Pavlov about the Russian mind. I.P

In the spring of 1918, the famous Russian scientist, laureate Nobel Prize in the field of medicine and physiology (1904), academician Ivan Pavlov gave two public lectures in Petrograd, “On the mind in general and the Russian mind in particular.” The motive of these lectures, in his words, was “the fulfillment of one great commandment, bequeathed classical world subsequent humanity... This commandment is very short, it consists of three words: “Know yourself,” fulfilling the classic commandment, I made it my duty to try to give some material to characterize the Russian mind.”

About the Russian mind

Dear sirs! Please forgive me in advance that in the depressing times we are all going through, I will now talk about some rather sad things. But I think, or rather, I feel, that our intelligentsia, i.e. the brain of the homeland, at the funeral hour great Russia has no right to joy and fun. We must have one need, one duty - to protect the only dignity left to us: to look at ourselves and those around us without self-deception. Prompted by this motive, I considered it my duty and allowed myself to draw your attention to my life impressions and observations regarding our Russian mind. Three weeks ago I already started on this topic and now I will briefly recall and reproduce the general structure of my lectures. The mind is such a huge, vague topic! How to start it? I dare to think that I managed to simplify this task without losing efficiency. I acted in this regard purely practically. Having abandoned philosophical and psychological definitions mind, I settled on one type of mind, well known to me partly from personal experience in a scientific laboratory, partly from literature, namely the scientific mind and especially the natural scientific mind, which develops positive sciences.

Considering what tasks the natural scientific mind pursues and how it achieves these tasks, I have thus determined the purpose of the mind, its properties, the techniques it uses to ensure that its work is fruitful. From this message of mine it became clear that the task of the natural scientific mind is that in a small corner of reality, which he chooses and invites into his office, he tries to correctly, clearly consider this reality and cognize its elements, composition, connection of elements, their sequence etc., at the same time, to know in such a way that one can predict reality and control it, if this is within the limits of one’s technical and material means. Thus, the main task of the mind is the correct vision of reality, clear and accurate knowledge of it. Then I turned to how this mind works. I went through all the properties, all the techniques of the mind that are practiced in this work and ensure the success of the business.

The correctness and expediency of the work of the mind, of course, is easily determined and verified by the results of this work. If the mind works poorly, shoots wide, then it is clear that there will be no good results, the goal will remain unachieved. We, therefore, are quite capable of forming an accurate concept of those properties and techniques that a proper, functioning mind possesses. I installed eight of these general properties, techniques of the mind, which I will list today especially in the application to the Russian mind. What can we take from the Russian mind to compare and compare with this ideal natural-scientific mind? What is the Russian mind? This issue needs to be addressed. Of course, several types of mind stand out clearly.

Firstly, the scientific Russian mind participating in the development of Russian science. I think that I don’t have to dwell on this mind, and here’s why. This is a somewhat greenhouse mind, working in a special environment. He selects a small corner of reality, puts it in emergency conditions, approaches it with methods developed in advance; moreover, this mind turns to reality when it is already systematized and works outside of vital necessity, outside passions, etc. This means that, on the whole, this is light and special work, work that goes far beyond the work of the mind that operates in life. The characteristics of this mind can only speak about the mental capabilities of the nation.

Further. This mind is a partial mind, relating to a very small part of the people, and it could not characterize the entire national mind as a whole. The number of scientists, I mean, of course, true scientists, especially in backward countries, is very small. According to the statistics of one American astronomer, who began to determine the scientific productivity of various peoples, our Russian productivity is insignificant. It is several tens of times less than the productivity of advanced cultural countries Europe. Then, the scientific mind has relatively little influence on life and history. After all, science is only Lately gained importance in life and took a leading place in several countries. History went on outside of scientific influence, it was determined by the work of another mind, and the fate of the state does not depend on the scientific mind. To prove this we have extremely harsh facts. Take Poland. Poland provided the world with the greatest genius, the genius of geniuses - Copernicus. And, however, this did not prevent Poland from completing its political life so tragic. Or let's turn to Russia. Ten years ago we buried our genius Mendeleev, but this did not prevent Russia from reaching the position in which it now finds itself. Therefore, it seems to me that I am right if in the future I do not take into account the scientific mind.

But then what kind of mind will I use? Obviously, by the mass, general life mind, which determines the fate of the people. But the mass mind will have to be subdivided. It will be, firstly, the mind of the lower masses and then the mind of the intelligentsia. It seems to me that if we talk about the general life mind that determines the fate of the people, then the mind of the lower masses will have to be left aside. Let's take this massive in Russia, i.e. peasant mind par excellence. Where do we see him? Is it really in the unchangeable three-field area, or in the fact that to this day the red rooster walks freely through the villages in the summer, or in the chaos of volost gatherings? The same ignorance remains here as it was hundreds of years ago. I recently read in the newspapers that when the soldiers were returning from the Turkish front, because of the danger of spreading the plague, they wanted to arrange a quarantine. But the soldiers did not agree to this and directly said: “We don’t care about this quarantine, all this is bourgeois invention.”

Or another case. Once, a few weeks ago, at the very height of Bolshevik power, my servant was visited by her brother, a sailor, of course, a socialist to the core. As expected, he saw all the evil in the bourgeoisie, and by bourgeoisie we meant everyone except sailors and soldiers. When he was told that you would hardly be able to do without the bourgeoisie, for example, cholera would appear, what would you do without doctors? - he solemnly replied that all this was nothing. “After all, it has long been known that cholera is caused by doctors themselves.” Is it worth talking about such a mind and can any responsibility be placed on it?

That’s why I think that what is worth talking about and characterizing, what matters, determining the essence of the future, is, of course, the intelligentsia’s mind. And its characteristics are interesting, its properties are important. It seems to me that what has happened now in Russia is, of course, the work of the intelligentsia, while the masses played a completely passive role, they accepted the movement along which the intelligentsia directed them. To refuse this, I believe, would be unfair and undignified. After all, if reactionary thought stood on the principle of power and order and only put it into practice, and at the same time kept masses in a wild state, then, on the other hand, it should be recognized that progressive thought did not so much try to educate and cultivate the people as to revolutionize them.
I think that you and I are educated enough to recognize that what happened is not an accident, but has its own tangible reasons and these reasons lie within ourselves, in our properties.

However, the following may be objected to. How can I address this intelligent mind with the criterion that I have established regarding the scientific mind? Will this be appropriate and fair? Why not? - I’ll ask. After all, every mind has one task - to see reality correctly, understand it and act accordingly. You cannot imagine the mind existing just for fun. It must have its own tasks and, as you see, these tasks are the same in both cases. The only difference is this: the scientific mind deals with a small corner of reality, while the ordinary mind deals with the whole of life. The task is essentially the same, but more complex; one can only say that here the urgency of the methods that the mind in general uses in its work is even more evident. If certain qualities are required from a scientific mind, then from vital mind they are still required to a greater extent. And this is understandable. If I personally or someone else were not up to the mark, did not display the necessary qualities, made a mistake in scientific work, small problem. I will lose a certain number of animals in vain, and that will be the end of it. The responsibility of the general life mind is greater. Because if we ourselves are to blame for what is happening now, this responsibility is enormous.

Extreme concentration of thought

Thus, it seems to me that I can turn to the intelligent mind and see to what extent it has those properties and techniques that are necessary for the scientific mind to fruitful work. The first property of the mind that I have established is extreme concentration of thought, the desire of thought to think relentlessly, to stay on the issue that is intended to be resolved, to hold on for days, weeks, months, years, and in other cases, throughout life. What is the situation with the Russian mind in this regard? It seems to me that we are not inclined towards concentration, we do not like it, we even have a negative attitude towards it. I will give a number of cases from life.

Let's take our arguments. They are characterized by extreme vagueness; we very quickly move away from the main topic. This is our trait. Let's take our meetings. We now have so many different meetings and commissions. How long these meetings are, how verbose and in most cases inconclusive and contradictory! We spend many hours in fruitless conversations that lead nowhere. A topic is brought up for discussion, and at first, as usual, and due to the fact that the task is complex, there are no people willing to talk. But then one voice speaks, and after that everyone wants to talk, talk without any sense, without thinking carefully about the topic, without understanding whether this complicates the solution of the issue or speeds it up. Endless remarks are given, on which more time is spent than on the main subject, and our conversations grow like a snowball. And in the end, instead of a solution, the issue turns out to be confusing.

I had to sit in one board together with an acquaintance who was previously a member of one of the Western European boards. And he could not be surprised at the length and futility of our meetings. He wondered: “Why do you talk so much, but you can’t see the results of your conversations?” Further. Contact Russian people who study, such as students. What is their attitude to this trait of the mind, to the concentration of thoughts? Gentlemen! You all know that as soon as we see a person who is attached to his work, sits over a book, ponders, is not distracted, does not get involved in arguments, and we already have a suspicion: he is narrow-minded, stupid man, crammed. Or perhaps this is a person who is completely captivated by thought, who is addicted to his idea! Or in society, in a conversation, as soon as a person asks, asks again, probes, answers the question posed directly - we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, heavy-minded!

Obviously, our recommended traits are not concentration, but pressure, speed, and attack. This, obviously, is what we consider a sign of talent; for us, painstakingness and perseverance do not fit well with the idea of talent. Meanwhile, for a real mind, this thoughtfulness, stopping on one subject, is a normal thing. I heard from Helmholtz's students that he never gave immediate answers to the simplest questions. Quite often he later said that this question was completely empty and had no meaning, and yet he thought about it for several days. Take in our specialty. As soon as a person becomes attached to one issue, we immediately say: “Ah! This is a boring specialist.” And look how these specialists are listened to in the West, they are valued and respected as experts in their field. Not surprising! After all, our whole life is driven by these specialists, and for us it’s boring.

How many times have I encountered this fact? One of us is developing a certain area of science, he is addicted to it, he achieves good and great results, he reports his facts and works every time. And you know how the public reacts to this: “Oh, this one! He’s all about his own.” Even if it is a large and important scientific field. No, we are bored, give us something new. But what? This speed, mobility, does it characterize the strength of the mind or its weakness? Take brilliant people. After all, they themselves say that they do not see any difference between themselves and other people, except for one feature, that they can concentrate on a certain thought like no one else. And then it is clear that this concentration is strength, and mobility, the running of thought is weakness.

If I had descended from the heights of these geniuses to the laboratory, to the work of average people, I would have found confirmation of this here too. In the last lecture I gave reasons for my right to this topic. For 18 years now I have been studying higher nervous activity on one animal close and dear to us, on our friend - the dog. And one can imagine that what is complex in us is simpler in a dog, easier to express and appreciate. I will take this opportunity to show you this, to show you whether focus or agility is strength. I will give you the results in an expedited manner, I will simply describe to you a specific case.

I take the dog, I don’t cause any trouble for it. I just put it on the table and feed it occasionally, and at the same time I do the following experiment on it. I develop in her what is commonly called an association, for example, I use some tone in her ear for, say, 10 seconds and always feed her after that. Thus, after several repetitions, the dog forms a connection, an association between this tone and food. Before these experiments, we do not feed the dogs, and such a connection is formed very quickly. As soon as our tone starts, the dog begins to worry, lick his lips, and salivate. In a word, the dog has the same reaction that usually happens before eating. Simply put, the dog thinks about food along with the sound and remains for a few seconds until it is given food.

What happens with different animals? Here's what. One type of animal, no matter how many times you repeat the experiment, behaves exactly as I described. For every sound, the dog gives this food reaction, and this remains the case all the time - a month, two, and a year. Well, one thing we can say is that this is a business dog. Food is a serious matter, and the animal strives for it and prepares for it. This is the case with serious dogs. Such dogs can be distinguished even in life; These are calm, unfussy, solid animals.

And with other dogs, the longer you repeat this experience, the more lethargic, drowsy they become, and to the point where you put food in their mouth, and only then the animal gives this food reaction and begins to eat. And it’s all about your sound, because if you don’t let in this sound or let it in only for a second, this state does not happen, this dream does not come. You see that for some dogs the thought of eating even for one minute is unbearable, they already need rest. They get tired and start to sleep, giving up such an important task as food. It is clear that we have two types nervous system, one is strong, solid, efficient, and the other is loose, flabby, and gets tired very quickly. And there is no doubt that the first type is stronger, more adapted to life. Transfer this to a person and you will be convinced that strength does not lie in mobility, not in absentmindedness of thought, but in concentration and stability. Agility of mind is therefore a disadvantage, but not a virtue.

Direct communication with reality

Gentlemen! The second method of the mind is the desire of thought to come into direct communication with reality, bypassing all the barriers and signals that stand between reality and the knowing mind. In science you cannot do without methodology, without intermediaries, and the mind always understands this methodology so that it does not distort reality. We know that the fate of all our work depends on the correct methodology. The methodology is wrong, the signals convey reality incorrectly - and you get incorrect, erroneous, fake facts. Of course, method for the scientific mind is only the first intermediary. Behind her comes another intermediary - this is the word.

A word is also a signal; it can be suitable and inappropriate, accurate and inaccurate. I can imagine you very shining example. Scientists-naturalists who have worked a lot themselves, who have addressed reality directly at many points, such scientists find it extremely difficult to lecture on something that they themselves have not done. This means what a huge difference there is between what you have done yourself and between what you know from writing, from what others have told you. The difference is so sharp that it’s awkward to read about something that you yourself haven’t seen or done. This note, by the way, also comes from Helmholtz. Let's see how the Russian intellectual mind holds up in this regard.

I will start with a case that is well known to me. I read physiology, a practical science. Now it has become general requirement, so that such experimental sciences are read demonstratively, presented in the form of experiments and facts. This is how others do it, this is how I conduct my business. All my lectures consist of demonstrations. And what do you think! I have not seen any particular attraction among students to the activities that I show them. As often as I addressed my listeners, I told them that I am not reading physiology to you, I am showing you. If I were reading, you wouldn't have to listen to me, you could read it from the book, why I'm better than others! But I’m showing you facts that you won’t see in the book, and therefore, so that your time doesn’t go to waste, take a little work. Take five minutes of time and make a mental note after the lecture about what you saw. And I remained a voice crying in the wilderness. Hardly anyone ever took my advice. I have been convinced of this a thousand times from conversations during exams, etc.

You see how unattached the Russian mind is to facts. He loves words more and uses them. That we really live by words is proven by such facts. Physiology - as a science - relies on other scientific disciplines. At every step, a physiologist has to turn to elements of physics and chemistry. And, imagine, my long teaching experience has shown me that young people starting to study physiology, i.e. past high school, have no real idea about the elements of physics and chemistry themselves. They can’t explain to you the fact with which we begin our lives, they can’t really explain how mother’s milk reaches the baby, they don’t understand the mechanism of sucking.

And this mechanism is extremely simple, the whole point is the pressure difference between atmospheric air and the child's oral cavity. The same Boyle-Marriott law underlies breathing. So, exactly the same phenomenon is performed by the heart when it receives blood from the venous system. And this question about the suction action of the chest is the most deadly question on the exam, not only for students, but even for doctors. (Laughter.) This is not funny, this is terrible! This is a verdict on Russian thought; it knows only words and does not want to touch reality. I illustrate this with an even more striking case. Several years ago, Professor Manassein, editor of “The Physician,” sent me an article he received from a friend whom he knew as a very thoughtful person. But since this article is special, he asked me to express my opinion. This work was called: “New driving force in the blood circulation." And what? This active man, only at the age of forty, understood this suction action of the chest and was so amazed that he imagined that this was a whole discovery. Strange thing! A man studied all his life and only at the age of forty did he comprehend such an elementary thing.

(1) Manassein Vyacheslav Avksentievich (1841-1901), clinician, public figure, professor at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, editor of the magazine “Russian Doctor”.
Thus, gentlemen, you see that Russian thought does not apply criticism of method at all, i.e. does not at all check the meaning of words, does not go behind the scenes of the word, does not like to look at the true reality. We are in the business of collecting words, not studying life. I gave you examples regarding students and doctors. But why apply these examples only to students and doctors? After all, this is common characteristic Russian mind. If the mind writes various algebraic formulas and does not know how to apply them to life, does not understand their meaning, then why do you think that it speaks words and understands them.

Take the Russian public attending debates. This ordinary thing, that they clap equally passionately for both those who say “for” and those who say “against”. Does this indicate understanding? After all, there is only one truth, because reality cannot be both white and black at the same time. I remember one medical meeting, which was chaired by the late Sergei Petrovich Botkin. Two speakers spoke, contradicting each other; both spoke well, both were sharp, and the audience applauded both. And I remember that the chairman then said: “I see that the public has not yet matured to resolve this issue, and therefore I am removing it from the queue.” It is clear that there is only one reality. What do you approve of in both cases? Beautiful verbal gymnastics, fireworks of words.

Take another fact that is striking now. It's a fact that rumors spread. Serious man reports serious thing. After all, it is not words that are reported, but facts, but then you must guarantee that your words really follow the facts. This is not the case. We know, of course, that everyone has a weakness to create a sensation, everyone likes to add something, but still, criticism and verification are sometimes needed. And this is not what we are supposed to do. We are mainly interested in and operate with words, caring little about what reality is.

Absolute freedom of thought

Let's move on to the next quality of mind. This is freedom, absolute freedom thoughts, freedom, going straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what has been established in science as immutable. If I don’t allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new.<…>Do we have this freedom? I must say that no. I remember mine student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. They pulled you out of your place and called you almost a spy. But this happens not only in our youth. Aren’t our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, but rather enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some kind of dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this? And here's another example to the previous one. We have always repeated the word “freedom” in delight, and when it comes to reality, we get a complete trampling of freedom.

Attachment of thought to idea and impartiality

The next quality of the mind is the attachment of thought to the idea on which you have settled. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, and there is no success. You must love your idea to try to justify it. But then comes the critical moment. You gave birth to an idea, it is yours, it is dear to you, but at the same time you must be impartial. And if something turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it. This means that the attachment associated with absolute impartiality is the following attachment of thought to that idea of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a scientist is constant doubts when new detail, a new circumstance. You look with alarm at whether this new detail is for you or against you. And through long experiments the question is resolved: is your idea dead or has it survived? Let's see what we have in this regard. We have an attachment. There are many who stand on a certain idea. But there is no absolute impartiality. We are deaf to objections not only from those who think differently, but also from reality. At the present moment we are experiencing, I don’t even know whether it’s worth giving examples.

Thoroughness, detail of thought

The next, fifth feature is thoroughness, detail of thought. What is reality? This is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. There is no reality outside of this. Take astronomy, remember how the discovery of Neptune happened. When they calculated the movement of Uranus, they found that something was missing in the figures, and decided that there must be some other mass that affects the movement of Uranus. And this mass turned out to be Neptune. It was all about the detail of thought. And then they said that Le Verrier discovered Neptune with the tip of his pen. It's the same if you go down to the complexity of life. How many times does some small phenomenon that your gaze barely catches turn everything upside down and be the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about a detailed assessment of the details and conditions. This is the main feature of the mind. What? How is this trait in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate entirely with general principles; we do not want to know either measure or number. We believe that all dignity lies in driving to the limit, regardless of any conditions. This is our main feature.

Take an example from the field of education. Eat general position- freedom of education. And you know that we get to the point where we run schools without any discipline. This, of course, is the greatest mistake, a misunderstanding. Other nations have clearly grasped this, and with them freedom and discipline go side by side, but with us we certainly go to extremes for the sake of the general situation. Currently, physiological science is also coming to understand this issue. And now it is absolutely clear, indisputably, that freedom and discipline are absolutely equal things. What we call freedom is called irritation in our physiological language.<…>what is usually called discipline physiologically corresponds to the concept of “inhibition.” And it turns out that all nervous activity is composed of these two processes - excitation and inhibition. And, if you like, the second one even has higher value. Irritation is something chaotic, and inhibition puts this chaos into a framework.

Let's take another vital example, our social democracy. It contains known truth, of course not the full truth, because no one can claim absolute truth. For those countries where the factory industry begins to attract huge masses, for these countries, of course, it acts big question: save energy, protect the life and health of the worker. Further, the cultural classes, the intelligentsia, usually have a tendency towards degeneration. To replace must rise from people's depth new powers. And of course, in this struggle between labor and capital, the state must protect the worker.

But this is a completely private question, and it has great importance where industrial activity has developed strongly. What do we have? What did we make of this? We have driven this idea to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The brain and head were placed down and the legs were up. What constitutes culture, the mental strength of a nation, is devalued, and what is still brute force, which can be replaced by a machine, is brought to the fore. And all this, of course, is doomed to destruction, as a blind denial of reality.
We have a proverb: “What is healthy for a Russian is death for a German,” a proverb that almost consists of boasting about one’s savagery. But I think that it would be much fairer to say the other way around: “What is healthy for a German is death for a Russian.” I believe that the Social Democratic Germans will gain more new strength, and we, because of our Russian Social Democracy, will perhaps end our political existence.<...>

The desire of scientific thought for simplicity

The next property of the mind is the desire of scientific thought for simplicity. Simplicity and clarity are the ideal of knowledge. You know that in technology the simplest solution to a problem is also the most valuable. A difficult achievement is worth nothing. In the same way, we know very well that the main sign of a brilliant mind is simplicity. How do we, Russians, feel about this property? The following facts will show how much we hold this technique in high esteem. In my lectures I make sure that everyone understands me. I cannot read if I know that my thought does not come in the way I understand it myself. Therefore, my first condition with my listeners is that they interrupt me at least mid-sentence if they do not understand something. Otherwise, I have no interest in reading. I give the right to interrupt me at every word, but I cannot achieve this. I, of course, take into account various conditions that may make my proposal unacceptable. They are afraid that they will not be considered an upstart, etc.

I give a full guarantee that this will not have any significance in the exams, and I keep my word. Why don't they use this right? Do they understand? No. And yet they remain silent, indifferent to their misunderstanding. There is no desire to understand the subject completely, to take it into one’s own hands. I have worse examples than this. Many people have passed through my laboratory different ages, different competencies, different nationalities. And here is a fact that was invariably repeated that the attitude of these guests to everything they see is sharply different. Russian people, I don’t know why, do not strive to understand what they see. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner can never resist asking a question. Both Russians and foreigners visited me at the same time. And while the Russian assents, without actually understanding, the foreigner certainly gets to the root of the matter. And this runs like a red thread through everything.<...>

The pursuit of truth

The next property of the mind is the desire for truth. People often spend their whole lives in the study, searching for the truth. But this desire breaks down into two acts. Firstly, the desire to acquire new truths, curiosity, inquisitiveness. And another thing is the desire to constantly return to the acquired truth, to constantly make sure and enjoy the fact that what you have acquired is really the truth, and not a mirage. One without the other makes no sense. If you turn to a young scientist, a scientific embryo, then you clearly see that he has a desire for truth, but he does not have a desire for an absolute guarantee that this is the truth. He is happy to type the results and does not ask the question, is this an error? While the scientist is captivated not so much by the fact that it is new, but by the fact that it is a truly solid truth. What do we have? And with us, first of all, the first thing is the desire for novelty, curiosity. It is enough for us to learn something, and our interest ends there. (“Oh, this is all already known”). As I said in the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths; for them this is a process of enjoyment. But for us, this is a common, hackneyed truth, and it no longer interests us, we forget it, it no longer exists for us, it does not determine our position. Is this true?

Humility of Thought

Let's move on to the last trait of the mind. Since the achievement of truth is associated with with great difficulty and torment, it is clear that in the end a person constantly lives in submission to the truth, learns deep humility, for he knows what the truth stands for. Is it so with us? We don’t have this, we have the opposite. I am directly addressing major examples. Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What examples did she show to the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And do you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don’t we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity! And doesn’t this testify to the extent to which we do not know reality, to what extent we live fantastically!

I went through all the traits that characterize a fertile scientific mind. As you can see, our situation is such that we are on the disadvantageous side with regard to almost every trait. For example, we have curiosity, but we are indifferent to the absoluteness, the immutability of thought. Or from the trait of detail of the mind, instead of a specialty, we take general provisions. We constantly take the disadvantageous line, and we do not have the strength to go along the main line. It is clear that the result is a mass of inconsistency with the surrounding reality. Mind is knowledge, adaptation to reality. If I don’t see reality, then how can I correspond to it? Discord is always inevitable here. Let me give you a few examples.

"From now on, we will all be different..."

At all times, there have been people who never fit into the standards of the everyday worldview created by society. They asked uncomfortable questions or even contradicted established dogmas, which, as a rule, were beneficial to the authorities in order to lull society into the sleep of reason.

And the sleep of reason, as we know, gives birth to monsters...

Once upon a time, back in 1918, the great Ryazan scientist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (by the way, the first Russian Nobel laureate) gave three public lectures “About the mind in general, about the Russian mind in particular.” Then these lectures were not published anywhere until the end of the century (for the first time these lectures were published in abbreviation in the AiF newspaper, April 15, 1999, and published in full a little later - on the 150th anniversary of the great academician).

Names like Pavlov occupy a very strange place in our consciousness. On the one hand, if it suddenly occurs to someone to name outstanding scientists, then Pavlov will undoubtedly be among them (and everyone will immediately remember Pavlov’s dogs and, of course, the conditional and unconditioned reflexes). But no one remembers anything else about this scientist and few people are interested in his personality. Well, like, everyone taught about Pavlov at school and that’s enough for us.

However, unlike our time, in the 19th century the natural sciences were not confined to their own isolated areas. Pavlov's discoveries, despite the apparent scientific specialization, were perceived by many as an extremely important confirmation of the correctness of the materialistic concept of reality, which was then gaining strength.

Ultimately, his works were not just about how the human brain works, but also about how our perception of reality is formed, what is primary and what is secondary - and these are questions from the field of philosophy. It is no coincidence that articles about Pavlov are also in philosophical dictionaries. The scientist thought about the nature of abstract thinking, the physiological basis of which he considered the second signaling system, that is, the human orientation system in response to speech - verbal signals. “If our sensations and ideas related to the world around us are for us the first signals of reality, concrete signals,” wrote Pavlov, “then speech, especially, first of all, kinesthetic stimuli going to the cortex from the speech organs, are the second signals, signals of signals.” .

That is why the scientist’s work was once so important for the Bolsheviks, who did not want to let him out of Russia, despite Pavlov’s demonstrative rejection of the “Bolshevik experiment.” In 1920, Pavlov even sent a letter to the Council of People's Commissars with a request to let him and his family emigrate, openly expressing his rejection of the communist experiment, from which he expected only misfortune for Russia. However, in the end he still stayed. “I wanted to leave Russia,” the physiologist wrote to one of his addressees in 1921, “but, firstly, they wouldn’t let me in, and secondly, it doesn’t matter what kind of work there is abroad with the persistent thought of the death of the homeland.”

But it would be a mistake to think that Pavlov resigned himself to the Bolsheviks. “What you are doing is, of course, only an experiment, and even a grandiose one in courage, ... but not the implementation of an absolutely indisputable truth of life - and, like any experiment, with an as yet unknown final result. Secondly, the experiment is terribly expensive (and this is the essence of the matter), with the destruction of all cultural peace and all the cultural beauty of life,” this is how Pavlov assessed the Bolshevik revolution many years after the October Revolution. These words were written by the scientist in a letter he sent to the Council of People's Commissars in December 1934, three weeks after the murder of S. M. Kirov. Hardly anyone else in Soviet Russia at this time (repressions are already in full swing!) he could criticize her just as sharply and completely openly.

JOKE:
- Who invented “communism” - scientists or communists?
- Of course, the communists, if there were scientists, they would first try it on dogs...

But Pavlov gave an even more impartial assessment of the Russian nation in his famous lectures “On the mind in general, on the Russian mind in particular.”

And these lectures need to be read today, if only because it is now fashionable to distort quotes from classics, and usually references to these lectures by Pavlov are accompanied by rather Russophobic distortions. So, for example, in the book of Mr. A. Piotntkovsky “The Third Way to Slavery” there is the following alleged quote:

Four years before his death in 1932, the great Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov wrote: “I must express my sad view of the Russian man - he has such a weak brain system that he is not able to perceive reality as such. For him there are only words. His conditioned reflexes are coordinated not with actions, but with words.”

It is clear that the physiologist Pavlov could not say this - unlike Mr. A. Piotntkovsky, he certainly distinguishes the second signaling system from the first. And not in 1932, but in 1818, the great Ryazan scientist actually said the following:

National characteristics of the Russian mind
(abbreviated)

Lack of focus on the topic being discussed

The first property of the mind is extreme concentration of thought. It seems to me that we are not inclined to concentration, we even have a negative attitude towards it. We spend many hours in fruitless conversations that lead nowhere. The topic is brought up for discussion, and at first there are no hunters to speak. But then one voice speaks, and after that everyone wants to talk, talk without any sense, without thinking carefully about the topic, without understanding whether this complicates the solution of the issue or speeds it up. Endless remarks are given, on which more time is spent than on the main subject, and our conversations grow like a snowball. And in the end, instead of a solution, the issue turns out to be confusing.

Lack of intellectual sanity and clear vision of reality

The second technique of the mind is the desire of thought to come into direct communication with reality, bypassing all the barriers and signals that stand between reality and the knowing mind. In science you cannot do without methodology, without intermediaries, and the mind always understands this methodology so that it does not distort reality. We know that the fate of all our work depends on the correct methodology. The methodology is wrong, the signals convey reality incorrectly - and you get incorrect, erroneous, fake facts. Of course, method for the scientific mind is only the first intermediary. Behind her comes another intermediary - this is the word.

A word is also a signal; it can be suitable and inappropriate, accurate and inaccurate. I can give you a very clear example. Scientists-naturalists who have worked a lot themselves, who have addressed reality directly at many points, such scientists find it extremely difficult to lecture on something that they themselves have not done. This means what a huge difference there is between what you have done yourself and between what you know from writing, from what others have told you. The difference is so sharp that it’s awkward to read about something that you yourself haven’t seen or done.

And Russian thought does not apply criticism of the method at all, i.e. does not at all check the meaning of words, does not go behind the scenes of the word, does not like to look at the true reality. We are in the business of collecting words, not studying life. And this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind. But if the mind writes various algebraic formulas and does not know how to apply them to life, does not understand their meaning, then why do you think that it speaks words and understands them?

The Russian mind is not attached to facts. He loves words more and uses them

Take the Russian public attending debates. It is a common thing that both those who say “for” and those who say “against” are applauded with equal passion. Does this indicate understanding? After all, there is only one truth, because reality cannot be both white and black at the same time. I remember one medical meeting, which was chaired by the late Sergei Petrovich Botkin. Two speakers spoke, contradicting each other; both spoke well, both were sharp, and the audience applauded both. And I remember that the chairman then said: “I see that the public has not yet matured to resolve this issue, and therefore I am removing it from the queue.” It is clear that there is only one reality. What do you approve of in both cases? Beautiful verbal gymnastics, fireworks of words...

Take another fact that is striking now. It's a fact that rumors spread. A serious person reports a serious thing. After all, it is not words that are reported, but facts, but then you must guarantee that your words really follow the facts. This is not the case. We know, of course, that everyone has a weakness to create a sensation, everyone likes to add something, but still, criticism and verification are sometimes needed. And this is not what we are supposed to do. We are mainly interested in and operate with words, caring little about what reality is.

Lack of freedom of thought and intolerance of dissent

Let's move on to the next quality of the mind - this is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what has been established in science as immutable. If I don’t allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new.<...>Do we have this freedom? I must say that no. I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. They pulled you out of your place and called you almost a spy. But this happens not only in our youth.

Aren’t our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, but rather enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some kind of dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this? We have always repeated the word “freedom” in delight, and when it comes to reality, we get a complete trampling of freedom.

Passionate about the idea

That is why one of the torments of a scientist is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look with alarm at whether this new detail is for you or against you. And through long experiments the question is resolved: is your idea dead or has it survived? Let's see what we have in this regard. We have an attachment. There are many who stand on a certain idea. But there is no absolute impartiality.
We are deaf to objections not only from those who think differently, but also from reality...

Lack of simplicity of presentation

The next property of the mind is the desire of scientific thought for simplicity. A difficult achievement is worth nothing. Russian people, I don’t know why, do not strive to understand what they see. He doesn't ask questions in order to master the subject...

... In general, our public has some kind of desire for the foggy and dark. I remember at some point scientific society An interesting report was made. When leaving there were many voices: “Brilliant!” And one enthusiast directly shouted: “Brilliant, brilliant, although I didn’t understand anything!” It's as if nebula is genius. How did this happen? Where did this attitude towards everything incomprehensible come from?

Lack of thoroughness

The next feature is thoroughness, detail of thought. What is reality? This is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. There is no reality outside of this. Take astronomy, remember how the discovery of Neptune happened. When they calculated the movement of Uranus, they found that something was missing in the figures, and decided that there must be some other mass that affects the movement of Uranus. And this mass turned out to be Neptune. It was all about the detail of thought. And then they said that Le Verrier discovered Neptune with the tip of his pen.

It's the same if you go down to the complexity of life. How many times does some small phenomenon that your gaze barely catches turn everything upside down and be the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about a detailed assessment of the details and conditions. This is the main feature of the mind. What? How is this trait in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate entirely with general principles; we do not want to know either measure or number. We believe that all dignity lies in driving to the limit, regardless of any conditions. This is our main feature...

Self-confidence and pride

Let's move on to the last trait of the mind. Since the achievement of truth is associated with great difficulty and torment, it is clear that a person, in the end, constantly lives in submission to the truth, learns deep humility, for he knows what the truth stands for. With us it’s the other way around. Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What examples did she show to the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And you think that life has changed our views. Not at all! Don’t we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity? And doesn’t this testify to the extent to which we do not know reality, to what extent we live fantastically!

As you can see, our situation is such that we are on the disadvantageous side with regard to almost every trait. For example, we have curiosity, but we are indifferent to the absoluteness, the immutability of thought. Or from the trait of detail of the mind, instead of a specialty, we take general provisions. We constantly take the disadvantageous line, and we do not have the strength to go along the main line. It is clear that the result is a mass of inconsistency with the surrounding reality. Mind is knowledge, adaptation to reality. If I don’t see reality, then how can I correspond to it? Discord is always inevitable here.

... The description of the Russian mind that I have drawn is gloomy, and I am aware of this, bitterly aware. You will say that I have exaggerated, that I am pessimistic. I won't dispute this. The picture is grim, but what Russia is going through is also extremely grim. But we cannot say that everything happened without our participation. You may ask why I gave this lecture, what is the point of it? Will you say that I enjoy the misfortune of the Russian people? No, there is a vital calculation here. Firstly, it is the duty of our dignity to recognize what exists.

And the other thing is this: well, okay, we may lose our political independence, we will come under the heel of one, another, third. But we will still live! Therefore, for the future it is useful for us to have an idea about ourselves. It is important for us to be clearly aware of what we are. Do you understand that if I was born with a heart defect and I don’t know it, then I will start acting like healthy man and this will soon make itself felt. I will end my life very early and tragically. If I am tested by a doctor who says that you have a heart defect, but if you adapt to this, then you can live up to 50 years. So, it's always useful to know who I am...

Then there is also a gratifying point of view. After all, the mind of animals and humans is a special organ of development. It is most affected by life's influences, and it develops most perfectly as an organism. individual person, and nations. Therefore, even if we have defects, they can be changed. This scientific fact. And then my characterization of our people will not be an absolute verdict. We may have hopes, some chances. I say that this is based on scientific facts. You may have a nervous system with very weak development of an important inhibitory process, the one that establishes order and measure. And you will observe all the consequences of such poor development. But after some practice and training, the nervous system is improving before our eyes, and it is very significant. This means that, regardless of what happened, we still shouldn’t lose hope.

Public lecture by academician Ivan Pavlov

Three weeks ago I already started on this topic and now I will briefly recall and reproduce the general structure of my lectures. The mind is such a huge, vague topic! How to start it? I dare to think that I managed to simplify this task without losing efficiency. I acted in this regard purely practically. Having abandoned philosophical and psychological definitions of the mind, I settled on one type of mind, well known to me partly from personal experience in a scientific laboratory, partly from literature, namely the scientific mind and especially the natural scientific mind, which develops positive sciences.

We, therefore, are quite capable of forming an accurate concept of those properties and techniques that a proper, functioning mind possesses. I have established eight such general properties and techniques of the mind, which I will list today specifically in application to the Russian mind. What can we take from the Russian mind to compare and compare with this ideal natural-scientific mind? What is the Russian mind? This issue needs to be addressed. Of course, several types of mind stand out clearly.

Firstly, the scientific Russian mind participating in the development of Russian science. I think that I don’t have to dwell on this mind, and here’s why. This is a somewhat greenhouse mind, working in a special environment. He selects a small corner of reality, puts it in emergency conditions, approaches it with methods developed in advance; moreover, this mind turns to reality when it is already systematized and works outside of vital necessity, outside passions, etc. So, in general This is light and special work, work that goes far beyond the work of the mind that operates in life. The characteristics of this mind can only speak about the mental capabilities of the nation.

Then, the scientific mind has relatively little influence on life and history. After all, science has only recently gained importance in life and has taken a leading place in a few countries. History went on outside of scientific influence, it was determined by the work of another mind, and the fate of the state does not depend on the scientific mind. To prove this we have extremely harsh facts. Take Poland. Poland provided the world with the greatest genius, the genius of geniuses - Copernicus. And, however, this did not prevent Poland from ending its political life so tragically. Or let's turn to Russia. Ten years ago we buried our genius Mendeleev, but this did not prevent Russia from reaching the position in which it now finds itself. Therefore, it seems to me that I am right if in the future I do not take into account the scientific mind.

But then what kind of mind will I use? Obviously, by the mass, general life mind, which determines the fate of the people. But the mass mind will have to be subdivided. It will be, firstly, the mind of the lower masses and then the mind of the intelligentsia. It seems to me that if we talk about the general life mind that determines the fate of the people, then the mind of the lower masses will have to be left aside. Let us take in Russia this mass, i.e., predominantly peasant mind. Where do we see him? Is it really in the unchangeable three-field area, or in the fact that to this day the red rooster walks freely through the villages in the summer, or in the chaos of volost gatherings? The same ignorance remains here as it was hundreds of years ago. I recently read in the newspapers that when the soldiers were returning from the Turkish front, because of the danger of spreading the plague, they wanted to arrange a quarantine. But the soldiers did not agree to this and directly said: “We don’t care about this quarantine, all this is bourgeois invention.”

Or another case. Once, a few weeks ago, at the very height of Bolshevik power, my servant was visited by her brother, a sailor, of course, a socialist to the core. As expected, he saw all the evil in the bourgeoisie, and by bourgeoisie we meant everyone except sailors and soldiers. When he was told that you would hardly be able to do without the bourgeoisie, for example, cholera would appear, what would you do without doctors? - He solemnly replied that all this was nothing. “After all, it has long been known that cholera is caused by doctors themselves.” Is it worth talking about such a mind and can any responsibility be placed on it?

That’s why I think something worth talking about and characterizing, something that matters, determining the essence of the future - this, of course, is the intelligentsia’s mind. And its characteristics are interesting, its properties are important. It seems to me that something that has happened now in Russia is, of course, the work of the intelligentsia, but the masses played a completely passive role, they accepted the movement along which the intelligentsia directed them. To refuse this, I believe, would be unfair and undignified. After all, if reactionary thought stood on the principle of power and order and only put it into practice, and at the same time, the lack of legality and enlightenment kept the masses of the people in a savage state, then, on the other hand, it should be recognized that progressive thought did not try so much for enlightenment and cultivating the people, as much as about revolutionizing them.

I think that you and I are educated enough to recognize that something that happened is not an accident, but has its own tangible reasons and these reasons lie in ourselves, in our properties. However, the following may be objected to. How can I address this intelligent mind with the criterion that I have established regarding the scientific mind? Will this be appropriate and fair? Why not? - I’ll ask. After all, every mind has one task - to see reality correctly, understand it and act accordingly. You cannot imagine the mind existing just for fun. It must have its own tasks and, as you see, these tasks are the same in both cases.

The only difference is this: the scientific mind deals with a small corner of reality, while the ordinary mind deals with the whole of life. The task is essentially the same, but more complex; one can only say that here the urgency of the methods that the mind in general uses in its work is even more evident. If certain qualities are required from the scientific mind, then they are required from the vital mind to an even greater extent. And this is understandable. If I personally or someone else was not up to the mark, did not reveal the necessary qualities, or made a mistake in scientific work, the problem is small. I will lose a certain number of animals in vain, and that will be the end of it. The responsibility of the general life mind is greater. Because if we ourselves are to blame for what is happening now, this responsibility is enormous.

Thus, it seems to me that I can turn to the intelligent mind and see to what extent it contains those properties and techniques that the scientific mind needs for fruitful work. The first property of the mind that I have established is extreme concentration of thought, the desire of thought to think relentlessly, to stay on the issue that is intended to be resolved, to hold on for days, weeks, months, years, and in other cases, throughout life. What is the situation with the Russian mind in this regard? It seems to me that we are not inclined towards concentration, we do not like it, we even have a negative attitude towards it. I will give a number of cases from life.

Further. Contact Russian people who study, such as students. What is their attitude to this trait of the mind, to the concentration of thoughts? Gentlemen! You all know that as soon as we see a person who is attached to his work, sits over a book, ponders, does not get distracted, does not get involved in arguments, and we already have a suspicion: he is a narrow-minded, stupid person, a crammer. Or perhaps this is a person who is completely captivated by thought, who is addicted to his idea! Or in society, in a conversation, as soon as a person asks, asks again, probes, answers the question posed directly - we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, heavy-minded!

Obviously, our recommended traits are not concentration, but pressure, speed, and attack. This, obviously, is what we consider a sign of talent; for us, painstakingness and perseverance do not fit well with the idea of talent. Meanwhile, for a real mind, this thoughtfulness, stopping on one subject, is a normal thing. I heard from Helmholtz's students that he never gave immediate answers to the simplest questions. Quite often he later said that this question was completely empty and had no meaning, and yet he thought about it for several days. Take in our specialty. As soon as a person becomes attached to one issue, we immediately say: “Ah! This is a boring specialist." And look how these specialists are listened to in the West, they are valued and respected as experts in their field. Not surprising! After all, our whole life is driven by these specialists, and for us it’s boring.

How many times have I encountered this fact? One of us is developing a certain area of science, he is addicted to it, he achieves good and great results, he reports his facts and works every time. And you know how the public reacts to this: “Oh, this one! He's all about himself." Even if it is a large and important scientific field. No, we are bored, give us something new. But what? This speed, mobility, does it characterize the strength of the mind or its weakness? Take brilliant people. After all, they themselves say that they do not see any difference between themselves and other people, except for one feature, that they can concentrate on a certain thought like no one else. And then it is clear that this concentration is strength, and mobility, the running of thought is weakness.

If I had descended from the heights of these geniuses to the laboratory, to the work of average people, I would have found confirmation of this here too. In the last lecture I gave reasons for my right to this topic. For 18 years now I have been studying higher nervous activity on one animal close and dear to us, on our friend - the dog. And you can imagine that something that is complex in us is simpler in a dog, easier to express and appreciate. I will take this opportunity to show you this, to show you whether concentration or agility is strength. I will give you the results in an expedited manner, I will simply describe to you a specific case.

What happens with different animals? Here's what. One type of animal, no matter how many times you repeat the experiment, behaves exactly as I described. For every appearance of a sound, the dog gives this food reaction, and it remains like this all the time - a month, and two, and a year. Well, one thing we can say is that this is a business dog. Food is a serious matter, and the animal strives for it and prepares for it. This is the case with serious dogs. Such dogs can be distinguished even in life; These are calm, unfussy, solid animals.

And with other dogs, the longer you repeat this experience, the more lethargic, drowsy they become, and to the point where you put food in their mouth, and only then the animal gives this food reaction and begins to eat. And it’s all about your sound, because if you don’t let in this sound or let it in only for a second, this state does not happen, this dream does not come. You see that for some dogs the thought of eating even for one minute is unbearable, they already need rest. They get tired and start to sleep, giving up such an important task as food. It is clear that we have two types of nervous system, one is strong, solid, efficient, and the other is loose, flabby, and gets tired very quickly. And there is no doubt that the first type is stronger, more adapted to life.

Transfer this to a person and you will be convinced that strength does not lie in mobility, not in absentmindedness of thought, but in concentration and stability. Agility of mind is therefore a disadvantage, but not a virtue.

Gentlemen! The second technique of the mind is the desire of thought to come into direct communication with reality, bypassing all the barriers and signals that stand between reality and the knowing mind. In science you cannot do without methodology, without intermediaries, and the mind always understands this methodology so that it does not distort reality. We know that the fate of all our work depends on the correct methodology. The methodology is wrong, the signals convey reality incorrectly - and you get incorrect, erroneous, fake facts. Of course, method for the scientific mind is only the first intermediary. Behind her comes another intermediary - this is the word.

I will start with a case that is well known to me. I read physiology, a practical science. It has now become a general requirement that such experimental sciences be read demonstratively and presented in the form of experiments and facts. This is how others do it, this is how I conduct my business. All my lectures consist of demonstrations. And what do you think! I have not seen any particular attraction among students to the activities that I show them. As often as I addressed my listeners, I told them that I am not reading physiology to you, I am showing you. If I were reading, you wouldn't have to listen to me, you could read it from the book, why I'm better than others! But I’m showing you facts that you won’t see in the book, and therefore, so that your time doesn’t go to waste, take a little work. Take five minutes of time and make a mental note after the lecture about what you saw. And I remained a voice crying in the wilderness. Hardly anyone ever took my advice. I have been convinced of this a thousand times from conversations during exams, etc.

You see how unattached the Russian mind is to facts. He loves words more and uses them. That we really live by words is proven by such facts. Physiology - as a science - relies on other scientific disciplines. At every step, a physiologist has to turn to elements of physics and chemistry. And, imagine, my long teaching experience has shown me that young people who start studying physiology, that is, who have gone through high school, have no real idea about the very elements of physics and chemistry. They can’t explain to you the fact with which we begin our lives, they can’t really explain how mother’s milk reaches the baby, they don’t understand the mechanism of sucking.

And this mechanism is extremely simple, the whole point is the difference in pressure between atmospheric air and the child’s oral cavity. The same Boyle-Marriott law underlies breathing. So, exactly the same phenomenon is performed by the heart when it receives blood from the venous system. And this question about the suction action of the chest is the most deadly question on the exam, not only for students, but even for doctors. (Laughter.) This is not funny, this is terrible! This is a verdict on Russian thought; it knows only words and does not want to touch reality. I illustrate this with an even more striking case. Several years ago, Professor Manassein, editor of The Physician, sent me an article he had received from a friend whom he knew to be a very thoughtful person. But since this article is special, he asked me to express my opinion. This work was called: “A new driving force in blood circulation.” And what? This active man, only at the age of forty, understood this suction action of the chest and was so amazed that he imagined that this was a whole discovery. Strange thing! A man studied all his life and only at the age of forty did he comprehend such an elementary thing.
Thus, gentlemen, you see that Russian thought does not apply criticism of method at all, that is, it does not at all check the meaning of words, does not go behind the scenes of the word, does not like to look at true reality. We are in the business of collecting words, not studying life. I gave you examples regarding students and doctors. But why apply these examples only to students and doctors? After all, this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind. If the mind writes various algebraic formulas and does not know how to apply them to life, does not understand their meaning, then why do you think that it speaks words and understands them.

Let's move on to the next quality of mind. This is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what has been established in science as immutable. If I don’t allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new.<…>Do we have this freedom? I must say that no. I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. They pulled you out of your place and called you almost a spy. But this happens not only in our youth. Aren’t our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, but rather enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some kind of dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?

And here's another example to the previous one. We have always repeated the word “freedom” in delight, and when it comes to reality, we get a complete trampling of freedom.

The next quality of the mind is the attachment of thought to the idea on which you have settled. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, and there is no success. You must love your idea to try to justify it. But then comes the critical moment. You gave birth to an idea, it is yours, it is dear to you, but at the same time you must be impartial. And if something turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it. This means that attachment associated with absolute impartiality is the next trait of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a scientist is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look with alarm at whether this new detail is for you or against you. And through long experiments the question is resolved: is your idea dead or has it survived? Let's see what we have in this regard. We have an attachment. There are many who stand on a certain idea. But there is no absolute impartiality.

We are deaf to objections not only from those who think differently, but also from reality. At the present moment we are experiencing, I don’t even know whether it’s worth giving examples.

Take an example from the field of education. There is a general provision - freedom of education. And you know that we get to the point where we run schools without any discipline. This, of course, is the greatest mistake, a misunderstanding. Other nations have clearly grasped this, and with them freedom and discipline go side by side, but with us we certainly go to extremes for the sake of the general situation. Currently, physiological science is also coming to understand this issue. And now it is absolutely clear, indisputably, that freedom and discipline are absolutely equal things. What we call freedom is called irritation in our physiological language.<…>what is usually called discipline physiologically corresponds to the concept of “inhibition.” And it turns out that all nervous activity is composed of these two processes - excitation and inhibition. And, if you like, the second is even more important. Irritation is something chaotic, and inhibition puts this chaos into a framework.

Let's take another vital example, our social democracy. It contains a certain truth, of course, not the complete truth, for no one can claim absolute truth. For those countries where the factory industry is beginning to attract huge masses, for these countries, of course, the big question arises: to conserve energy, to protect the life and health of the worker. Further, the cultural classes, the intelligentsia, usually have a tendency towards degeneration. New forces must rise from the depths of the people to replace them. And of course, in this struggle between labor and capital, the state must protect the worker.

But this is a completely private question, and it is of great importance where industrial activity has developed greatly. What do we have? What did we make of this? We have driven this idea to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The brain and head were placed down and the legs were up. What constitutes culture, the mental strength of a nation, is devalued, and what is still brute force, which can be replaced by a machine, is brought to the fore. And all this, of course, is doomed to destruction, as a blind denial of reality.

We have a proverb: “What is healthy for a Russian is death for a German,” a proverb that almost consists of boasting about one’s savagery. But I think that it would be much fairer to say the other way around: “What is healthy for a German is death for a Russian.” I believe that the German Social Democrats will acquire even new strength, and we, because of our Russian Social Democracy, will perhaps end our political existence.

Before the revolution, the Russian people had been in awe for a long time. Why! The French had a revolution, but we didn’t! So, did we prepare for the revolution, study it? No, we didn't do that. It is only now, in retrospect, that we have pounced on books and are reading. I think this should have been done earlier. But before we only operated general concepts, in words that, well, there are revolutions, that the French had such a revolution, that the epithet “Great” is attached to it, but we don’t have a revolution. And only now we began to study French revolution, get to know her.

But I will say that it would be much more useful for us to read not the history of the French Revolution, but the history of the end of Poland. We would be more struck by the similarity of what is happening here with the history of Poland than by the similarity with the French Revolution.

Currently, this point has already become the property of laboratory experiments. This is instructive. This desire for generalities, this generalization that is far from reality, which we are proud of and on which we rely, is a primitive property of nervous activity. I have already told you how we form various connections, associations between stimuli from the outside world and the animal’s food reaction. And so, if we form such a connection to the sound of an organ pipe, other sounds will initially act, and they will cause a food reaction. This results in a generalization. This is the basic fact. And it must pass known time, you must apply special measures to ensure that only one specific sound remains valid. You act in such a way that when trying other sounds, you do not feed the animal and thanks to this you create differentiation.

It is curious that in this respect animals differ sharply from each other. One dog retains this generalization for a very long time and has difficulty changing it to businesslike and expedient specialization. In other dogs this happens quickly. Or another combination of experiences. If you take and add to this sound some other action on the dog, for example, you begin to scratch its skin, and if during such a simultaneous action of sound and scratching you do not give food, what will come of it?

Dogs here will again be divided into two categories. For one dog the following will happen. Since you feed her during one sound, but do not feed her during the action of both sound and scratching, she will very soon develop a discrimination. To one sound she will give a food reaction, and when you add scratching to the sound, she will remain calm. Do you know what happens to other dogs? Not only do they not develop such a practical discrimination, but, on the contrary, they develop a food reaction to this additional irritation, that is, to scratching alone, which, neither in itself nor in combination with sound, is never accompanied by food. You see, what confusion, lack of efficiency, inadaptability. This is the price of this generalization. It is clear that it is not dignity, it is not strength.

In my lectures I make sure that everyone understands me. I cannot read if I know that my thought does not come in the way I understand it myself. Therefore, my first condition with my listeners is that they interrupt me at least mid-sentence if they do not understand something. Otherwise, I have no interest in reading. I give the right to interrupt me at every word, but I cannot achieve this. I, of course, take into account various conditions that may make my proposal unacceptable. They are afraid that they will not be considered an upstart, etc. I give a full guarantee that this will not have any significance in the exams, and I keep my word.

Why don't they use this right? Do they understand? No. And yet they remain silent, indifferent to their misunderstanding. There is no desire to understand the subject completely, to take it into one’s own hands. I have worse examples than this. Many people of different ages, different competencies, and different nationalities have passed through my laboratory. And here is a fact that was invariably repeated that the attitude of these guests to everything they see is sharply different. Russian people, I don’t know why, do not strive to understand what they see. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner can never resist asking a question. Both Russians and foreigners visited me at the same time. And while the Russian assents, without actually understanding, the foreigner certainly gets to the root of the matter. And this runs like a red thread through everything.

Many other facts can be presented in this regard. I once had to historically research my predecessor at the Department of Physiology, Professor Vellansky2. He was, in fact, not a physiologist, but a contraband philosopher. I know for certain from Professor Rostislavov3 that in his time this Vellansky created an extraordinary sensation. His audience was always completely filled with people of different ages, classes and genders. And what? And from Rostislavov I heard that the audience was delighted, not understanding anything, and [from] Vellansky himself I found a complaint that he had many listeners, willing, passionate, but no one understood him. Then I asked to read his lectures and became convinced that there was nothing to understand, it was such a barren natural philosophy. And the audience was delighted.

In general, our public has some kind of desire for the foggy and dark. I remember an interesting report was given at some scientific society. When leaving there were many voices: “Brilliant!” And one enthusiast directly shouted: “Brilliant, brilliant, although I didn’t understand anything!” It's as if nebula is genius. How did this happen? Where did this attitude towards everything incomprehensible come from?

Of course, the striving of the mind, as an active force, is an analysis of reality, ending in a simple and clear representation of it. This is an ideal, we should be proud of it. But since somehow what the mind has received is only a crumb, a grain of sand in comparison with what remains unknown, it is clear that everyone should have a comparison of this small known and the huge unknown. And of course, every person must take into account both. You cannot base your life only on what has been scientifically established, because much has not yet been established. In many ways, one must live on other grounds, guided by instincts, habits, etc. All this is true. But excuse me, this is all in the background of thought, our pride is not ignorance, our pride is in clarity. And the ambiguity, the unknown, is just a sad inevitability. It is necessary to take it into account, but to be proud of it, to strive for it, means turning everything upside down.

And for us, first of all, the first thing is the desire for novelty, curiosity. It is enough for us to learn something, and our interest ends there. (“Oh, this is all already known”). As I said in the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths; for them this is a process of enjoyment. But for us, this is a common, hackneyed truth, and it no longer interests us, we forget it, it no longer exists for us, it does not determine our position. Is this true?

Let's move on to the last trait of the mind. Since the achievement of truth is associated with great difficulty and torment, it is clear that in the end a person constantly lives in submission to the truth, learns deep humility, for he knows what the truth stands for. Is it so with us? We don’t have this, we have the opposite. I'm going straight to the big examples. Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What examples did she show to the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And do you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don’t we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity! And doesn’t this testify to the extent to which we do not know reality, to what extent we live fantastically!

Mind is knowledge, adaptation to reality. If I don’t see reality, then how can I correspond to it? Discord is always inevitable here. Let me give you a few examples.

Take faith in our revolution. Was there any correspondence here, was this a clear vision of reality on the part of those who created the revolution during the war? Wasn’t it clear that war in itself is a terrible and big deal? May God let him through. Was there any chance that we could do two huge things at once - a war and a revolution? Didn’t the Russian people themselves create the proverb about two birds with one stone?.. Take our Duma. As soon as she gathered, she raised indignation in society against the government. That we had a degenerate on our throne, that the government was bad - we all knew that. But you utter incendiary phrases, you raise a storm of indignation, you excite society. Do you want this? And so you found yourself faced with two things - both before the war and before the revolution, which you could not do at the same time, and you yourself died. Is this a vision of reality?

Take another case. Socialist groups knew what they were doing when they took on army reform. They were always defeated by armed forces, and they considered it their duty to destroy this force. Maybe this idea to destroy the army was not ours, but in relation to the socialists there was at least visible expediency in it. But how could our military do this? How did they go to different commissions that worked out the rights of a soldier? Was there any correspondence with reality here? Who doesn’t understand that warfare is a terrible matter, that it can only be carried out under exceptional conditions. You are hired for a job where your life hangs by a thread every minute. Only through different conditions and firm discipline can one achieve a situation where a person keeps himself in a certain mood and does his job. Once you occupy him with thoughts about rights, about freedom, then what kind of army can you get? And yet, our military people participated in the corruption of the army and destroyed discipline.

Many examples can be given. I'll give you another one. Here is the Brest story, when Mr. Trotsky did his trick, when he announced both the end of the war and the demobilization of the army. Wasn't this an act of great blindness? What could you expect from an opponent waging a terrible, intense struggle with the whole world? How could he react differently to the fact that we made ourselves powerless? It was quite obvious that we would find ourselves completely in the hands of our enemy. And yet, I heard from a brilliant representative of our first political party that it is both witty and expedient. To that extent we have a correct vision of reality.

The characterization of the Russian mind that I have drawn is gloomy, and I am aware of this, bitterly aware. You will say that I have exaggerated, that I am pessimistic. I won't dispute this. The picture is grim, but what Russia is going through is also extremely grim. And I said from the very beginning that we cannot say that everything happened without our participation. You may ask why I gave this lecture, what is the point of it. What, I enjoy the misfortune of the Russian people? No, there is a vital calculation here. Firstly, it is the duty of our dignity to recognize what is. And the other thing is this.

Well, okay, perhaps we will lose our political independence, we will come under the heel of one, another, another. But we will still live! Therefore, for the future it is useful for us to have an idea about ourselves. It is important for us to be clearly aware of what we are. You understand that if I was born with a heart defect and do not know it, then I will begin to behave like a healthy person and this will soon make itself felt. I will end my life very early and tragically. If I am tested by a doctor who says that you have a heart defect, but if you adapt to this, then you can live up to 50 years. So it's always useful to know who I am.

Then there is also a gratifying point of view. After all, the mind of animals and humans is a special organ of development. It is most affected by life's influences, and it develops most perfectly both the organism of an individual person and of nations. Therefore, even if we have defects, they can be changed. This is a scientific fact. And then my characterization of our people will not be an absolute verdict. We may have hopes, some chances. I say that this is based on scientific facts. You may have a nervous system with very weak development of an important inhibitory process, the one that establishes order and measure. And you will observe all the consequences of such poor development. But after some practice and training, the nervous system is improving before our eyes, and it is very significant. This means that, regardless of what happened, we still shouldn’t lose hope.

I.P. Pavlov: “About the Russian mind in particular”
(From the resource:
http://blog.foilrussia.ru/blog/%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8 °F /450/

The second lecture by Ivan Petrovich Pavlov “About the Russian mind in particular” continues the publication of FOIL Blog Magazine “About the mind in general” and is dedicated to the mind Russian intelligentsia.

In the introduction to this lecture, Pavlov notes with bitterness that he is forced “to talk about rather sad things. But I think, or rather, I feel, that our intelligentsia, i.e. the brain of the motherland, in the funeral hour of great Russia, has no right to joy and fun. We must have one need, one duty - to protect the only dignity left to us: to look at ourselves and those around us without self-deception.”

These sorrowful feelings were evoked by the events taking place in Russia at that time; the year was 1918. The revolution and the beginning transformation of society not only worried the scientist, he saw what consequences all this was leading to and tried to point out the reasons for the errors that crept into the thinking process itself, because “what happened is not an accident, but has its own tangible reasons and these the reasons lie in ourselves, in our properties,” in our mind.

Pavlov addresses in his analysis precisely to the intelligentsia mind, explaining that the scientific mind does not have any decisive influence on social life in Russia, but the mind of the lower masses, “i.e. peasant mind par excellence. Where do we see him? Is it really in the unchangeable three-field area, or in the fact that to this day the red rooster walks freely through the villages in the summer, or in the chaos of volost gatherings? The same ignorance remains here as it was hundreds of years ago.”

Therefore, the scientist continues, “what matters, determining the essence of the future, is, of course, the intelligentsia’s mind. And its characteristics are interesting, its properties are important.”

Next, Pavlov makes a detailed comparison of the intelligentsia’s mind with the principles that he derived for the mind of a scientist, starting from the result, from the scientist’s ability to discover natural patterns, this is the criterion for the accuracy of the mind. “After all, every mind has one task - to see reality correctly, to understand it and correspondingly stick to this. […] If certain qualities are required from the scientific mind, then from the vital mind they are required to an even greater extent.”

Below are excerpts from the second lecture “On the Russian Mind” in particular" (May 1918, Petrograd), full text can be downloaded here.

1. The first property of the mind that I have established is extreme concentration of thought, the desire of the mind to think relentlessly, to stay on the issue that is intended to be resolved, to hold on for days, weeks, months, years, and in other cases, throughout life. What is the situation with the Russian mind in this regard? It seems to me that we are not inclined to concentration, we don’t love her, we even have a negative attitude towards her.

I will give a number of cases from life. Let's take our arguments. They are characterized extreme vagueness, we very soon move away from the main topic. This is our trait. Let's take our meetings. We now have so many different meetings and commissions. How long these meetings are, how verbose and in most cases inconclusive and contradictory! We spend many hours in fruitless conversations that lead nowhere.

Further. Contact Russian people who study, such as students. What is their attitude towards this trait of the mind, to concentration thoughts? Gentlemen! You all know that as soon as we see a person who is attached to his work, sits over a book, ponders, does not get distracted, does not get involved in arguments, and we already have a suspicion: he is a narrow-minded, stupid person, a crammer. Or perhaps this is a person who is completely captivated by thought, who is addicted to his idea! Or in society, in a conversation, as soon as a person asks, asks again, probes, answers the question posed directly - we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, heavy-minded!

We spend many hours in fruitless conversations that lead nowhere.

Obviously, our recommending features are lack of concentration and pressure, speed, raid. This, obviously, is what we consider a sign of talent; painstakingness and perseverance do not fit well with us with presentation about talent.

Meanwhile, for a real mind, this thoughtfulness, stopping on one subject, is a normal thing. Take brilliant people. After all, they themselves say that they do not see any difference between themselves and other people, except for one feature, that they can concentrate on a certain thought like no one else. And then it is clear that this concentration is strength, and mobility, the running of thought is weakness.

2. The second technique of the mind is the desire of thought to come directly communication with reality bypassing all the barriers and signals that stand between reality and the knowing mind. In science you cannot do without methodology, without intermediaries, and the mind always understands this methodology so that it does not distort reality. We know that the fate of all our work depends on the correct methodology. The methodology is wrong, the signals convey reality incorrectly - and you get incorrect, erroneous, fake facts. Of course, methodology for the scientific mind is only the first intermediary. Behind her comes another intermediary - this is the word.

A word is also a signal; it can be suitable and inappropriate, accurate and inaccurate. I can give you a very clear example.

Scientists-naturalists who worked a lot themselves, who turned to many points to reality directly, such scientists find it extremely difficult to lecture on something they themselves have not done. This means what a huge difference there is between what you have done yourself and between what you know from writing, from what others have told you. The difference is so sharp that it’s awkward to read about something that you yourself haven’t seen or done. This note, by the way, also comes from Helmholtz. Let's see how the Russian intellectual mind holds up in this regard.

...the Russian mind is not attached to facts. He loves words more and uses them.

As often as I addressed my listeners, I told them that I am not reading physiology to you, I am showing you. If I were reading, you wouldn't have to listen to me, you could read it from the book, why I'm better than others! But I’m showing you facts that you won’t see in the book, and therefore, so that your time doesn’t go to waste, take a little work. Take five minutes of time and make a mental note after the lecture about what you saw. And I remained a voice crying in the wilderness. Hardly anyone ever took my advice. I have been convinced of this a thousand times from conversations during exams, etc.

You see how unattached the Russian mind is to facts. He loves words more and uses them.

3. Let's move on to the next quality of mind. This is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what has been established in science as immutable. If I don’t allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new.

Do we have this freedom? I must say that no. I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. They pulled you out of your place and called you almost a spy. But this happens not only in our youth. Are our representatives in the State Are the Dumas not enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, namely enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some kind of dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?

4. The next quality of the mind is the attachment of thought to the idea on which you stopped. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, and there is no success. You must love your idea to try to justify it. But then comes the critical moment. You gave birth to an idea, it is yours, it is dear to you, but at the same time you must be impartial. And if something turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it.

We are deaf to objections not only from those who think differently, but also from reality.

This means that attachment associated with absolute impartiality is the next trait of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a scientist is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look with alarm at whether this new detail is for you or against you. And through long experiments the question is resolved: is your idea dead or has it survived?

Let's see what we have in this regard. We have an attachment. There are many who stand on a certain idea. But there is no absolute impartiality. We are deaf to objections not only from those who think differently, but also from reality. At the present moment we are experiencing, I don’t even know whether it’s worth giving examples.

5. The next, fifth feature is thoroughness, detail of thought. What is reality? This is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. There is no reality outside of this. Take astronomy, remember how the discovery of Neptune happened. When they calculated the movement of Uranus, they found that something was missing in the figures, and decided that there must be some other mass that affects the movement of Uranus. And this mass turned out to be Neptune. It was all about the detail of thought. And then they said that Le Verrier discovered Neptune with the tip of his pen.

What? How is this trait in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate entirely with general principles; we do not want to know either measure or number. We believe that all dignity lies in driving to the limit, regardless of any conditions. This is our main feature.

Russian people, I don’t know why, do not strive to understand what they see.

6. The next property of the mind is the desire of scientific thought for simplicity. Simplicity and clarity are the ideal of knowledge. You know that in technology the simplest solution to a problem is also the most valuable. A difficult achievement is worth nothing. In the same way, we know very well that the main sign of a brilliant mind is simplicity. How do we, Russians, feel about this property?

Russian people, I don’t know why, do not strive to understand what they see. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner can never resist asking a question. Both Russians and foreigners visited me at the same time. And while the Russian assents, without actually understanding, the foreigner certainly gets to the root of the matter. And this runs like a red thread through everything.

7. The next property of the mind is the desire for truth. People often spend their whole lives in the study, searching for the truth. But this desire breaks down into two acts. Firstly, the desire to acquire new truths, curiosity, inquisitiveness. And another thing is the desire to constantly return to the acquired truth, to constantly make sure and enjoy the fact that what you have acquired is really the truth, and not a mirage. One without the other makes no sense.

If you turn to a young scientist, a scientific embryo, then you clearly see that he has a desire for truth, but he does not have a desire for an absolute guarantee that this is the truth. He's happy to collects results and does not ask the question, is this an error? While the scientist is captivated not so much by the fact that it is new, but by the fact that it is a truly solid truth. What do we have?

... the result is a lot of inconsistency with the surrounding reality.

8. Let's move on to the last trait of the mind. Since the achievement of truth is associated with great difficulty and torment, it is clear that in the end a person constantly lives in submission to the truth, learns deep humility, for he knows what the truth stands for. Is it so with us? We don’t have this, we have the opposite. I'm going straight to the big examples. Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What examples did she show to the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And do you think that life has changed our views?

Not at all! Don’t we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity! And doesn't it testify this is the extent to which we do not know reality, the extent to which we live fantastically!

It is important for us to be clearly aware of what we are. You understand that if I was born with a heart defect and do not know it, then I will begin to behave like a healthy person and this will soon make itself felt. I will end my life very early and tragically. If I am tested by a doctor who says that you have a heart defect, but if you adapt to this, then you can live up to 50 years. So it's always useful to know who I am.

... even though we have defects, they can be changed. This is a scientific fact.

I wanted to give this lecture given by the great Russian scientist in March 1918 without comment. Many called it Russophobic, but is it really so? Has our thinking changed much over the past 90 years? Didn't we recklessly believe in "perestroika" and the "500 days" program? Didn't we run to vote for Yeltsin, and then for Putin, not taking into account the obvious catastrophic nature of the policies they were pursuing?

You can argue with Ivan Petrovich Pavlov , whose lecture we have to read below, regarding some points, but we need to think about the facts presented by him. And think hard, because many properties of the Russian mind are like this. how gullibility is used by our enemies, both external and internal. And forewarned means forearmed!

ABOUT THE RUSSIAN MIND

Dear sirs!

Please forgive me in advance that in the depressing times we are all going through, I will now talk about some rather sad things. But I think, or rather, I feel that our intelligentsia, i.e. the brain of the motherland, in the funeral hour of great Russia, has no right to joy and fun.

We must have one need, one duty - to preserve the only dignity we have been given: to look at ourselves and our surroundings without self-deception. Prompted by this motive, I considered it my duty and allowed myself to draw your attention to my life impressions and observations regarding our Russian mind.

What is the Russian mind? This issue needs to be addressed. Of course, several types of mind stand out clearly.

Further. This mind is a private mind, relating to a very small part of the people, and it could not characterize the entire national mind as a whole. The number of scientists, I mean, of course, true scientists, especially in backward countries, is very small. According to the statistics of one American astronomer, who began to determine the scientific productivity of various peoples, our Russian productivity is insignificant. It is several tens of times less than the productivity of the advanced cultural countries of Europe.

Therefore, it seems to me that I am right if in the future I do not take into account the scientific mind. But then what kind of mind will I use? Obviously, by the mass, general life mind, which determines the fate of the people. But the mass mind will have to be subdivided. This will be, firstly, the mind of the lower masses and then the intelligent mind. It seems to me that if we talk about the general life mind that determines the fate of the people, then the mind of the lower masses will have to be left aside.

Let us take in Russia this mass, that is, the peasant mind par excellence. Where do we see him? Is it really in the unchangeable three-field or in the fact that to this day the red rooster walks freely through the villages in the summer, or in the chaos of volost gatherings? The same ignorance that existed hundreds of years ago remains here.

I recently read in the newspapers that when the soldiers were returning from the Turkish front, they wanted to arrange a quarantine because of the danger of spreading the plague. But the soldiers did not agree to this and directly said: “We don’t care about this quarantine, all this is bourgeois invention.” Or another case. Once, a few months ago, at the very height of Bolshevik power, my servant was visited by her brother, a sailor, of course, a socialist to the core. As expected, he saw all the evil in the bourgeoisie, and by bourgeoisie we meant everyone except sailors and soldiers. When they pointed out to him that you would hardly be able to do without the bourgeoisie - for example, cholera would appear, what would you do without doctors, he solemnly replied that it was all nothing, “after all, it has long been known that cholera is caused by the doctors themselves.” Is it worth talking about such a mind and can any responsibility be placed on it?

That’s why I think that what is worth talking about and characterizing, what matters in determining the fate of science, is, of course, the intelligent mind. And its characteristics are interesting, its properties are important. It seems to me that what has happened now in Russia is, of course, the work of an intelligent mind, while the masses played a completely passive role, they accepted the movement along which the intelligentsia directed them. To refuse this, I believe, would be unfair and undignified.

After all, if reactionary thought stood on the principle of power and order and only brought it to life, and at the same time, the lack of legality and enlightenment kept the masses of the people in a savage state, then, on the other hand, it should be recognized that progressive thought did not try so much for enlightenment and cultivating the people, so much about revolutionizing them.

I think that you and I are educated enough to recognize that what happened is not an accident, but has its own tangible reasons, and these reasons lie in ourselves, in our properties.

FIRST the property of the mind that I have established is the extreme concentration of thought, the desire of thought to think relentlessly, to stay on the issue that is intended to be resolved, to hold on for days, weeks, months, years, and in other cases, throughout life. What is the situation with the Russian mind in this regard? It seems to me that we are not inclined towards concentration, we do not like it, we even have a negative attitude towards it.

I will give a number of cases from life. Let's take our arguments. They are characterized by extreme vagueness; we very quickly move away from the main topic. This is our trait. Let's take our meetings. We now have a lot of different meetings and commissions. How long these meetings are, how verbose and in most cases inconclusive and contradictory. We spend many hours in fruitless conversations that lead nowhere.

A topic is brought up for discussion, and at first there are usually no hunters to speak. But then one voice speaks, and after that everyone wants to talk, talk without any sense, without thinking carefully about the topic, and without understanding whether this will complicate the solution of the issue or speed it up. Endless remarks are given, on which more time is spent than on the main subject, and our conversations grow like a snowball. And in the end, instead of a solution, the issue becomes confused.

Further. Contact studying Russian people, for example, students. What is their attitude to this trait of the mind, to the concentration of thoughts? Gentlemen! You all know that as soon as we see a person who is attached to his work, sits over a book, thinks deeply, does not get involved in disputes, and we already have a suspicion: “a narrow-minded, stupid person, a crammer.” Or perhaps this is a person who is completely captivated by thought, who is addicted to his idea.

Or, in society, in a conversation, as soon as a person asks, asks again, does not answer the question posed directly, - and we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, heavy-minded! Obviously, our recommended traits are not concentration, but pressure, speed, and attack. Obviously, we consider this a sign of talent, while painstakingness and perseverance for us do not fit well with the idea of talent. Meanwhile, for a real mind, this thoughtfulness, stopping on one subject, is a normal thing.

Take in our specialty. As soon as a person becomes attached to one issue, they immediately say: “Oh, this is a boring specialist.” And look how these specialists are listened to in the West, they are valued and respected as experts in their field. Not surprising! After all, our whole life is driven by these specialists, and for us it’s boring. One of us is developing a certain area of science, he is addicted to it, he achieves good and great results, he reports his facts and works every time. And you know how the public reacts to this: “Oh, this one! Is he all about his own? Even if it is a very large and important scientific field. No, we’re bored, give us something new.”

But what? This speed, mobility, does it characterize the strength of the mind or its weakness? Take brilliant people. After all, they themselves say that they see no difference between themselves and other people except for one feature, that they can concentrate on a certain thought like no one else. And then it will become clear that this concentration is strength, and mobility, the running of thought is weakness. If from the heights of these geniuses we descended into the laboratories to the work of average people, I would find confirmation of this here too.

GENTLEMEN! The second technique of the mind is the desire of thought to come into direct communication with reality, bypassing all the barriers and signals that stand between reality and the knowing mind.

In science you cannot do without a methodology, without intermediaries, and the mind always understands this methodology so that it does not distort reality. We know that the fate of all our work depends on the correct methodology. The methodology is wrong, the signals convey reality incorrectly - and you get incorrect, erroneous, fake facts. Of course, methodology is only the first mediator for the scientific mind.

Behind her comes the second intermediary - this is the word. A word is also a signal; it can be suitable and inappropriate, accurate and inaccurate. I can give you a very clear example. Scientific naturalists who have worked a lot themselves, who have addressed reality directly at many points, such scientists find it extremely difficult to lecture on something that they themselves have not done. This means what a huge difference there is between what you have done yourself and what you know from writing, from what others have told you. The difference is so sharp that it’s awkward to read about something that you yourself haven’t seen or done. This note, by the way, also comes from Helmholtz.

Let's see how the Russian intelligent mind holds up in this regard. I will start with a case well known to me. I read physiology, a practical science. Now it has become a general opinion that such experimental sciences should be read demonstratively, presented in the form of experiments and facts. All my lectures consist of a demonstration. And what do you think! I have not seen any particular attraction among students to the activities that I show them. As much as I addressed my listeners, as much as I told them that I am not reading physiology to you, I am showing you. If I were reading, you wouldn’t have to listen to me, you could read it from the book, why I’m better than others. But I am showing you facts that you will not see in the book, and therefore, so that time does not go to waste, take a little work. Take 5 minutes of time and make a mental note after the lecture about what you saw. And I remained a voice crying in the wilderness. Hardly any of them followed my advice. You see how unattached the Russian mind is to facts. He loves words more and uses them.

Thus, gentlemen, you see that Russian thought does not apply criticism of method at all, i.e. does not at all check the meaning of words, does not like to look at true reality. We are in the business of collecting words, not studying life.

I gave you examples of students and doctors. But why do these examples only apply to students and doctors? After all, this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind. If the mind writes various algebraic formulas and does not know how to apply them to life, does not understand their meaning, then why do you think that it speaks words and understands them?

Take the Russian public present at the debate. It is a common thing that people who say “for” and those who say “against” passionately clap. Does this indicate understanding? After all, there is only one truth, because reality cannot be both white and black at the same time. I remember one medical meeting at which Sergei Petrovich Botkin chaired. Two speakers spoke, objecting to each other. Both spoke well, both were sharp, and the audience applauded both. And I remember that the chairman then said: “I see that the public has not yet matured to resolve this issue, and therefore I am removing it from the queue.” It is clear that there is only one reality. What do you approve of in both cases? Beautiful verbal gymnastics, fireworks of words?

LET'S MOVE ON to the next quality of mind. This is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what has been established in science as immutable. If I don’t allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new. Do you have this freedom? I must say that no.

I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. They pulled you out of your place and called you almost a spy. But this happens not only in our youth. Aren’t our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, but rather enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some kind of dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?

And here's another example to the previous one. We have always repeated the word “freedom” with delight, and when it comes to reality, we get a complete disregard for freedom.

FOLLOWING the quality of the mind is the attachment of thought to the idea on which you settled. If there is no attachment, then there is no energy, and there is no success. You must love your idea to try to justify it. But then comes the critical moment. You gave birth to an idea, it is yours, it is dear to you, but at the same time you must be impartial. And if something turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it. This means that attachment associated with absolute impartiality is the next trait of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a scientist is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look with alarm at whether this new detail is for you or against you. And through long experiments the question is resolved: the death of your idea or it has survived.

Let's see what we have in this regard. We have an attachment, there are many such persons who stand on a certain idea. But there is no absolute impartiality. We are deaf to objections not only from those who think differently, but also from reality.

The next, fifth feature is thoroughness, detail of thought. What is reality? This is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. There is no reality outside of this. Take astronomy, remember how the discovery of Neptune happened. When they calculated the movement of Uranus, they found that something was missing in the figures, and decided that there must be some other mass that affects the movement of Uranus. And this mass turned out to be Neptune. It was all about the detail of thought. And then they said that Le Verrier discovered Neptune with the tip of his pen. It's the same if you go down to the complexity of life. How many times does some small phenomenon that your gaze barely catches turn everything upside down and be the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about assessing the details of the conditions in detail. This is the main feature of the mind.

What? What does this trait look like in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate entirely with general principles; we do not want to know either measure or number. We believe that all dignity lies in driving to the limit, regardless of any conditions. This is our main feature.

The cultural classes, the intelligentsia, usually have a tendency towards degeneration. New forces must rise from the depths of the people to replace them. And, of course, in this struggle between labor and capital, the state must protect the worker. But this is a completely private question, and it is of great importance where industry has developed greatly. What do we have? What did they make of it? We have driven this idea to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The brain and head were placed down and the legs were up. What constitutes culture, the mental strength of a nation, is devalued, and what is still brute force, which can be replaced by a machine, is brought to the fore. And all this, of course, is doomed to destruction, as a blind denial of reality.

We have a proverb: “What is healthy for a Russian is death for a German,” a proverb that almost consists of boasting about one’s savagery. But I think it would be much fairer to say the other way around: “What is healthy for a German is death for a Russian.” I believe that the German Social Democrats will gain even new strength, and because of our Russian Social Democracy, perhaps we will end our political existence.

Before the revolution, the Russian people had been in awe for a long time. Well, the French had it, but we didn’t. So, did we prepare for the revolution, study it? No, we didn't do that. We only now, in retrospect, pounced on books and read. I think this should have been done earlier. But before, we only operated with general concepts, with the words that, well, there are revolutions, that the French had such a revolution, that the epithet “great” was attached to it, but we don’t have a revolution. And only now we began to study the French Revolution and get acquainted with it.

FOLLOWING a property of the mind is the desire of scientific thought for simplicity. Simplicity and clarity are the ideal of knowledge. You know that in technology the simplest solution to a problem is also the most valuable. A difficult achievement is worth nothing. In the same way, we know very well that the main sign of a brilliant mind is simplicity. How did we Russians feel about this property? The following facts will show how much we hold this technique in high esteem.

Many people of different ages, different competencies, and different nationalities have passed through my laboratory. And here is a fact that was invariably repeated that the attitude of these guests to everything they see is sharply different. Russian people, I don’t know why, do not strive to understand what they see. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner can never resist asking a question. Both Russians and foreigners visited me at the same time. And while the Russian assents, without actually understanding, the foreigner certainly gets to the root of the matter. And this runs like a red thread through everything. Many other facts can be presented in this regard.

In general, our public has some kind of desire for the foggy and dark. I remember an interesting report was given at some scientific society. There were a lot of “brilliant” votes when it came out. And one enthusiast directly shouted: “Brilliant, brilliant, although I didn’t understand anything!” It's as if nebula is genius.

And with us, first of all, the first thing is the desire for novelty, curiosity. It is enough for us to learn something, and our interest ends there. As I said in the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths; for them it is a process of enjoyment. But for us, this is a common, hackneyed truth, and it no longer interests us, we forget it, it no longer exists for us, it does not determine our position. Is this true?

Let's move on to the last trait of the mind. Since the achievement of truth is associated with great difficulty and suffering, it is clear that a person constantly lives in submission to the truth, learns deep humility, for he knows what the truth stands for. Is it so with us? We don’t have this, we have the opposite. I'm going straight to the examples. Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What samples did you show to the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the “rotten” West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And do you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don’t we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity! And doesn’t this testify to the extent to which we do not know reality, to what extent we live fantastically!

Take faith in our revolution. Was there a clear vision of reality here on the part of those who created the revolution during the war? Wasn’t it clear that war in itself was a terrible and big deal? May God let him through. Was there any chance that we could do two huge things at once - a war and a revolution? Didn’t the Russian people themselves create the proverb about two birds with one stone?

Take our Duma. As soon as she gathered, she raised indignation in society against the government. That we had a degenerate on our throne, that our government was bad - we all knew that. But you utter incendiary phrases, you raise a storm of indignation, you excite society. Do you want this? And so you found yourself between two things - both before the war and before the revolution, which you could not do at the same time, and you died yourself. Is this a vision of reality?

Take another case. Socialist groups knew what they were doing when they took on army reform. They were always defeated by the armed forces and they considered it their duty to destroy this force. Maybe this idea - to destroy the army - was not ours, but in relation to the socialists, there was at least visible expediency in it. But how could our military do this? How did they go to different commissions that worked out the rights of soldiers? Was there any correspondence with reality here? Who doesn’t understand that military affairs is a terrible matter, that it can only be carried out under exceptional conditions. You are hired for a job where your life hangs by a thread every minute. Only through different conditions and firm discipline can one achieve a situation where a person keeps himself in a certain mood and does his job. Once you occupy him with thoughts about rights, about freedom, then what kind of army can you get? And yet, our military people participated in the corruption of the army and destroyed discipline.

Many examples can be given. I'll give you another one. Here is the Brest story, when Mr. Trotsky did his trick, when he announced both the end of the war and the demobilization of the army. Wasn't this an act of great blindness? What could you expect from an opponent waging a terrible, intense struggle with the whole world? How could he react differently to you making yourself powerless? It was quite obvious that we would find ourselves completely in the hands of our enemy. And yet I have heard from a brilliant representative of our first political party that this is both ingenious and expedient. To that extent we have a correct vision of reality.

You may ask why I gave this lecture, what is the point of it. What, I enjoy the misfortune of the Russian people? No, there is a vital calculation here. Firstly, it is the duty of our dignity to realize what is. And the other thing is this. Well, okay, we may lose our political independence, we will fall under the heel of one, another, another. But we will still live! Therefore, for the future it is useful for us to have an idea about ourselves. It is important for us to be clearly aware of what we are. You understand that if I was born with a heart defect and do not know it, then I will begin to behave like a healthy person and this will soon make itself felt. I will end my life early and tragically. If I am tested by a doctor who says that you have a heart defect, but if you adapt to this, then you can live up to 50 years. So it's always useful to know who I am.

Then there is also a gratifying point of view. After all, the mind of animals and humans is a special organ of development. It is most affected by life's influences and it is through which the organism of the individual and of nations develops most perfectly. Therefore, even if we have defects, they can be changed. This is a scientific fact. And then my characterization of our people will not be an absolute verdict. We may have hopes, some chances. I say that this is based on scientific facts.

You may have a nervous system with very weak development of the important inhibitory process that establishes order, theme. And you will observe all the consequences of such poor development. But after some practice and training, the nervous system is improving before our eyes, and it is very significant. This means that, despite what happened, we still shouldn’t lose hope.