This article, based on extensive empirical research and occasioned by the centennial of both the present journal Archiv für Religionspsychologie and its owner, the International Association for the Psychology of Religion, deals extensively with the activities in the psychology of religion of Wilhelm Stählin, the prime force behind the IAPR and founding editor of the AfRp. The article discusses Stählins profound methodological contributions to the literature. It analyses the rather informal “founding” of the IAPR on June 10, 1914 and describes (...) its aims and first activities. Sadly, what had started so promising was destroyed by World War I: the most active members of the board were drafted into the army and had no time left at all for any activities in the field of the psychology of religion. As a consequence of the economic misery in Germany after the war, there was even no paper available to print a next volume of the AfRp until 1921. In the preface to that volume, Stählin articulated his inability to say anything about a possible future of both AfRp and IAPR. Paradoxically, the beginning had become an end, and should only in 1928 be followed by a new start. (shrink)

Historians of psychology are aware that, at its beginning, psychology had a choice with respect to the type of science it was going to be. It could be a content type psychology using the experimental method as proposed by Wundt or a basic empirical psychology founded on acts of consciousness explicated through critical analyses and careful descriptions of psychological phenomena as proposed by Brentano. As noted by Boring, because content was palpable and acts seemed elusive, Wundt’s experimental psychology prevailed. But (...) Watson believed that, as they were themselves still difficult to detect, the content of conscious processes were not sufficiently palpable. So, he advocated using behavior as the basis for experimental psychology. Yet palpability is essential for the experimental method, not for studying consciousness. Intentionality is the essence of consciousness, but it is not palpable, though detectable. In the teens and twenties of the 19th Century some German psychologists developed a type of bipartite psychology that included both acts and content, but their work remained isolated. (shrink)

This paper offers a reconstruction of Külpe’s theory of cognitive attitudes from the perspective of contemporary debates about cognitive phenomenology. I argue that Külpe’s view contrasts with analytic mainstream approaches to the same phenomena in at least two respects. First, Külpe claims, cognitive experiences are best described in terms of occurrent cognitive acts or attitudes toward sensory, imagistic or intellectual contents. Second, occurrent cognitive attitudes are intransitively conscious in the sense that they are experienced by, or phenomenally manifest to, the (...) subject. I call the combination of those two claims the conscious cognitive attitudes theory. I suggest that, despite some difficulties, this theory offers a worth-considering alternative to contentual and/or nonphenomenological theories of cognitive phenomena. (shrink)