Academician Pavlov about Russian people. Academician I

In the spring of 1918, the famous Russian scientist, Nobel Prize laureate in 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 of the mind, I settled on one type of mind, well known to me partly from personal experience in a scientific laboratory, partly literary, specifically on the scientific mind and especially on the natural science mind, which develops the 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 the advanced cultural countries of 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 was not up to the mark, did not reveal the necessary qualities, or made a mistake in scientific work, the problem is small. I'll lose in vain known number animals, and that's 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 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.

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 evaluate. 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 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.

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. 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.

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. 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 one even has higher value. Irritation is something chaotic, and inhibition puts this chaos into a framework.

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 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'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!

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 detailed intelligence, instead of 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.

In April - May 1918 I.P. Pavlov gave three lectures, which are united by the conventional title
“About the mind in general, about the Russian mind in particular.” All three lectures with detailed commentary
published in No.9 “Physiological Journal named after. I.M. Sechenov” for 1999.
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (September 14 (26), 1849, Ryazan - February 27, 1936, Leningrad | St. Petersburg) - Russian scientist, the first Russian Nobel laureate, physiologist, creator of the science of higher nervous activity and ideas about the processes of regulation of digestion; founder of the largest Russian physiological school; winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1904 “for his work on the physiology of digestion.”
Despite all the efforts of the Soviet government to attract a scientist of this level to political activity, I.P. Pavlov remained true to his ideals and did not support Soviet power- which he has repeatedly and publicly stated.
Speaking at the anniversary of I. M. Sechenov, whom he deeply revered, I. Pavlov publicly stated:
“...Without the Ivanov Mikhailovichs with their sense of dignity and duty, every state is doomed to destruction from within, regardless of any Dnieper construction.<…>A paragraph was introduced into the Charter of the Academy [of Sciences] that all work should be carried out on the platform of the teachings of Marx and Engels - isn’t this the greatest violence against scientific thought? How does this differ from the medieval Inquisition?<…>We are ordered (!) to elect as members of the Supreme Scientific Institution people whom we, in good conscience, cannot recognize as scientists. ...The former intelligentsia is partly exterminated, and partly corrupted. »
From a letter to the Minister of Health of the RSFSR G. N. Kaminsky dated October 10, 1934:
“Unfortunately, I feel almost directly opposite to you in relation to your revolution. It worries me very much... Many years of terror and the unbridled willfulness of power are turning our Asian nature into a shamefully slavish one. How much good can you do with slaves? Pyramids? Yes; but not general true human happiness. Malnutrition and repeated starvation among the masses of the population, with their indispensable companions - widespread epidemics, undermine the strength of the people. Please forgive me... I wrote sincerely that I was worried. »
On December 21, 1934, Pavlov sent a letter to the Council of People's Commissars - the Government of the USSR, in which he openly expressed his convictions:
“You are in vain to believe in world revolution. You sow according to cultural world not revolution, but fascism with enormous success. There was no fascism before your revolution. After all, even two of your rehearsals before your October celebration were not enough for the political babies of the Provisional Government. All other governments do not at all want to see in themselves what we had and have, and, of course, they realize in time to use what you used to prevent this - terror and violence.
But it’s hard for me not because world fascism will hold back the pace of natural human progress for a certain period of time, but because of what is happening here, and which, in my opinion, threatens my Motherland with serious danger. »

About the mind in general, about the Russian mind in particular

About the mind in general

About the Russian mind

About the mind in general

The motive of my lecture is the fulfillment of one great commandment bequeathed by the classical world to subsequent humanity. This commandment is true, like reality itself, and at the same time comprehensive. It captures everything in a person’s life, from the smallest funny incidents of everyday life to greatest tragedies humanity. This commandment is very short, it consists of three words: “Know yourself.” If I, in my present form, who have never had a voice for singing, who have never learned to sing, imagine that I have a pleasant voice and that I have an exceptional talent for singing, and begin to treat my loved ones and acquaintances with arias and romances, then this It will only be funny. But if a whole people, in its main lower masses, has not moved far from the slave state, and in the intelligentsia strata for the most part having only borrowed someone else's culture, and not always successfully, a people who, on the whole, have given relatively little of their own independent and general culture, and in science - if such a people imagines itself as the leader of humanity and begins to supply for other peoples examples of new cultural forms of life, then we are faced with regrettable, fatal events that may threaten to this people the loss of his political independence.

Fulfilling the classical commandment, I made it my duty to try to provide some material to characterize the Russian mind. You may ask me what rights do I have to this, that I am a historian of Russian culture or a psychologist? No, I am neither one nor the other - and yet it seems to me that I have some right on this topic.

Gentlemen! As a young man, I entered a scientific experimental laboratory, in it I spent my whole life, in it I became an old man, and in it I dream of ending my life. What did I see in this laboratory? I saw here the tireless work of the mind, moreover, the work is constantly being checked: is it fruitful, does it lead to the goal, or is it empty, erroneous. Therefore, it can be assumed that I understand what the mind is and in what it is revealed. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, I constantly moved in intellectual circles, I am a member of three scientific colleges, I constantly came into contact and communicated with numerous comrades who devoted themselves to science; whole thousands of young people passed before me who chose the intellectual and humane activity of a doctor as their life’s occupation, not to mention others life encounters. And it seems to me that I have learned to appreciate the human mind in general and our Russian mind in particular.

Of course, I won’t dive into the subtlest details now. psychological research about the mind. I will take a purely practical approach to the whole issue. I will describe to you the mind in its workings, as I know it from personal experience and from the statements of the greatest exponents of human thought. And then, having characterized the mind in this way, I will apply this characteristic as a criterion, like a yardstick, to the Russian mind and see how it compares with this standard.

What is a scientific laboratory? This small world, a small corner of reality. And a person with his mind rushes into this corner and sets himself the task of finding out this reality: what elements it consists of, how they are grouped, connected, what depends on what, etc. In a word, a person has the goal of becoming familiar with this reality so that he can correctly predict what will happen in it in one or another case, so that he can even direct this reality at his own discretion, dispose of it, if this is within the limits of our technical means.

Constant concentration of thought on a specific issue

To the picture of the mind as it manifests itself in laboratory work, I’ll get started and try to show all sides of him, all the techniques he uses when he comprehends this small corner of reality. The first, most general property, quality of the mind is the constant concentration of thought on a specific issue or object. You should not part with the subject in which you are working for even a minute. Truly, you must fall asleep with it, wake up with it, and only then can you count on the moment when the mystery facing you will be revealed and solved.

You understand, of course, that when the mind is directed towards reality, it receives from it various impressions, chaotically developing, scattered. These impressions must be in constant motion in your head, like pieces in a kaleidoscope, so that later in your mind that figure, that image that corresponds to the system of reality, being its true imprint, is formed.

There is a possibility that when I talk about relentless thinking, on Russian soil I will come across the following statement, even partly of a victorious nature: “And if you need to strain so much in your work, then obviously you have little strength!” No! We, small and medium-sized workers of science, know very well the difference between ourselves and the great masters of science. We measure both their work and our work every day and can determine what they are doing. May we acquire fathoms and tithes from the endless unknown for the kingdom of knowledge, and may the great masters acquire vast territories. So be it. This is an obvious fact for us. But judging by our own experience and the statements of these greatest representatives of science, the laws of mental work are the same for us and for them. And that first point with which I began, that first property with which I began to characterize the activity of the mind, is emphasized even more among them than among us, little workers.

Let us at least remember Newton. After all, he never parted with his idea of gravity for a minute. Whether he was on holiday, whether he was alone, whether he was presiding over a meeting of the Royal Society, etc., he was always thinking about the same thing. It is clear that his idea haunted him everywhere, every minute. Or the great Helmholtz. In one of his speeches, he directly poses the question of how he differs from other people. And he answers that he could not notice any difference, except for only one feature, which, as it seemed to him, distinguishes him from the others. It seemed to him that no one else was digging into the subject like he was. He says that when he set himself a task, he could no longer get rid of it; it haunted him constantly until he solved it. You see, therefore, that this persistence, this concentration of thought, is a common trait of the mind from great to small people, a trait that ensures the functioning of the mind.

Direct vision of reality

I will now move on to the next trait of the mind. The reality that the mind sets out to understand, this reality is largely hidden from it. It is, as they say, hidden behind seven locks. Between reality and mind there is and must stand whole line signals that completely obscure this reality. I'm not even talking about the now well-known position that our sensations of feelings are also only signals of reality. But this is followed by a whole series of other inevitable signals. In fact, reality can be removed from the observer, and it must be brought closer, for example, with the help of a telescope; it can be extremely small, and you need to enlarge it, look at it through a microscope; it can be flying, fast, and it must be stopped or devices that can keep up with it must be used, etc., etc. You can’t do without all this, all this is necessary, especially if you need to capture this reality for other works, convey it, present it to others.

Thus, a long series of signals accumulates between you and reality. Let me give you a small example. Perhaps some of my listeners know that we are currently working on a question concerning the cerebral hemispheres, i.e. department in charge of higher nervous activity of the animal. Moreover, we use the salivary gland as a reagent for this activity, and therefore we have to observe the work of this latter. We do this in such a way that the end of the excretory [canal] of the salivary gland duct, the end of the tube through which saliva flows, is transplanted from the mouth to the outside. After such an operation, saliva no longer flows into the mouth, but out, and by sticking a small funnel here, we can collect this saliva and count it drop by drop as it flows out of the tip of the funnel.

It would seem that it is easier! And yet adults have made and continue to make mistakes intelligent people who are taking on this work. As soon as a small crust forms on the opening of the salivary duct, the saliva will flow out. An inexperienced observer will not pay attention to this, will not take it into account and runs away with the statement that he succeeded unexpected fact, sometimes imagining that we are talking about a whole discovery. Another also asks for clarification as to why his saliva stopped flowing during the experiment - it turns out that the funnel has lagged a little behind the skin - and the saliva flows past. A trifle, and yet this trifle immediately makes itself felt, and it must be taken into account in order not to be deceived. Now imagine, instead of this simple funnel, some complex tool. How many mistakes can there be here! And so the mind must sort out all these signals, take into account all these possibilities of errors that distort reality, and eliminate or prevent them all.

And finally, when you reach conclusions, when you begin to operate with those verbal signals - the labels that you have put in place of facts - then the falsification of reality can reach enormous proportions. You see how many different difficulties arise that prevent you from clearly seeing the true reality. And the task of your mind will be to reach a direct vision of reality, albeit through various signals, but bypassing and eliminating numerous obstacles that inevitably arise.

Absolute freedom of thought

The next feature of the mind is absolute freedom of thought, a freedom about which in everyday life one cannot even imagine the remotest idea. You must always be ready to renounce everything that you have hitherto firmly believed in, what you have been passionate about, what you have believed to be the pride of your thought, and not even be embarrassed by those truths that seem to have been established forever by science. Reality is great, boundless, infinite and diverse, it never fits into the framework of our recognized concepts, our latest knowledge... Without absolute freedom of thought, you cannot see anything truly new that is not a direct conclusion from what you already know.

To illustrate this in science, you can find many interesting facts. Let me give you an example from my science. You know that the central organ of blood circulation is the heart, an extremely responsible organ that holds in its hands the fate of the entire organism. Physiologists have been interested for many years in finding the nerves that control this important organ. It was known that all skeletal muscles are controlled by nerves, and one had to think that even more so the heart, which performs its work with the most subtle and in the most precise way. And so they waited and looked for these nerves, the rulers of the heart, and for a long time couldn't find it.

I must say that human knowledge First of all, the nerves of the skeletal muscles, the so-called motor nerves, were given. It was very easy to find them. As soon as any nerve was cut, the muscle to which that nerve went became paralyzed. On the other hand, if you artificially call this nerve into activity, irritating it, for example, with an electric current, you get muscle work - the muscle moves and contracts before your eyes. So, physiologists were looking for the same nerve, acting in the same way, in the heart, and science at that time did not know any other nerves other than these motor nerves that cause the organ to work.

The thought stopped there and froze in routine. With this thought, physiologists approached the heart. The nerve leading to the heart was not difficult to find. It runs along the neck, descends into the chest cavity and gives branches to various internal organs, including the heart. This is the so-called vagus nerve. Physiologists had it in their hands, and all that remained was to prove that this nerve really controlled the work of the heart. And here are many outstanding minds, it is enough to name Humboldt, they struggled to resolve this issue and could not see anything, could not note the effect of this nerve on the heart.

Why is this so? Perhaps this nerve does not act on the heart? No, it acts extremely sharply and clearly, to such an extent that this action cannot be ignored. At present it represents an experience which cannot fail in the hands of the ignorant. The effect of this nerve on the heart is that if you irritate it, the heart begins to beat slower and slower and finally stops completely. This means that it was a nerve that, quite unexpectedly, acted differently from the nerves of skeletal muscles. This is the nerve that lengthens the pauses between heartbeats and provides rest to the heart. In a word, a nerve that was not thought about and which therefore was not seen. The man had no thought and could not see extremely simple fact. This is a strikingly interesting example! Brilliant people looked and could not see reality; it hid from them.

I think you now understand why absolute freedom is required from the mind that comprehends reality. Only when your thought can imagine everything, even if it contradicts established principles, only then can it notice something new. And we have direct instructions coming from the great masters of science, where this technique is applied fully, to the highest extent. It is known about the famous English physicist Faraday that he made such incredible assumptions, so loosened his thoughts, gave such freedom to his imagination that he was embarrassed to carry out well-known experiments in the presence of everyone. He locked himself away and worked in private, testing his wild assumptions. This extreme licentiousness of thought is immediately tempered by the following trait, a very difficult trait for the investigating mind. This is absolute impartiality of thought.

Absolute impartiality of thought

This means that no matter how much you love any of your ideas, no matter how much time you spend on developing it, you must discard it, abandon it, if a fact comes across that contradicts it and refutes it. And this, of course, represents terrible trials for a person. This impartiality of thought can only be achieved through many years of persistent schooling. How difficult this is - I can give a simple example from my laboratory practice. I remember one very smart person with whom we did a study and got known facts. No matter how much we checked our results, everything tended towards the interpretation we had established. But then the thought occurred to me that perhaps everything depended on other reasons. If this new assumption were [confirmed], it would extremely undermine the significance of our experiments and the consistency of our explanations. And this dear man asked me not to do new experiments, not to test this assumption, he was so sorry to part with his ideas, he was so afraid for them. And this is not just his weakness, it is the weakness of everyone.

I remember my first years very well. To such an extent you did not want to deviate from what you had placed the reputation of your thought, your pride. This is a really difficult thing; here lies the true drama of a learned man. For such impartiality of thought must be able to be combined and reconciled with your attachment to your guiding idea, which you constantly carry in your mind. Just as a mother values her child, just as the mother alone is better than anyone else at raising it and protecting it from danger - the same is true with your idea. From you, from the one who gave birth to it, the idea should receive development and strength. You, and no one else, must use it to the end and extract from it all that is true in it. No one can replace you here...

So, you must be extremely attached to your idea, and next to this you must be ready at any moment to pronounce a death sentence on it, to abandon it. It's extremely hard! In this case, you have to walk around in great sadness and reconcile for weeks. I then remembered the case of Abraham, to whom, at his persistent request, in his old age God gave his only son, and then demanded that he sacrifice this son and slaughter it. It's the same here. But it is impossible to do without such impartiality of thought. When reality begins to speak against you, you must submit, because you can deceive yourself very easily, and others, at least temporarily, too, but you cannot deceive reality. That's why at the end of a very long life path a person develops the conviction that the only merit of your work, your thoughts, is to guess and defeat reality, no matter what mistakes and blows to pride it may cost. But you have to ignore the opinions of others, you have to forget them.

Thoroughness of thought

Further. Life and reality are, of course, extremely diverse. As much as we know, all this is insignificant compared to the diversity and infinity of life. Life is the embodiment of an infinitely varied measure of weight, degree, number and other conditions. And all this must be captured by the studying mind; without this there is no knowledge. If we do not take into account measure, degree, etc., if we do not master them, we remain powerless before reality and cannot gain power over it. All science is a continuous illustration of this theme. Quite often some small detail that you did not take into account, did not foresee, turns your entire structure upside down, and, on the other hand, the same detail often opens up new horizons for you, leads you to new paths. Extreme attention is required from the searching mind. And yet, no matter how much a person strains his attention, he still cannot embrace all the elements of the reality among which he acts, he cannot notice, catch, understand and conquer everything.

Take this simple example. You are presenting the results of your observations to others, and it is extremely difficult to present it all in such a way that another person, reading your case, could notice everything just as you saw it. We constantly encounter the fact that people, even in the most conscientious repetition of all the conditions of some described experience, cannot reproduce what the author saw. The latter did not mention any small detail, and you can no longer understand and find out what is going on here. And often only people standing on the sidelines notice this and reproduce the experiences of both.

The following is interesting. Just as in the case of mental attachment, in exactly the same way a very delicate balancing is required here. You must, as long as your attention is enough, cover all the details, all the conditions, and however, if you capture everything from the very beginning, you will not do anything, these details will weaken you. There are any number of researchers who are pressed by these details, and the matter does not move forward. Here you need to be able to close your eyes to many details for some time in order to then embrace and connect everything. On the one hand, you must be very careful, on the other hand, you are required to be attentive to many conditions. The interest of the matter tells you: “Leave it alone, calm down, don’t distract yourself.”

Simplicity, complete clarity, complete understanding

Further. The ideal of the mind when considering reality is simplicity, complete clarity, complete understanding. It is well known that until you have comprehended a subject, it seems complicated and vague to you. But once the truth is grasped, everything becomes simple. The sign of truth is simplicity, and all geniuses are simple in their truths. But this is not enough. The functioning mind must be clearly aware that it does not understand something, and admit it. Here again, balancing is necessary. There are any number of people and researchers who limit themselves to misunderstanding. And the victory of great minds lies in the fact that where the ordinary mind believes that it has understood and studied everything, the great mind asks itself the questions: “Yes, is all this really understandable, is it really so?” And very often just such a formulation of the question is the threshold major discovery. There are any number of examples in this regard.

The famous Dutch physicist Van't Hoff in his American petitions says: “I believe that I owe my discovery to the fact that I dared to ask myself whether I really understand all the conditions, whether this is really so.” You see, therefore, to what extent the desire for clarity and simplicity is important, and on the other hand, the courage to admit one’s misunderstanding is necessary. But this balancing of the mind goes even further. One can even find in a person some antagonism towards such a concept, which explains too much, leaving nothing incomprehensible. There is some kind of instinct here that rears up, and a person even strives for there to be some part of the incomprehensible, unknown. And this is a completely legitimate need of the mind, since it is unnatural for everything to be clear, since we are and will be surrounded by such an endless unknown. You may notice how pleasant it is to read a book by a great man who reveals much and at the same time points out that there is still much unknown. This is the zeal of the mind for the truth, a zeal that does not allow one to say that everything has already been exhausted and there is no need to work anymore.

The truth must be admired

Further. The mind needs the habit of persistently looking at the truth and rejoicing in it. It’s not enough to capture the truth and be satisfied with that. The truth must be admired, it must be loved. When I was abroad in my youth and listened to great old professors, I was amazed how they, who had been giving lectures for decades, nevertheless read them with such enthusiasm and carried out experiments with such care. I didn’t understand it well then. And then, when I myself had to become an old man, it became clear to me. This is a completely natural habit of a person who discovers truths. Such a person has a need to constantly look at this truth. He knows what it cost, what mental stress, and he takes every opportunity to once again make sure that this is really a solid truth, indestructible, that it is always the same as at the time when it was discovered. And now, when I carry out experiments, I think there is hardly a single listener who would look at them with such interest, with such passion, as I do, seeing this for the hundredth time.

They say about Helmholtz that when he discovered the law of conservation of forces, when he imagined that all the diverse energy of life on earth is the transformation of energy radiating towards us from the Sun, he turned into a real sun worshiper. I heard from Zion that Helmholtz, while living in Heidelberg, for many years every morning hurried to a hillock to see the rising sun. And I imagine how he admired his truth at the same time.

Humility of Thought

The last trait of the mind, which truly crowns everything, is humility of thought, modesty of thought. Examples of this are well known. Who does not know Darwin, who does not know the tremendous impression that his book made throughout the intellectual world. His theory of evolution affected literally all sciences. It is hardly possible to find another discovery that could be compared with Darwin's discovery in terms of the greatness of thought and influence on science - perhaps the discovery of Copernicus. And what? It is known that he dared to publish this book only under the influence of the persistent demands of his friends, who wanted Darwin to remain a priority, since at that time another English scientist was beginning to approach the same issue. Darwin himself still felt that he did not have enough arguments, that he was not familiar enough with the subject. Such is the modesty of thought of great people, and this is understandable, since they know well how difficult it is, what effort it takes to obtain the truth.

These, gentlemen, are the main features of the mind, these are the techniques that the active mind uses when comprehending reality. I have depicted this mind for you, how it manifests itself in its work, and I think that next to this there is absolutely no need for subtle psychological descriptions. This is all. You see that real mind is a clear, correct vision of reality, knowledge of the number and composition of this reality. Such knowledge gives us the opportunity to predict this reality and reproduce it to the extent possible using technical means.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About the 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 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.

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.

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, 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 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 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.

Extreme concentration of thought

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 disputes, 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!

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

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. 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. 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 starting to study physiology, i.e. Those who have completed secondary 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 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 (1), 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: “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.

(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 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.

Absolute freedom of thought

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.

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 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.

Thoroughness, detail of thought

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. 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.

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 the French Revolution and get acquainted with it.

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.

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, i.e. for one scratching, which, either alone or 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.

The desire of scientific thought for simplicity

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 Vellansky (2). He was, in fact, not a physiologist, but a contraband philosopher. I know for certain from Professor Rostislavov (3) that at one 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 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?

Of course, the striving of the mind, as an active force, is an analysis of reality, ending with a simple and clear representation of it. This is an ideal, we should be proud of it. But since what the mind has received is only a crumb, a grain of sand compared to 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 different 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.

The pursuit of truth

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

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.

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 thing, 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 exists. 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. 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 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 already 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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the spring of 1918, the great Russian scientist, Nobel Prize laureate Academician I.P. 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 by the classical world to subsequent humanity... This commandment is very short, it consists of three words: “Know yourself,” fulfilling the classical commandment, I made it my duty to try to give some material to characterize the Russian mind.”

In the first lecture, dedicated to the human mind in general, and above all to the natural scientific mind, I.P. Pavlov established and characterized eight “basic properties and techniques that a proper, functioning mind possesses.” In the second lecture, which we are publishing today with minor abbreviations, he applied “this characteristic as a criterion, as a measure for the Russian mind.”

One can guess the reasons that prompted I.P. Pavlova to turn to the classification features of the “Russian mind”: in a devastated, hungry country, perishing in fire civil war, his own mind as an analytical scientist tried to find and understand the causes of the catastrophe...

In our opinion, the relevance of this text is undeniable: it is useful to read it both for those who persistently idealize their people, believing this to be the essence of true patriotism, and for those who see all the evil in the absence of the traditions of European democracy and are convinced that in order to become the West , you just need to do everything like in the West.

Between Academician Pavlov’s lecture and us lies an era. This era has taught us a lot, but, it seems, it has not yet taught us the main thing: to be able to value reality above illusions.

Those who doubt the patriotism of I.P. We will refer Pavlov to the pages of Herzen and Chaadaev, Gogol and Rozanov. In addition, let us take into account that, son Russian Empire, the scientist habitually refers to its entire motley population as Russian and speaks, in fact, about the level of public consciousness.

Lectures by I.P. Pavlov, transcribed by his wife and corrected by the scientist himself, have never been published before. We express our gratitude to Dr. N. S. Khorol, who introduced us to the first lecture.

Archive fund of academician I.P. Pavlova is in the Leningrad branch of the Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The Documentary Heritage Commission of I.P. did a lot to collect and study it. Pavlov Academy of Sciences of the USSR. We thank the chairman of the commission, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences V. O. Samoilov, and scientific secretary Yu. A. Vinogradov, who kindly provided us with the published text.

Currently, the Pavlovsk Commission is preparing for publication a collection of documents of the great scientist. Its publication will certainly become a notable event in the cultural life of the country. The collection will include, in particular, both lectures on the mind.

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE “LG”

In the spring of 1918, the famous Russian scientist, Nobel Prize laureate in 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 by the classical world to subsequent humanity... This commandment is very short, it consists of three words: “Know yourself,” fulfilling the classical commandment, I made it my duty to try to give some material to characterize the Russian mind.”

About the Russian mind

Several types of mind appear 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.<...>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 the advanced cultural countries of Europe. 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'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.”

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, 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 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 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.

Extreme concentration of thought

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 disputes, 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.

<...>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.<...>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 evaluate. 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.

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.<...>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.<...>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.<...>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. Those who have completed secondary 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 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, 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 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.

Absolute freedom of thought

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 next line 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.

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'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. 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 both 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.

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.<...>

The desire of scientific thought for simplicity

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.<...>

The pursuit of truth

Humility of Thought

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!
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.

<...>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 exists. 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.

Full text.

Try to write something similar about Russians in your own name and you may even get beaten, but at the same time these same people honor as classics those who are the author of these characteristics of the Russian people.

There is a double standard and doublethink; there are those who can tell the truth about Russians and those who cannot.

........................................ ....

“Heavy Russian spirit, you can’t breathe and you can’t fly.” - A. Blok

“Muscovy is the Rus' of the taiga, Mongolian, wild, bestial.” (Muscovy - the Russia of taiga, Mongolic, wild, bestial.) - Alexey Tolstoy

"Not the people, but brute, boor, a wild horde, murderers and villains." (They are not people, they are boors, villains, wild hordes of murderers and miscreants.) - Mikhail Bulgakov

“The most important sign of the success of the Russian people is their sadistic cruelty.” (The most important trait of the success of the Russian people is their sadistic brutality.) - Maxim Gorky

“The Russian is the greatest and most insolent liar in the whole world.” (A Russian is the greatest and the cheekiest of all liars in the world.) - Ivan Turgenev

“A people who wander around Europe and look for what they can destroy, destroy just for fun.” (People who roam across Europe in search of what to destroy and obliterate, only for the sake of gratification.) - Fyodor Dostoevsky

“Russians are a people who hate freedom, deify slavery, love shackles on their hands and feet, love their bloody despots, do not feel any beauty, are dirty physically and morally, have lived for centuries in darkness, obscurantism, and have not lifted a finger towards anything. human, but always ready to captivate, to oppress everyone and everything, the whole world. This is not a people, but a historical curse of humanity” - I.S. Shmelev.

“Oh, how hard, how unbearably hard it is sometimes to live in Russia, in this stinking environment of dirt, vulgarity, lies, deceptions, abuses, good little scoundrels, hospitable bribe-takers, hospitable rogues - fathers and benefactors of bribe-takers!” - Ivan Aksakov, from a letter to his family.

“I must express my sad view of the Russian person - 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.” - Academician Pavlov. About the Russian mind. 1932

“A people indifferent to the least duty, to the least justice, to the least truth, a people that does not recognize human dignity, that completely does not recognize either a free person or a free thought.” (The people who are indifferent to the least of obligations, to the least of fairness, to the least of truth... the people who do not recognize human dignity, who entirely defy a free man and a free thought.) - Alexander Pushkin

“Russia is the most vile, sickeningly disgusting country in the entire history of the world. Using the method of selection, monstrous moral monsters were bred there, in whom the very concept of Good and Evil was turned inside out. Throughout its history, this nation has been wallowing in shit and at the same time wants to drown the whole world in it...” - I.A. Ilyin (1882-1954), Russian philosopher
(Putin personally handled the transfer of Ilyin’s ashes to the Russian Federation and participated in the reburial ceremony)

“Not the people, but a hellish freak.” – V. Rozanov - Russian philosopher, publicist and critic.

"The Russian people are in an extremely sad state: they are sick, ruined, demoralized." “And so we learn that he, in the person of a significant part of his intelligentsia, although he cannot be considered formally insane, is nevertheless obsessed with false ideas bordering on delusions of grandeur and the delusion of enmity of everyone towards him. Indifferent to his real benefit and real harm, he imagines non-existent dangers and bases the most absurd assumptions on them. It seems to him that all his neighbors offend him, do not adore his greatness enough and are plotting against him in every possible way.... - Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov

God of the hungry, God of the cold,
Beggars far and wide,
God of unprofitable estates
Here it is, here it is, the Russian god.
God of breasts and... saggy
God of bast shoes and plump legs,
Bitter faces and sour cream,
Here it is, here it is, the Russian god.
P.A. Vyazemsky

“The main feature of the Russian national character is cruelty, and that cruelty is sadistic. I’m not talking about individual outbursts of cruelty, but about the psyche, about the soul of the people. I looked through the archives of one court for 1901-1910. and I was overcome with horror huge amount incredibly cruel treatment of people. In general, here in Russia everyone takes pleasure in beating someone. And the people consider beatings to be useful, so they made up the saying “for a beaten person they give two unbeaten ones.” For 1917-1919 the peasants buried the captured Red Guards upside down so deep that their feet stuck out of the ground. Then they laughed as those legs twitched. Or they nailed one arm and one leg high on a tree and enjoyed the torment of the victim. The Red Guards skinned living prisoners of Denikin counter-revolutionaries, hammered nails into their heads, and cut out the skin on their shoulders like officer shoulder straps." - Maxim Gorky. On the Russian Peasantry (1922)

If Russia had failed, there would have been no loss or unrest in humanity. -- Ivan Turgenev

“There is no smaller, bastard and rude individual in this world than the Katsap. Born in a Nazi country, fed by the propaganda of Nazism, this bastard will never become a Human. His country has no friends - either lackeys or enemies. His country is only capable of threatening, humiliate and kill. And for maintaining this status of Russia, an ordinary Katsap is ready to sacrifice his own life, the lives of his parents and children, the quality of life of his own people. Truly: the Katsaps are beasts. Fierce, bloodthirsty, but... mortal." - A. Solzhenitsyn

In Russia there are no average talents, simple masters, but there are lonely geniuses and millions of worthless people. Geniuses can do nothing because they have no apprentices, and nothing can be done with millions because they have no masters. The first are useless because there are too few of them; the latter are helpless because there are too many of them. - Vasily Klyuchevsky

The Russian commoner - the Orthodox - serves his faith as a church duty imposed on him to save someone’s soul, just not his own, which he has not learned to save, and does not want to. No matter how you pray, the devil will get it all. This is his whole theology. - Vasily Klyuchevsky

You can revere people who believed in Russia, but not the object of their belief. - Vasily Klyuchevsky

The Russian government, as a reverse providence, arranges for the better not the future, but the past. - Alexander Herzen Herzen

(He said about Putin through the centuries)

Russian History before Peter the Great is one memorial service, and after Peter the Great - one criminal case. - F. Tyutchev

“To lie to a Russian is to blow your nose. Their lies come from their slavish essence. A people who have never known or told the truth are a people of spiritual and physical slaves. Poor people.” - N.M. Karamzin

“The Russian man is a big pig. If you ask why he doesn’t eat meat and fish, he makes excuses by the lack of supplies, means of communication, etc., while vodka is available even in the most remote villages and in any quantity.”
“Russian people strive to crack the ham precisely when trichinae are sitting in it, and to cross the river when the ice is cracking on it.”
“Nature has invested in Russian people an extraordinary ability to believe, an inquisitive mind and the gift of thinking, but all this is broken into dust by carelessness, laziness and dreamy frivolity...”
“Russian people love to remember, but do not like to live.”
“Russian people lack the desire to desire.”
- A.P. Chekhov

“The whole of Russia is a country of some greedy and lazy people: they eat and drink an awful lot, like to sleep during the day and snore in their sleep. They marry for order in the house, and take mistresses for prestige in society. Their psychology is that of a dog: if they beat them, they yelp quietly and hide in their kennels, they caress them, they lie on their backs, paws up and wag their tails...” - Anton Pavlovich Chekhov in a conversation with Maxim Gorky.

“Our national character is dominated by servility and servility, obscenity and bloodthirstiness, fanaticism and drunkenness.” - Metropolitan Hilarion

"National self-consciousness - national complacency - national self-adoration - national self-destruction."
“Russians are not even capable of having intelligence and conscience, but have always had one meanness.” - V. Soloviev

"The Russian man knows how to be a saint, but he cannot be honest." - Konstantin Leontiev, Russian philosopher (1831 - 1891)

“We, Muscovites, made the Kyrgyz, Chemeris, Buryats and others drunk. They robbed Armenia and Georgia, even banned worship in the Georgian language, and robbed the richest Ukraine. To Europe we gave the anarchists P. Kropotkin, M. Bunin, the apostles of ruin and butchery Shigalev, Nechaev, Lenin, etc. Moral filth, Muscovy is a monster that even hell would disdain and spew onto the earth.” - V. Rozanov, Russian philosopher (1856-1919)

There are few smart people among Russians. If you find any suitable person, then he will certainly be either a Jew or with an admixture of Jewish blood...” - V.I. Lenin, the most revered political figure in Russia (1870 - 1924)

A pitiful nation, a nation of slaves, from top to bottom - all slaves. - N. Chernyshevsky

“And I don’t want to know the animal-like parody of people, and I consider it a great misfortune for myself that I was born in Russia. After all, all of Europe looks at Russia almost as if it were a cannibal. More than once I felt ashamed that I belonged to a savage nation.” - V. M. Botkin
during an argument with Nekrasov. Avdotya Panaeva. "Memories"

The outstanding composer M. Glinka, finally leaving Russia on April 27, 1856, crawled out of a weeping hole at the border, spat on the ground and said: “God grant that I never see this vile country and its people again!”

The Russian people live too much in national-spontaneous collectivism, and the consciousness of the individual, his dignity and his rights has not yet become stronger in them. This explains the fact that Russian statehood was so saturated with insignificance and was often presented as a foreign dominion.” - Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev.

Russia does not contain any healthy and valuable grain. Russia actually does not exist, it only seems to exist. This is a terrible phantom, a terrible nightmare that oppresses the soul of all enlightened people. From this nightmare we are fleeing abroad, emigrating; and if we agree to leave ourselves in Russia, then the only reason is that we are in full confidence that soon this phantom will not exist; and we will scatter it, and for this scattering we will remain in this damned place of Eastern Europe. Our people are only a “medium”, “material”, “substance” for accepting into themselves the one and universal and final truth, which is collectively called “ European civilization". No "Russian civilization", no "Russian culture." - V.V. Rozanov.

Nothing good, nothing worthy of respect or there was no imitation in Russia. Everywhere and always there was illiteracy, injustice, robbery, sedition, personal oppression, poverty, disorder, lack of education and debauchery. The gaze does not stop at a single bright moment in the life of the people, not at a single consoling era. – A. Khomyakov

“We are a cruel beast, the dark and evil slave blood still flows in our veins - the poisonous legacy of the Tatar and serf yoke. There are no words that cannot be used to scold a Russian person... In Russian cruelty one can feel a devilish sophistication, there is something subtle, refined in it... It can be assumed that the development of cruelty was influenced by reading the lives of the holy martyrs... Who is more cruel: whites or reds ? Probably the same, because both of them are Russian.” – M. Gorky, “proletarian” writer (1868 – 1936)

Russia did not have and does not have any special mission! There is no need to look for any national idea for Russia - this is a mirage. Living with a national idea will first lead to restrictions, and then intolerance will arise towards another race, towards another people and towards another religion. Intolerance will certainly lead to terror. It is impossible to achieve a return of Russia to any single ideology, because a single ideology will sooner or later lead Russia to fascism. - Academician D. S. Likhachev

(Again about Putin)

In April - May 1918 I.P. Pavlov read a series of lectures, which are usually united by the common conventional title “On the mind in general, on the Russian mind in particular.” Pavlov’s personal fund, kept by the St. Petersburg branch of the RAS Archive (SPF ARAN. F.259), contains recordings of all lectures of 1918, made by an unidentified listener and rewritten by the hand of Serafima Vasilievna Pavlova.

We thank the Chairman of the Documentary Heritage Commission I.P. Pavlov, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences V. O. Samoilov and scientific secretary Yu. A. Vinogradov, who kindly provided the published text.

About the mind in general

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov - Russian scientist, physiologist, creator of the science of higher nervous activity and ideas about the processes of regulation of digestion; founder of the largest Russian physiological school; laureate of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1904 “for his work on the physiology of digestion”

The motive of my lecture is the fulfillment of one great commandment bequeathed by the classical world to subsequent humanity. This commandment is true, like reality itself, and at the same time comprehensive. It captures everything in a person’s life, from the smallest amusing incidents of everyday life to the greatest tragedies of mankind. This commandment is very short, it consists of three words: “Know yourself.” If I, in my present form, who have never had a voice for singing, who have never learned to sing, imagine that I have a pleasant voice and that I have an exceptional talent for singing, and begin to treat my loved ones and acquaintances with arias and romances, then this It will only be funny. But if an entire people, in its main lower masses not far removed from the slave state, and in the intellectual strata for the most part, only borrowed someone else’s culture, and not always successfully, a people, as a whole, gave relatively little of its independence both in general culture and in science , - if such a people imagines itself as the leader of humanity and begins to provide examples of new cultural forms of life for other peoples, then we are faced with regrettable, fatal events that may threaten this people with the loss of its political independence.

Gentlemen! As a young man, I entered a scientific experimental laboratory, in it I spent my whole life, in it I became an old man, and in it I dream of ending my life. What did I see in this laboratory? I saw here the tireless work of the mind, moreover, the work is constantly being checked: is it fruitful, does it lead to the goal, or is it empty, erroneous. Therefore, it can be assumed that I understand what the mind is and what it is found in. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, I constantly moved in intellectual circles, I am a member of three scientific colleges, I constantly came into contact and communicated with numerous comrades who devoted themselves to science; Whole thousands of young people passed before me, choosing the intellectual and humane activity of a doctor as their life’s occupation, not to mention other life encounters. And it seems to me that I have learned to appreciate the human mind in general and our Russian mind in particular.

I, of course, will not now dive into the subtlest psychological studies about the mind. I will take a purely practical approach to the whole issue. I will describe to you the mind in its workings, as I know it from personal experience and from the statements of the greatest exponents of human thought. And then, having characterized the mind in this way, I will apply this characteristic as a criterion, like a yardstick, to the Russian mind and see how it compares with this standard.

What is a scientific laboratory? This is a small world, a small corner of reality. And a person with his mind rushes into this corner and sets himself the task of finding out this reality: what elements it consists of, how they are grouped, connected, what depends on what, etc. In a word, a person has the goal of becoming familiar with this reality so that he can correctly predict what will happen in it in one or another case, so that he can even direct this reality at his own discretion, dispose of it, if this is within the limits of our technical means.

I will begin to depict the mind as it manifests itself in laboratory work and will try to show all sides of it, all the techniques it uses when comprehending this small corner of reality.

The first, most general property, quality of the mind is constant concentration of thought on a specific issue or subject. You should not part with the subject in which you are working for even a minute. Truly, you must fall asleep with it, wake up with it, and only then can you count on the moment when the mystery facing you will be revealed and solved.

Let us at least remember Newton. After all, he never parted with his idea of gravity for a minute. Whether he was on holiday, whether he was alone, whether he was presiding over a meeting of the Royal Society, etc., he was always thinking about the same thing. It is clear that his idea haunted him everywhere, every minute. Or the great Helmholtz. In one of his speeches, he directly poses the question of how he differs from other people. And he answers that he could not notice any difference, except for only one feature, which, as it seemed to him, distinguishes him from the others. It seemed to him that no one else was digging into the subject like he was. He says that when he set himself a task, he could no longer get rid of it, it haunted him constantly until he solved it. You see, therefore, that this persistence, this concentration of thought, is a common trait of the mind from great to small people, a trait that ensures the functioning of the mind.

I will now move on to the next trait of the mind. The reality that the mind sets out to understand, this reality is largely hidden from it. It is, as they say, hidden behind seven locks. Between reality and the mind there is and should be a whole series of signals that completely obscure this reality. I'm not even talking about the now well-known position that our sensations of feelings are also only signals of reality. But this is followed by a whole series of other inevitable signals. In fact, reality can be removed from the observer, and it must be brought closer, for example, using a telescope; it can be extremely small, and you need to enlarge it, look at it through a microscope; it can be flying, fast, and it must be stopped or devices that can keep up with it must be used, etc., etc. You can’t do without all this, all this is necessary, especially if you need to capture this reality for other works, convey it, present it to others.

It would seem that it is easier! And yet, intelligent adults who take on this work have made and continue to make mistakes. As soon as a small crust forms on the opening of the salivary duct, the saliva will flow out. An inexperienced observer will not pay attention to this, will not take it into account and runs away with the statement that he has discovered an unexpected fact, sometimes imagining that this is a whole discovery. Another also asks for clarification as to why his saliva stopped flowing during the experiment - it turns out that the funnel has lagged a little behind the skin - and the saliva flows past. A trifle, and yet this trifle immediately makes itself felt, and it must be taken into account in order not to be deceived. Now imagine, instead of this simple funnel, some complex tool. How many mistakes can there be here! And so the mind must sort out all these signals, take into account all these possibilities of errors that distort reality, and eliminate or prevent them all.

The next trait of the mind is absolute freedom of thought, freedom, about which in everyday life one cannot even form a remote idea. You must always be ready to renounce everything that you have hitherto firmly believed in, what you have been passionate about, what you have believed to be the pride of your thought, and not even be embarrassed by those truths that seem to have been established forever by science. Reality is great, boundless, infinite and diverse, it never fits into the framework of our recognized concepts, our latest knowledge... Without absolute freedom of thought, you cannot see anything truly new that is not a direct conclusion from what you already know.

To illustrate this, many interesting facts can be found in science. Let me give you an example from my science. You know that the central organ of blood circulation is the heart, an extremely responsible organ that holds in its hands the fate of the entire organism. Physiologists have been interested for many years in finding the nerves that control this important organ. It was known that all skeletal muscles are controlled by nerves, and one had to think that even more so the heart, which performs its work in the most subtle and precise manner, cannot be deprived of such nerves. And so they waited and looked for these nerves, the rulers of the heart, and for a long time they could not find them.

It must be said that human knowledge was primarily given to the nerves of skeletal muscles, the so-called motor nerves. It was very easy to find them. As soon as any nerve was cut, the muscle to which that nerve went became paralyzed. On the other hand, if you artificially call this nerve into activity, irritating it, for example, with an electric current, you get muscle work - the muscle moves and contracts before your eyes. So, physiologists were looking for the same nerve, acting in the same way, in the heart, and at that time science did not know any other nerves, except for these motor nerves that cause the organ to work.

The thought stopped there and froze in routine. With this thought, physiologists approached the heart. The nerve leading to the heart was not difficult to find. It runs along the neck, descends into the chest cavity and gives branches to various internal organs, including the heart. This is the so-called vagus nerve. Physiologists had it in their hands, and all that remained was to prove that this nerve really controlled the work of the heart. And so many outstanding minds, suffice it to name Humboldt, struggled to resolve this issue and could not see anything, could not note the effect of this nerve on the heart.

Why is this so? Perhaps this nerve does not act on the heart? No, it acts extremely sharply and clearly, to such an extent that this action cannot be ignored. At present it represents an experience which cannot fail in the hands of the ignorant. The effect of this nerve on the heart is that if you irritate it, the heart begins to beat slower and slower and finally stops completely. This means that it was a nerve that, quite unexpectedly, acted differently from the nerves of skeletal muscles. This is the nerve that lengthens the pauses between heartbeats and provides rest to the heart. In a word, a nerve that was not thought about and which therefore was not seen. The man had no thought, and he could not see an extremely simple fact. This is a strikingly interesting example! Brilliant people looked and could not see reality; it hid from them.

This extreme licentiousness of thought is immediately tempered by the following trait, a very difficult trait for the investigating mind. This - absolute impartiality of thought. This means that no matter how much you love any of your ideas, no matter how much time you spend on developing it, you must discard it, abandon it, if you come across a fact that contradicts it and refutes it. And this, of course, represents terrible trials for a person. This impartiality of thought can only be achieved through many years of persistent schooling. How difficult this is - I can give a simple example from my laboratory practice. I remember one very smart person with whom we did a study and obtained known facts. No matter how much we checked our results, everything tended towards the interpretation that we had established. But then the thought occurred to me that perhaps everything depended on other reasons. If this new assumption were [confirmed], it would extremely undermine the significance of our experiments and the consistency of our explanations. And this dear man asked me not to do new experiments, not to test this assumption, he was so sorry to part with his ideas, he was so afraid for them. And this is not just his weakness, it is the weakness of everyone.

I remember my first years very well. To such an extent you did not want to deviate from what you had placed the reputation of your thought, your pride. This is a really difficult thing; here lies the true drama of a learned man. For such impartiality of thought must be able to be combined and reconciled with your attachment to your guiding idea, which you constantly carry in your mind. Just as a mother holds her child dear, just as the mother alone is better than anyone else at raising it and protecting it from danger, the same is true with your idea. From you, from the one who gave birth to it, the idea should receive development and strength. You, and no one else, must use it to the end and extract from it everything that is true in it. No one can replace you here...

So, you must be extremely attached to your idea, and besides this, you must be ready at any moment to pronounce a death sentence on it, to abandon it. It's extremely hard! In this case, you have to walk around in great sadness and reconcile for weeks. I then remembered the case of Abraham, to whom, at his persistent request, in his old age God gave his only son, and then demanded that he sacrifice this son and slaughter it. It's the same here. But it is impossible to do without such impartiality of thought. When reality begins to speak against you, you must submit, because you can deceive yourself very easily, and others, at least temporarily, too, but you cannot deceive reality. That is why, at the end of a very long journey in life, a person develops the conviction that the only dignity of your work, your thoughts, is to guess and defeat reality, no matter what mistakes and blows to pride it may cost. But you have to ignore the opinions of others, you have to forget them.

Further. The ideal of the mind considering reality is simplicity, complete clarity, complete understanding. It is well known that until you have comprehended a subject, it seems complicated and vague to you. But once the truth is grasped, everything becomes simple. The sign of truth is simplicity, and all geniuses are simple in their truths. But this is not enough. The functioning mind must be clearly aware that it does not understand something, and admit it. Here again, balancing is necessary. There are any number of people and researchers who limit themselves to misunderstanding. And the victory of great minds lies in the fact that where the ordinary mind believes that it has understood and studied everything, the great mind asks itself the questions: “Yes, is all this really understandable, is it really so?” And quite often just such a formulation of the question is the threshold of a major discovery. There are any number of examples in this regard.

The famous Dutch physicist Van't Hoff in his American petitions says: “I believe that I owe my discovery to the fact that I dared to ask myself whether I really understand all the conditions, whether this is really so.” You see, therefore, to what extent the desire for clarity and simplicity is important, and on the other hand, the courage to admit one’s misunderstanding is necessary. But this balancing of the mind goes even further. One can even find in a person some antagonism towards such a concept, which explains too much, leaving nothing incomprehensible. There is some kind of instinct here that rears up, and a person even strives for there to be some part of the incomprehensible, unknown. And this is a completely legitimate need of the mind, since it is unnatural for everything to be clear, since we are and will be surrounded by such an endless unknown. You can see how pleasant it is to read a book by a great man who reveals a lot and at the same time points out that there is still a lot unknown. This is the zeal of the mind for the truth, a zeal that does not allow one to say that everything has already been exhausted and there is no need to work anymore.

Further. Essential for the mind the habit of persistently looking at the truth, rejoicing in it. It’s not enough to capture the truth and be satisfied with that. The truth must be admired, it must be loved. When I was abroad in my youth and listened to great old professors, I was amazed how they, who had been giving lectures for decades, nevertheless read them with such enthusiasm and carried out experiments with such care. I didn’t understand it well then. And then, when I myself had to become an old man, it became clear to me. This is a completely natural habit of a person who discovers truths. Such a person has a need to constantly look at this truth. He knows what it cost, what mental stress, and he takes every opportunity to once again make sure that this is really a solid truth, indestructible, that it is always the same as at the time when it was discovered. And now, when I carry out experiments, I think there is hardly a single listener who would look at them with such interest, with such passion, as I do, seeing this for the hundredth time.

The last feature of the mind, which truly crowns everything, is humility of thought, modesty of thought. Examples of this are well known. Who does not know Darwin, who does not know the tremendous impression that his book made throughout the intellectual world. His theory of evolution affected literally all sciences. It is hardly possible to find another discovery that could be compared with Darwin's discovery in terms of the greatness of thought and influence on science - perhaps the discovery of Copernicus. And what? It is known that he dared to publish this book only under the influence of the persistent demands of his friends, who wanted Darwin to remain a priority, since at that time another English scientist was beginning to approach the same issue. Darwin himself still felt that he did not have enough arguments, that he was not familiar enough with the subject. Such is the modesty of thought of great people, and this is understandable, since they know well how difficult it is, what effort it takes to obtain the truth.

About the Russian mind

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 precise 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 able to form an accurate concept of those properties and techniques that a proper, functioning mind possesses. I have established eight such general properties, techniques of the mind, which I will list today specifically as an appendix 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, 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 chooses 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.

But then what kind of mind will I use? Obviously, mass, general life mind that determines the fate of the people. But the mass mind will have to be subdivided. Firstly, it will be 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 thing in Russia, i.e. peasant mind par excellence. Where do we see him? Is it really in the unchanging three-field, or in the fact that to this day the red rooster roams 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 is 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, 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.

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 established is extreme concentration of thought, the desire of thought to think relentlessly, to hold on to the issue that is intended to be resolved, to hold on for days, weeks, months, years, and in other cases, for the rest of one’s 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 - as soon as we see a person who is attached to his work, sits over a book, thinks about it, does not get distracted, does not get involved in disputes, 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!

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 evaluate. 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 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 how it is 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 doesn’t happen, this dream doesn’t 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.

Gentlemen! The second trick 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. Natural scientists 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. 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 what others do, 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. Those who have completed secondary 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 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 Doctor” (Manassein Vyacheslav Avksentievich (1841-1901), clinician, public figure, professor at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, editor of the magazine “Russian Doctor”), sends me an article he received from a friend whom he knows as 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.

Let's move on to the next quality of mind. This is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, a 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 mind is attachment of thought to the idea on which you 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. Means, attachment associated with absolute impartiality, - this 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.

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.

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, in our physiological language we call irritation, 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.

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 with general concepts, with the 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 the French Revolution and get acquainted with it.

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 a certain amount of time must pass, you must apply special measures so that only one specific sound remains active. 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, i.e. for one scratching, which, either alone or 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.

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 esteem.

Many other facts can be presented in this regard. I once had to historically research my predecessor at the Department of Physiology, Professor Vellansky. He was, in fact, not a physiologist, but a contraband philosopher. I know for certain from Professor Rostislavov that at one 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 with a simple and clear representation of it. This is an ideal, we should be proud of it. But since what the mind has received is only a crumb, a grain of sand compared to 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 different grounds, guided by instincts, habits, etc. All this is true. But excuse me, this is all 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 to turn everything upside down.

The next property of the mind is pursuit of 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 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 suffering, it is clear that in the end a person constantly lives in obedience 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!

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.

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 this is both ingenious and expedient. To that extent we have a correct vision of reality.

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 large. This means that, regardless of what happened, we still shouldn’t lose hope.