윌리엄 제임스와 그렌빌 스탠리 홀의 죽음인식 비교 -그들의 종교심리학 운동을 중심으로- (William James and Granville Stanley Hall on Death Consciousness: Special Reference to their Academic Movement for Psychology of Religion)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국종교학회
· 수록지 정보 : 종교연구 / 74권 / 4호 / 1 ~ 44페이지
· 저자명 : 김재영

초록

In this paper I would like to examine a comparative study on deathconsciousness between William James(1842-1910) and GranvilleStanley Hall (1844-1924) in their psychology of religion. As to beknown, James is the founder of the modern academic studies ofpsychology of religion and developed his school in HarvardUniversity. As James’ former student, Hall developed the field interms of the experimental and the genetic psychology and formedhis psychology of religion school in Clark University. In the earlyperiod, they would have common perspective for their psychology ofreligion but later differentiated themselves. James was moreconcerned about phenomenological perspective but Hall about the empirical.
Uniquely James and Hall did their research of deathconsciousness as one of the key subjects in the field of psychologyof religion. Their studies was the first attempt to critically approachthe human death consciousness in modern academia. Commonly theyboth looked at death consciousness and its expressions as an innerdeep psychic process for religious experience in human life.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, the similarity that exists betweenthem has not yet been examined in the field of psychology ofreligion and also death studies in general. I will attempt to confinemyself to an articulation of a number of parallel points so that thiscan become a source of information on what can be said about acommon interest for religious experience between them.
In order to point out the significance of Hall’s discussion priorto what James said about death consciousness in his psychology ofreligion, I will first discuss what Hall has to say and then try toshow that, in James’ thought, one finds the same things said.
Through this comparison, I will try to argue James and Hall can beregarded as the first precursor of modern academic death studies.

영어초록

In this paper I would like to examine a comparative study on deathconsciousness between William James(1842-1910) and GranvilleStanley Hall (1844-1924) in their psychology of religion. As to beknown, James is the founder of the modern academic studies ofpsychology of religion and developed his school in HarvardUniversity. As James’ former student, Hall developed the field interms of the experimental and the genetic psychology and formedhis psychology of religion school in Clark University. In the earlyperiod, they would have common perspective for their psychology ofreligion but later differentiated themselves. James was moreconcerned about phenomenological perspective but Hall about the empirical.
Uniquely James and Hall did their research of deathconsciousness as one of the key subjects in the field of psychologyof religion. Their studies was the first attempt to critically approachthe human death consciousness in modern academia. Commonly theyboth looked at death consciousness and its expressions as an innerdeep psychic process for religious experience in human life.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, the similarity that exists betweenthem has not yet been examined in the field of psychology ofreligion and also death studies in general. I will attempt to confinemyself to an articulation of a number of parallel points so that thiscan become a source of information on what can be said about acommon interest for religious experience between them.
In order to point out the significance of Hall’s discussion priorto what James said about death consciousness in his psychology ofreligion, I will first discuss what Hall has to say and then try toshow that, in James’ thought, one finds the same things said.
Through this comparison, I will try to argue James and Hall can beregarded as the first precursor of modern academic death studies.

참고자료

· 없음