As a result of the discussions that have taken place over the past years among Orthodox psychologists, many problems have arisen. One of the most striking problems arose as a result of the discussion of the theological understanding of personality. The conclusion was that psychologists cannot use, apply, move the theological understanding of personality into the space of psychological discussions. The concept of personality in theology and in psychology are different concepts. And we must, moving from one discipline to another, be aware of this and explain how we understand the person in theology. In addition, the main category of psychology “psyche” from the point of view of Christianity causes a lot of criticism, misunderstanding and problems, since “psyche” is a much narrower concept than the life that we find in ourselves (“spiritual” life or personality life) . It turned out that in psychology, especially in its classical part, it is generally possible not to refer to a living human personality. Psychology can work with psychological functions without even looking back at the fact that a person is a living person. And it will be quite scientific, and the results will be quite reliable.
If we expand the subject of psychology, trying to cover all the realities that occur in the human soul, then we will necessarily come into conflict with classical psychology. In psychology, one cannot speak of a mystical or spiritual life. The psychology of spiritual life in modern classical psychology is nonsense. Psychology does not have any theoretical and categorical apparatus for talking about spirituality, mysticism, prayer, religious experience, and so on. To make this possible, we need to do some work.
And thus, there was a need to rethink the main categories of psychology. Rethinking within the framework of Christian psychology. The methodological grounds for this, first of all, are Christian anthropology, theological disciplines (theological understanding of personality, the use in psychology of such concepts as prayer, repentance, etc.). Of course, we also need classical psychological theories, otherwise we will not understand each other what we are going to talk about. But also, as a methodological basis, we need the concept of the soul. But the concept of the soul is developed not by psychology, but by theology, since this is a theological category. And it arose in philosophy and theology.
Perhaps there is some truth in the fact that psychology has abandoned the category of “soul”. A competent psychologist had to admit his inability to professionally work with this term and refuse it. But it is impossible for a Christian psychologist to work without this concept – what is there to talk about then? And, most importantly, will a Christian want to remain a psychologist if he is forbidden as a specialist to speak about the soul. I, personally, cannot work in psychology if it is impossible for me to talk about a living person given by God and about a soul created by God — for me such a psychology does not exist.
What categories should we talk about in Christ. psychology? First of all, it is the soul. But there is a line here. When we talk about the soul, we are talking in the language of theology or, at best, philosophical anthropology. Although this is also a serious methodological problem in the latter. And in the theological understanding of the soul, the main thing is that the soul is the result of an act of creation. In the act of creation, there is a Creator and there is a creature. This is a personal relationship. This is the uniqueness of this creative act. Not singularity, but personal character. Averintsev said: “God with his word called out to the creature from non-existence. When God creates a human soul, the soul responds to God because it is alive and, most importantly, personal. And God is a person.
So, in the very act of creation, not only the emergence of the creature, that is, the soul, but the meeting of the creature with its creator takes place. The latter is very important for psychology, since we, as psychologists, cannot find the exact moment of man’s origin, when he would not be a personal creature answering God. There is no such time period of a person’s life when he remains impersonal and unresponsive to God (Conscience is the voice of God in a person). Man arises immediately as a creature responding to God, as a creature responding to the Creator. And then the question of when the human personality begins, when the soul begins, solved in theology, is introduced into psychology. This is not a psychological result, but something brought into psychology. Can psychology do something with the soul? No, it can’t, because that’s not her subject. And we, as psychologists, within the framework of our science, must admit that in psychology we meet with the activity of the soul, with spiritual life, but we do not cognize it. Psychology is not a science about the origin of the soul. She cannot even raise such a question — this is not her field.
But the soul, of course, manifests itself, and psychologists work with its manifestations. But the soul is not known by psychological means (psychology as a science, as a discipline). Questions: what is the soul, where and how — these are not psychological questions, but theological questions. It is very uncomfortable. That’s why an honest psychologist says: I can’t do anything with the «soul», it doesn’t exist in psychology. Here the task of the psychologist is to rise above the disciplinary contradiction and in his personality to connect these two interdisciplinary planes of the soul and psyche.
In my opinion, it is inappropriate to compare the soul and the psyche — this is not the same thing, these are not the same things. The qualities of the soul are creativity (creative character), strength, immortality. When we talk about the psyche, it is about emerging functions, about learning, about education, about acquisition, about extra- or intraerization, about activity, about skills. In relation to the soul, such concepts are hardly applicable.
Speaking of the psyche, we must recognize that there are pre-psychic and extra-psychic realities. That is, these are those psychic realities that cannot be identified as psychic. What happens to a child in the womb, in infancy (pre-psychic realities), what happens to a person when his higher mental functions (extra-psychic) are violated — this is not only a state of the unconscious, but also of ecstasy, intuition. Or, for example, the state of disintegration of consciousness, when a person continues to live, to exist, when he longs to live, he loves, and in these vital acts he continues to be a soul, although, perhaps, he does not continue to be realized in identifiable psychic realities. So, we must talk about the pre-psychic and extra-psychic experience of man. And this is very important for the psychological understanding of man.
The self-relationship of a person in the womb and immediately after birth refers, in part, to pre-psychic experience, since the formation of a self-relationship cannot be called a mental function, a mental reality. This is just an emerging reality. In this self-relationship, the child already acts as a person. Because self-relationship is not only an attitude towards oneself, but also a certain choice, and the choice of an act. It turns out that the baby can treat himself differently. But this is a non-verbal level, an unconscious choice. And those choices that we make at the earliest, monthly age are unconscious. The choice “I am” or “I don’t want to be” or “I don’t know if I exist”, etc. Although we call it words, but these are pre-verbal states that, as a result of psychotherapy or psychological counseling, as well as in pastoral conversations, are revealed in a person in the depths of his soul.
Summing up, let’s talk about the discrepancies and similarities of the theological and psychological understanding of personality.
Personality as an opportunity. We know that if the development of a person is disturbed, then the personality may not be formed (various psychopathologies). From a theological point of view, this is impossible. Even about a deeply mentally disabled person, we must speak as a person.
similarity of concepts. Both in psychology and in theology, we can talk about freedom, about the transcendence of nature, about creativity and the mediation of personality development.
Here are the problems of those categories with which we work. Each category requires a competent and careful approach. Each time it is necessary to stipulate what we mean by this or that Christian psychological category.