurs extremely rarely in Jung’s works and has little meaning there. The concept has no real place within his theory. While ‘God’, Shiva, Christ, the devil, the holy virgin mother, etc. may be the representative forms of innate archetypes, it is not a sublimation of drives that has raised them to the level of psychological ‘religion’.My decided choice for Freudian theory and practice rests on experience, on epistemological arguments and on philosophical-anthropological convictions. This point of view, however, does not mean that I think one should or can simply repeat Freud’s practical hints and theoretical statements. Precisely because Freud, like Newton and Darwin, was the founder of a new science, his theoretical concepts open up new fields for observation and thought. In this paper, however, I will not carry out any technical exegesis of Freud’s texts and the discussion it has inspired. (shrink)

This article deals with the contributions to the psychology of religion made by Dr. Marianne Beth , an almost totally forgotten pioneer of the psychology of religion. The article especially contextualizes her initiative to turn “unbelief” into a topic for research in psychology of religion, and describes the tragic end the Nazi reign made to her development and career. Born as the daughter of a prominent Austrian Jewish lawyer living in Vienna, Marianne von Weisl received excellent intellectual training. Initially, her (...) wish to become active in the same field as her father was frustrated by the injunction against women studying law. When this injunction was lifted, she went for a second doctorate in law, her first doctorate having been in the humanities. Marianne Beth became very active in public life ; she travelled and gave lectures and developed a large radius as a prolific author in newspapers and periodicals. Although clearly committed women’s rights, she did not belong to any feminist movement.Her interest in psychology was certainly stimulated by her husband Karl Beth , a professor of systematic theology, who developed an increasing interest in both history and the psychology of religion. In fact, psychology of religion seems to have become the field in which the couple collaborated intellectually most. They were both involved in the founding of a “research institute” for the psychology of religion, of an international society for the psychology of religion, and of a journal for the psychology of religion. All these activities took place from the apartment of the Beths in Vienna, where the preparations for the First International Congress for the Psychology of Religion also occurred. That congress had as its theme; “the psychic causes of unbelief”. Even earlier than her husband, Marianne Beth had published on the topic of unbelief. Her interest may have been triggered by a call for papers by the internationally renowned Kant-Society. The Society issued a prize for a treatise on “the psychology of belief” in 1928, which Marianne Beth then won. It is also possible, however, that the call for papers had been triggered after her initial publications on the subject. Her paper was published in the well-known journal Kant-Studien.There was a plan to publish the contributions to the 1931 congress in Vienna in book form in a series of three volumes, but only one was published, probably due to financial problems. The rest of the papers presented were published in the Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie, edited by the Beths. As her publications since then show, she grew increasingly interested in empirical topics and approaches, and was broadly read in contemporary psychology. She authored numerous contributions to the Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie. However, when Nazi-Germany annexed Austria in 1938, she left the country for the United States, taking both her children with her. Shortly afterwards, Karl Beth was also obliged to follow his family into exile. In the US, neither had any opportunity to pursue their interests in the psychology of religion; Marianne taught sociology briefly and German; Karl taught “comparative theology”.Nevertheless, Marianne Beth’s impulse to turn “unbelief” into a research topic in the psychology of religion did have some lasting influence: the work of better-known psychologists of religion such as Rümke, Pruyser and Vergote are indebted to her, at least indirectly, as this article tries to show. (shrink)

Historia religii jednoznacznie wskazuje, że religia nie stanowi wyłącznie jakiejs idei ani że nie jest jedynie systemem praktyk kultowych. Jest przede wszystkim spotkaniem czlowieka z sacrum, z boskością, i nawiązaniem dialogu z rzeczywistością transcendentną. Do spotkania z sacrum moze dojść na drodze poznania wewnętrznego, na podstawie obserwacji świata odczytywanego jako symbol czegoś ponad nim, słuchania słowa Bożego, doznawania wizji lub oświecenia. Jest ono uwarunkowane działaniem całego czlowieka, zarówno jego uczuć, jak i rozumu. W tym spotkaniu człowiek otwiera się na sacrum (...) całym sobą, w swej psycho-fizycznej strukturze. Antoine Vergote, współczesny psycholog belgijski, ukończył studia fiozoficzne i teologiczne w Lowanium. Formację psychologiczną i psychoanalityczną zdobył w Paryżu. W praktyce zawodowej i w badaniach naukowych zajął sie problematyką religijnosci jednostki. Interesuje go przede wszystkim problem doświadczenia religijnego. Szuka odpowiedzi na pytanie: w jakim stopniu potrzeby, pragnienia i frustracje oddziałują na postawy religijną człowieka? W szczególności, w jakim stopniu obrazy ojca i matki mają wpływ na postawy religijny dziecka? Co sprawia, ze człowiek jest religijny? (shrink)

A new resolution of the mind-body problem that reconciles materialism and idealism.