지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In this paper I would like to examine a comparative study on death consciousness between William James(1842-1910) and Granville Stanley Hall (1844-1924) in their psychology of religion. As to be known, James is the founder of the modern academic studies of psychology of religion and developed his school in Harvard University. As James’ former student, Hall developed the field in terms of the experimental and the genetic psychology and formed his psychology of religion school in Clark University. In the early period, they would have common perspective for their psychology of religion but later differentiated themselves. James was more concerned about phenomenological perspective but Hall about the empirical.
Uniquely James and Hall did their research of death consciousness as one of the key subjects in the field of psychology of religion. Their studies was the first attempt to critically approach the human death consciousness in modern academia. Commonly they both looked at death consciousness and its expressions as an inner deep psychic process for religious experience in human life. Nevertheless, as far as I know, the similarity that exists between them has not yet been examined in the field of psychology of religion and also death studies in general. I will attempt to confine myself to an articulation of a number of parallel points so that this can become a source of information on what can be said about a common interest for religious experience between them.
In order to point out the significance of Hall’s discussion prior to what James said about death consciousness in his psychology of religion, I will first discuss what Hall has to say and then try to show that, in James’ thought, one finds the same things said. Through this comparison, I will try to argue James and Hall can be regarded as the first precursor of modern academic death studies.
Uniquely James and Hall did their research of death consciousness as one of the key subjects in the field of psychology of religion. Their studies was the first attempt to critically approach the human death consciousness in modern academia. Commonly they both looked at death consciousness and its expressions as an inner deep psychic process for religious experience in human life. Nevertheless, as far as I know, the similarity that exists between them has not yet been examined in the field of psychology of religion and also death studies in general. I will attempt to confine myself to an articulation of a number of parallel points so that this can become a source of information on what can be said about a common interest for religious experience between them.
In order to point out the significance of Hall’s discussion prior to what James said about death consciousness in his psychology of religion, I will first discuss what Hall has to say and then try to show that, in James’ thought, one finds the same things said. Through this comparison, I will try to argue James and Hall can be regarded as the first precursor of modern academic death studies.
목차
〈Abstract〉
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 공포 경험과 우울증
Ⅲ. 생애 발달과 성격유형
Ⅳ. 불멸
5. 맺음말
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-205-001075296