Pavlov's lectures. About the Russian mind (I.P

Russian thought absolutely does not apply the criticism of the method, i.e. does not in the least 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 the study of life. How the Russian mind is not attached to the facts. He loves words more and operates with them. This is a verdict on Russian thought, it knows only words and does not want to touch reality. After all, this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind.

The Russian man, I don't know why, does not seek to understand what he sees. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner will never refrain from asking a question. I had both Russians and foreigners at the same time. And while the Russian agrees, not really understanding, the foreigner will certainly try to get to the root of the matter. And it runs like a red thread through everything. Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What examples did she show the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don't we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity!

Three weeks ago, I already started on this topic, and now I will briefly recall and reproduce the general structure of my lectures. Mind is such a huge, vague topic! How to get started? I dare to think that I have succeeded in simplifying this task without losing efficiency. I acted in this respect purely practically. Abandoning the philosophical and psychological definitions of the mind, I settled on one sort of mind, well known to me partly from personal experience in a scientific laboratory, partly literary, specifically the scientific mind and especially the natural scientific mind, which develops positive sciences.

Considering what tasks the natural scientific mind pursues and how it achieves these tasks, I have thus determined the purpose of the mind, its properties, the methods that it uses to make its work fruitful. From this communication of mine, it became clear that the task of the natural scientific mind is that in a small corner of reality, which it chooses and invites into its office, it 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 it is possible to predict reality and control it, if this is within the limits of its technical and material means. Thus, the main task of the mind is a correct vision of reality, a clear and accurate knowledge of it. Then I turned to how this mind works. I went over all the properties, all the techniques of the mind that are practiced in this work and ensure the success of the case. The correctness, 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 past, then it is clear that there will be no good results either, the goal will remain unattained.

We are therefore quite capable of forming an exact notion of the properties and methods of a proper, active mind. I have established eight such general properties, methods of the mind, which I will list today specifically in an appendix to the Russian mind. What to take from the Russian mind for comparison, comparison with this ideal natural science mind? What to see the Russian mind? This issue needs to be stopped. Of course, several kinds of mind stand out clearly.

First, the scientific Russian mind, participating in the development of Russian science. I think that I don’t have to stop at this mind, and here’s why. It is a kind of greenhouse mind, working in a special environment. He chooses a small corner of reality, puts it in emergency conditions, approaches it with methods worked out in advance, moreover, this mind turns to reality when it is already systematized and works outside of vital necessity, outside of passions, etc. This means that, on the whole, this work is facilitated and special, work far reaching from the work of the mind that operates in life. The characteristic of this mind can only speak of the mental capabilities of the nation.

Then, the scientific mind has relatively little influence on life and history. After all, science has only recently gained importance in life and has taken a leading place in a few countries. History, on the other hand, went beyond scientific influence, it was determined by the work of another mind, and the fate of the state does not depend on the scientific mind. In proof of this we have extremely harsh facts. Take Poland. Poland delivered to the world 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. We buried our genius Mendeleev ten years ago, but this did not prevent Russia from reaching the position it is in now. Therefore, it seems to me that I am right if I do not take into account the scientific mind in the future.

But then what kind of mind shall I engage in? Obviously, 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 common 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 one in Russia, i.e. peasant mind par excellence. Where do we see it? Is it really in the unchanged three-fields, or in the fact that even now the red rooster roams freely in the villages in the summer, or in the confusion 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 give a damn about this quarantine, all these are bourgeois inventions.”

Or another case. Somehow, a few weeks ago, at the very height of the Bolshevik regime, my servant was visited by her brother, a sailor, of course, a socialist to the marrow of his bones. All evil, as expected, he saw in the bourgeoisie, and under the bourgeoisie meant everything except sailors, soldiers. When it was noticed to him that you could hardly do without the bourgeois, for example, cholera would appear, what would you do without doctors? - he solemnly replied that all this was nothing. “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 is why I think that what is worth talking about and characterizing, what matters, determining the essence of the future, is, of course, the mind of the intelligentsia. And its characteristics are interesting, its properties are important. It seems to me that what has now happened in Russia is, of course, the work of the intellectual mind, while the masses have played a completely passive role, they have accepted the movement along which it was directed by the intelligentsia. To refuse this, I believe, would be unfair, unworthy. 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 the masses of the people in a wild state, then, on the other hand, it should be recognized that progressive thought did not so much try to enlighten and cultivating the people, how much about revolutionizing them.

I think that you and I are educated enough to admit that what happened is not an accident, but has its own tangible causes, and these causes lie in ourselves, in our properties. However, the following may be objected to me. How can I apply to this intellectual mind with the criterion that I have established regarding the scientific mind. Would it be reasonable and fair? Why not? I will ask. After all, every mind has one task - to see reality correctly, to understand it and to hold accordingly. You cannot imagine the mind existing just for fun. It must have its own tasks and, as you can 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 complicated, one can only say that here the urgency of those methods that the mind uses in general is all the more prominent. If certain qualities are required from the scientific mind, they are required from the vital mind to an even greater degree. And this is understandable. If I personally or someone else was not up to par, did not find the necessary qualities, made a mistake in scientific work, the trouble is small. I shall lose an unnecessarily known number of animals, and this is the end of the matter. The responsibility of the general life mind is greater. For if we ourselves are to blame for what is happening now, this responsibility is enormous.

Thus, it seems to me, I can turn to the intellectual mind and see how it has those properties and techniques that the scientific mind needs for fruitful work. The first property of the mind that I have established is the extreme concentration of thought, the desire of thought to think relentlessly, to hold on to the issue that is scheduled for resolution, to hold on for days, weeks, months, years, and in other cases for the whole life. How is the Russian mind in this respect? 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.

Farther. Address Russian people, for example, students. What is their attitude to this feature of the mind, to the concentration of thoughts? Lord! You all know that as soon as we see a person who has become attached to a case, sits over a book, ponders, does not get distracted, does not get involved in disputes, and we already have a suspicion: a narrow-minded, stupid person, a crammer. And perhaps this is a person whose thought captures the whole, who is addicted to his idea! Or in society, in a conversation, if a person asks, asks again, inquires, answers the question directly - we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, hard-thinking!

Obviously, our recommended features are not concentration, but onslaught, speed, raid. This, obviously, is what we consider a sign of talent; painstaking and perseverance for us do not fit well with the idea of talent. Meanwhile, for a real mind, this thoughtfulness, dwelling on one subject is a normal thing. I heard from Helmholtz's students that he never answered the simplest questions right away. Over and over again he said later that this question was generally empty, had no meaning, and yet he thought about it for several days. Take in our specialty. As soon as a person has become attached to one issue, we immediately say: “Ah! He's a boring professional." 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, but for us it is boring.

How many times have you come across this fact? One of us develops a certain field of science, he becomes 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: “Ah, this one! He's all about his own." Even if it is a large and important scientific area. 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 see no difference between themselves and other people, except for one feature that they can focus on a certain thought like no one else. And then it is clear that this concentration is strength, and mobility, the running of thoughts is weakness.

If I descended from the heights of these geniuses to the laboratory, to the work of average people, I would find confirmation of this here too. In the last lecture, I gave the reason for my right to this topic. For 18 years now, I have been studying higher nervous activity on one animal that is close and dear to us, on our friend, the dog. And one can imagine that what is difficult in us is simpler in the dog, easier to express and evaluate. I will take this opportunity to show you this, to show you what is power - focus or mobility. I will give you the results in an expedited form, I will just describe the specific case to you.

I take the dog, I do not cause any trouble to her. I just put it on the table and occasionally feed it, 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 act on her ear with some tone, let's say, for 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, saliva flows. In a word, the dog has the same reaction that usually happens before eating. To put it simply, the thought of food comes to the dog along with the sound and there are a few seconds left until he is given food.

What happens with different animals? And here's what. One kind of animal, no matter how much you repeat the experience, behaves exactly as I have described. For each appearance of a sound, the dog gives this food reaction, and so it remains all the time - a month, and two, and a year. Well, one thing is for sure, this is a business dog. Food is a serious matter, and the animal strives for it, prepares. Such is the case with serious dogs. Such dogs can be distinguished even in life; they are calm, unfussy, solid animals.

And in other dogs, the longer you repeat this experience, the more they become lethargic, drowsy, and to such an extent that you put food in your 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 this sound out or let it out 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 begin to sleep, refusing such an important thing as food. It is clear that we have two types of nervous system, one strong, solid, efficient, and the other - loose, flabby, very soon tired. And there is no doubt that the first type is stronger, more adapted to life.

Transfer the same to a person and you will see that strength is not in mobility, not in distraction of thought, but in concentration, stability. Mobility of the mind is therefore a disadvantage, but not a virtue.

Lord! The second method of the mind is the desire of thought to come into direct communication with reality, bypassing all the partitions and signals that stand between reality and the cognizing mind. In science, one 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 right methodology. The methodology is wrong, the signals are incorrectly conveying reality - and you get incorrect, erroneous, false facts. Of course, the technique for the scientific mind is only the first intermediary. Behind her comes another intermediary - this is the word.

The 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 on many points, such scientists find it extremely difficult to lecture on what they themselves have not done. So, what a huge difference between what you have done yourself, and between what you know from writing, from the transmission of others. The difference is so sharp that it is embarrassing to read about something that you yourself have not seen or done. Such a note comes, by the way, from Helmholtz. Let's see how the Russian intellectual mind holds up in this respect.

I will begin with a case well known to me. I read physiology, a practical science. Now it has become a general requirement that such experimental sciences be read defiantly, presented in the form of experiments, facts. That's how others do it, and that's how I do it. All my lectures consist of demonstrations. And what do you think! I did not see any particular passion among students for the activities that I show them. As much as I addressed my listeners, I told them so much that I don't read physiology to you, I show you. If I read, you could not listen to me, you could read this from a book, why am I better than others! But I am showing you facts that you will not see in the book, and therefore, so that time is not wasted, take a little work. Take five minutes of your time and note for memory after the lecture what you saw. And I remained a voice crying in the wilderness. Hardly anyone has ever taken my advice. I was convinced of this a thousand times from conversations at exam x, etc.

You see how the Russian mind is not attached to facts. He loves words more and operates with them. That we really live by words is proved by such facts. Physiology - as a science - relies on other scientific disciplines. The physiologist at every step has to turn to the 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 cannot explain to you the fact with which we begin our life, they cannot explain properly how mother's milk comes to the child, they do not 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-Mariotte 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 sucking action of the chest is the most deadly question on the exam, not only for students, but even for doctors. (Laughter) It's not funny, it's 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. A few years ago, Professor Manassein, the editor of Vrach, sent me an article he had received from a comrade 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 the blood circulation." And what? It was only at the age of forty that this practicing man understood this sucking action of the chest and was so amazed that he imagined that this was a whole discovery. Strange thing! A person studied all his life and only by the age of forty comprehended such an elementary thing.

Thus, gentlemen, you see that Russian thought does not at all apply the criticism of the method, i.e. does not in the least 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 the study of life. I gave you examples regarding students and doctors. But why refer these examples only to students, doctors? After all, this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind. If the mind writes various algebraic formulas and does not know how to apply them to life, does not understand their meaning, then why do you think that it speaks words and understands them.

Take the Russian public that attends debates. It is a common thing that both the speaker “for” and the speaker “against” are equally passionately clapped. Does this speak of understanding? After all, there is only one truth, because reality cannot be both white and black at the same time. I recall one medical meeting, which was chaired by the late Sergei Petrovich Botkin. Two speakers spoke, objecting to each other; both spoke well, both were biting, 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 remove 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 strikes now. This is a fact of spreading rumors. A serious person says a serious thing. After all, it is not words that communicate, but facts, but then you must guarantee that your words really follow the facts. This is not. We know, of course, that everyone has a weakness for making a sensation, everyone loves to add something, but still, criticism and verification are needed someday. 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.

Let's move on to the next quality of the mind. It is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what is established in science as immutable. If I do not allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new. Do we have this freedom? I must say no. I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. You were dragged from your place, called almost a spy. But it doesn't just happen to us when we're young. Aren't our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, namely enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?

And here's another example for the previous one. We have always enthusiastically repeated the word “freedom”, and when it comes to reality, it turns out to be a complete mistreatment of freedom.

The next quality of the mind is the attachment of the thought to the idea where you left off. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, no success. You must love your idea in order 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 anything turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it. Hence, attachment associated with absolute impartiality is the next feature of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a learned person is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look anxiously whether this new detail is for you or against you. And long experiments solve the question: is your idea dead or has it survived? Let's see what we have in this respect. 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, which we are experiencing, I do not even know whether it is worth giving examples.

It's the same if you go down to the complexity of life. How many times a little phenomenon that barely caught your eye turns everything upside down and is the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about a detailed assessment of the details, conditions. This is the basic feature of the mind. What? How is this feature in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate through general propositions, we do not want to know either the measure or the number. We all believe dignity 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 are getting 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 they have freedom and discipline side by side, while we certainly have extremes for the sake of the general situation. At present, physiological science is also coming to an understanding of 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 is called irritation, what is usually called discipline - physiologically corresponds to the concept of “inhibition”. And it turns out that all nervous activity is made up of these two processes - of excitation and inhibition. And, if you like, the second is even more important. Irritation is something chaotic, and inhibition puts this randomness in the frame.

Let us take another burning example, our Social-Democracy. It contains the known truth, of course, not the complete truth, for no one can claim the absolute truth. For those countries where the factory industry is beginning to attract huge masses, for these countries, of course, a big question arises: to save energy, to save the life and health of the worker. Further, the cultural classes, the intelligentsia, usually tend to degenerate. New forces must rise from the depths of the people to take their place. And, of course, in this struggle between labor and capital, the state must protect the worker.

We have a proverb: “What is healthy for a Russian is death for a German”, a proverb in which there is almost a boast of one's savagery. But I think that it would be much more fair to say the opposite: "What is healthy for a German, for a Russian is death." I believe that the German Social-Democrats will still acquire new strength, and we, because of our Russian Social-Democracy, may perhaps end our political existence.

Before the revolution, the Russian people had been thrilled for a long time. How! The French had a revolution, but we don't! So what, were we preparing for the revolution, were we studying it? No, we didn't. We only now, in hindsight, pounced on books and read. I think this should have been done before. But earlier we only operated with general concepts, with the words that, behold, there are revolutions, that there was such a revolution among the French, that the epithet “Great” is attached to it, but we don’t have a revolution. And only now have we begun to study the French Revolution, to 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 with us to the history of Poland than by the similarity to the French Revolution.

At present, this point has already become the property of laboratory experiments. It's instructive. This desire for general propositions, this far from reality generalization, which we are proud of and rely on, 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 food reaction of the animal. And so, if we form such a connection to the sound of an organ pipe, other sounds will also act at first, and they will cause a food reaction. It turns out a generalization. This is the basic fact. And a certain 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, the animal does not feed and thanks to this you create a differentiation.

It is curious that in this respect the animals differ sharply from each other. One dog retains this general generalization for a very long time and with difficulty changes to a businesslike and expedient specialization. Other dogs do it quickly. Or some other 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 you do not give food during such a simultaneous action of sound and scratching, what will come of it?

Dogs here again fall into two categories. One dog will have the following. Since you feed her during one sound, but do not feed her during the action and the sound and scratching, discrimination will very soon form in her. At one sound, she will give a food reaction, and when you add scratching to the sound, she will remain at rest. Do you know what happens to other dogs? They not only do not form such a business-like distinction, but, on the contrary, form a food reaction to this surplus irritation, i.e. for one scratching, which, neither by itself nor in combination with sound, is ever accompanied by food. You see, what confusion, inefficiency, unsuitability. Such is the price of this generalization. It is clear that it is not dignity, it is not strength.

In my lectures, I stand on the fact that everyone understands me. I cannot read if I know that my thought does not enter in the way I understand it myself. Therefore, my first condition with my listeners is that they interrupt me at least in 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 am, of course, mindful of the various conditions which may render my proposal unacceptable. They are afraid that they will not be considered an upstart, etc. I give a full guarantee that this will not matter in the exams, and I keep my word.

Why are they not using this right? Understand? No. And yet they are silent, indifferent to their misunderstanding. There is no desire to fully understand the subject, to take it into one's own hands. I have more examples than this. Many people of different ages, different competencies, different nationalities have passed through my laboratory. And here is the fact, which was invariably repeated, that the attitude of these guests to everything they see is sharply different. The Russian man, I don't know why, does not seek to understand what he sees. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner will never refrain from asking a question. I had both Russians and foreigners at the same time. And while the Russian agrees, not really understanding, the foreigner will certainly try to get to the root of the matter. And it runs like a red thread through everything.

Many other facts can be presented in this respect. I somehow 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 made an extraordinary sensation. His audience was always full of people of different ages, classes and sexes. And what? And I heard from Rostislavov that the audience was delighted, not understanding anything, and I found a complaint from Vellansky himself that he had many listeners, willing, passionate, but no one understood him. Then I asked to read his lectures and was convinced that there was nothing to understand there, to such an extent it was a fruitless natural philosophy. And the audience was ecstatic.

In general, our public has some desire for the foggy and dark. I remember an interesting report was made in some scientific society. At the exit there were many voices: “Brilliant!”. And one enthusiast directly shouted: "Brilliant, brilliant, although I did not understand anything!" As if the nebula is genius. How did it happen? Where did such an attitude towards everything incomprehensible come from?

Of course, the aspiration of the mind, as an active force, is an analysis of reality, ending in a simple and clear representation of it. This is an ideal, this should be proud of. But since what the mind has got is only a crumb, a grain of sand in comparison with what remains unknown, it is clear that everyone should have a comparison of this small known and the huge unknown. And of course, every person must reckon with both. It is impossible to dispose one's life only in what is scientifically established, because much has not yet been established. In many ways, one must live on other grounds, guided by instincts, habits, and so on. 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 obscurity, the unknown - only a sad inevitability. It must be taken into account, but to be proud of it, to strive for it, means to turn everything upside down.

And for us, first of all, the first thing is the desire for novelty, curiosity. It is enough for us to know something, and our interest ends there. (“Ah, it’s all already known”). As I said at the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths, for them it is a process of enjoyment. But with us it is a commonplace, 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?

I went over all the traits that characterize a fruitful scientific mind. As you can see, the situation with us is that in almost every feature we are on the disadvantageous side. For example, we have curiosity, but we are indifferent to the absoluteness, immutability of thought. Or, instead of a specialty, we take general provisions from the line of detail of the mind. We are constantly taking a 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 inconsistencies with the surrounding reality.

Mind is cognition, adaptation to reality. If I do not see reality, how can I correspond to it? Discord is always inevitable here. I will give a few examples.

Take faith in our revolution. Was there a correspondence here, was it a clear vision of reality on the part of those who created the revolution during the war? Wasn't it clear that the war itself was a terrible and big thing? God forbid to spend one of it. Was there any chance that we could do two great things at once - both war and revolution? Didn't the Russian people themselves make up the proverb about two birds with one stone?.. Take our Duma. As soon as she gathered, she raised public indignation against the government. That we had a degenerate sitting on the 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 it? And now you are faced with two things - both before the war and before the revolution, which you could not do at the same time, and you yourself perished. Is this a vision of reality?

Take another case. The socialist groups knew what they were doing when they embarked on army reform. They always crashed against armed force, 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 go for it? How did they go to different commissions that worked out the rights of a soldier? Was there any correspondence with reality? Who does not understand that military work is a terrible thing, that it can be carried out only under exceptional conditions. You are taken to a job where your life hangs by a thread every minute. Only by different conditions, by firm discipline, can one achieve that 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 troops, destroyed discipline.

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

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

Well, we may lose political independence, we will come under the heel of one, another, third. But we will still live! Therefore, for the future, it is useful for us to have an idea about ourselves. It is important for us to clearly understand what we are. You understand that if I was born with a heart defect and do not know this, 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, however, I will be tested by a doctor who will say that you have a heart defect, but if you adapt to this, then you can live up to 50 years. So it's always good 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 influenced most of all by the influences of life, and it is by it that the organism of the individual and of nations develops most perfectly. Therefore, even though 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 can have a nervous system with very little development of an important inhibitory process, the one that establishes order, measure. And you will observe all the consequences of such weak development. But after a certain practice, training, before our eyes, there is an improvement in the nervous system, and a very large one. So, regardless of what happened, we should not lose hope.

Nobel lecture given in 1918 in St. Petersburg

In the spring of 1918, the famous Russian scientist, Nobel Prize winner in medicine and physiology (1904), academician Ivan Pavlov delivered two public lectures in Petrograd "On the mind in general and Russian in particular." The motive of these lectures, according to him, was “the fulfillment of one great commandment, bequeathed by the classical world to subsequent mankind ... This commandment is very short, it consists of three words:“ Know thyself ”, 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 kinds of mind stand out distinctly. First, the scientific Russian mind, participating in the development of Russian science. I think that I don’t have to stop at this mind, and here’s why. It is a kind of 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, truly scientists, especially in backward countries, is very small. According to the statistics of one American astronomer, who has taken up the task of determining the scientific productivity of various peoples, our Russian productivity is negligible. It is several dozen 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, on the other hand, went beyond scientific influence, it was determined by the work of another mind, and the fate of the state does not depend on the scientific mind. In proof of this we have extremely harsh facts. Take Poland. Poland delivered to the world 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. We buried our genius Mendeleev ten years ago, but this did not prevent Russia from reaching the position it is in now. Therefore, it seems to me that I am right if I do not take into account the scientific mind in the future.

But then what kind of mind shall I engage in? Obviously, 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 common 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 one in Russia, i.e. peasant mind par excellence. Where do we see it? Is it really in the unchanged three-fields, or in the fact that even now the red rooster roams freely in the villages in the summer, or in the confusion 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 give a damn about this quarantine, it’s all bourgeois fiction.”

Or another case. Somehow, a few weeks ago, at the very height of the Bolshevik regime, my servant was visited by her brother, a sailor, of course, a socialist to the marrow of his bones. All evil, as expected, he saw in the bourgeoisie, and under the bourgeoisie meant everything except sailors, soldiers. When it was noticed to him that you could hardly do without the bourgeois, 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 doctors themselves bring on cholera." Is it worth talking about such a mind and can any responsibility be placed on it?

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

However, the following may be objected to me. How can I apply to this intellectual mind with the criterion that I have established regarding the scientific mind. Would it be reasonable and fair? Why not? I will ask. After all, every mind has one task - to see reality correctly, to understand it and to hold accordingly. You cannot imagine the mind existing just for fun. It must have its own tasks and, as you can 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 complicated, one can only say that here the urgency of those methods that the mind uses in general is all the more prominent. If certain qualities are required from the scientific mind, they are required from the vital mind to an even greater degree. And this is understandable. If I personally or someone else was not up to par, did not find the necessary qualities, made a mistake in scientific work, the trouble is small. I shall lose an unnecessarily known number of animals, and this is the end of the matter. The responsibility of the general life mind is greater. For 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 soon depart from the main theme. This is our feature. Let's take our meetings. We now have so many meetings, commissions. How lengthy, verbose, and in most cases fruitless and contradictory these meetings are! We spend many hours in fruitless, pointless conversations. A topic is put up for discussion, and at first, usually and due to the fact that the task is difficult, there are no hunters to speak. But now one voice comes forward, and after that everyone already wants to talk, to talk without any sense, without thinking carefully about the topic, without clarifying for themselves whether this complicates the solution of the issue or speeds it up. There are endless lines that take up more time than the main subject, and our conversations snowball. And in the end, instead of a solution, you get a confusing question.
I had to sit in one collegium together with an acquaintance who used to be a member of one of the Western European collegiums. And he could not marvel at the length and fruitlessness of our meetings. He was surprised: "Why do you talk so much, and the results of your conversations are not seen?"
Farther. Address Russian people, for example, students. What is their attitude to this feature of the mind, to the concentration of thoughts? Lord! You all know that as soon as we see a person who has become attached to a case, sits over a book, ponders, does not get distracted, does not get involved in disputes, and we already have a suspicion: a narrow-minded, stupid person, a crammer. And perhaps this is a person whose thought captures the whole, who is addicted to his idea! Or in society, in a conversation, if a person asks, asks again, inquires, answers the question directly - we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, hard-thinking!
Obviously, our recommended features are not concentration, but onslaught, speed, raid. This, obviously, is what we consider a sign of talent; painstaking and perseverance for us do not fit well with the idea of talent.
Meanwhile, for a real mind, this thoughtfulness, dwelling on one subject is a normal thing. I heard from Helmholtz's students that he never answered the simplest questions right away. Over and over again he said later that this question was generally empty, had no meaning, and yet he thought about it for several days. Take in our specialty. As soon as a person is attached to one issue, we immediately say: “Ah! He's a boring professional." 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, but for us it is boring.

<...>Take brilliant people. After all, they themselves say that they see no difference between themselves and other people, except for one feature that they can focus on a certain thought like no one else. And then it is clear that this concentration is strength, and mobility, the running of thoughts is weakness.

If I descended from the heights of these geniuses to the laboratory, to the work of average people, I would find confirmation of this here too.<...>For 18 years now, I have been studying higher nervous activity on one animal that is close and dear to us, on our friend, the dog. And one can imagine that what is difficult in us is simpler in the dog, easier to express and evaluate. I will take this opportunity to show you this, to show you what is power - focus or mobility. I will give you the results in an expedited form, I will just describe the specific case to you.

Direct contact with reality

Lord! The second method of the mind is the desire of thought to come into direct communication with reality, bypassing all the partitions and signals that stand between reality and the cognizing mind. In science, one 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 right methodology.<...>Of course, the technique for the scientific mind is only the first intermediary. Behind her comes another intermediary - this is the word.

The 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 on many points, such scientists find it extremely difficult to lecture on what they themselves have not done. So, what a huge difference between what you have done yourself, and between what you know from writing, from the transmission of others.<...>Let's see how the Russian intellectual mind holds up in this respect.

I will begin with a case well known to me. I read physiology, a practical science.<...>All my lectures consist of demonstrations. And what do you think! I did not see any particular passion among students for the activities that I show them. As much as I addressed my listeners, I told them so much that I don't read physiology to you, I show you. If I read, you could not listen to me, you could read this from a book, why am I better than others! But I am showing you facts that you will not see in the book, and therefore, so that time is not wasted, take a little work. Take five minutes of your time and note for memory after the lecture what you saw. And I remained a voice crying in the wilderness. Hardly anyone has ever taken my advice. I was convinced of this a thousand times from conversations at exams, etc.

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-Mariotte 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 sucking action of the chest is the most deadly question on the exam, not only for students, but even for doctors. (Laughter) It's not funny, it's 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. A few years ago, Professor Manassein, the editor of Vrach, 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 the blood circulation." And what? It was only at the age of forty that this practicing man understood this sucking action of the chest and was so amazed that he imagined that this was a whole discovery. Strange thing! A person studied all his life and only by the age of forty comprehended such an elementary thing.

Thus, gentlemen, you see that Russian thought does not at all apply the criticism of the method, i.e. does not in the least 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 the study of life.
I gave you examples regarding students and doctors. But why refer these examples only to students, doctors? After all, this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind. If the mind writes various algebraic formulas and does not know how to apply them to life, does not understand their meaning, then why do you think that it speaks words and understands them.

Take the Russian public that attends debates. It is a common thing that equally passionately clapping both the speaker "for" and the speaker "against". Does this speak of understanding? After all, there is only one truth, because reality cannot be both white and black at the same time. I recall one medical meeting, which was chaired by the late Sergei Petrovich Botkin. Two speakers spoke, objecting to each other; both spoke well, both were biting, 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 remove 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.<...>

Absolute freedom of thought

Aren't our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, namely enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?

And here's another example for the previous one. We have always enthusiastically repeated the word "freedom", and when it comes to reality, we get a complete mistreatment of freedom.

Attachment of thought to idea and impartiality

The next quality of the mind is the attachment of the thought to the idea where you left off. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, no success. You must love your idea in order 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 anything turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it. Hence, attachment associated with absolute impartiality is the next feature of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a learned person is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look anxiously whether this new detail is for you or against you. And long experiments solve the question: is your idea dead or has it survived? Let's see what we have in this respect.
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, which we are experiencing, I do not even know whether it is worth giving examples.

Thoroughness, detail of thought

The next, fifth feature is the thoroughness, the detail of thought. What is reality? It is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. Outside of this, there is no reality. 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, they decided that there must be some other mass that affects the movement of Uranus. And that mass was Neptune.<...>It's the same if you go down to the complexity of life. How many times a little phenomenon that barely caught your eye turns everything upside down and is the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about a detailed assessment of the details, conditions. This is the basic feature of the mind. What? How is this feature in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate through general propositions, we do not want to know either the measure or the number. We all believe dignity 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 are getting 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 they have both freedom and discipline side by side, while we certainly have extremes for the sake of the general situation. At present, physiological science is also coming to an understanding of 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 is called irritation<...>what is usually called discipline - physiologically corresponds to the concept of "inhibition". And it turns out that all nervous activity is made up of these two processes - of excitation and inhibition. And, if you like, the second is even more important. Irritation is something chaotic, and inhibition puts this randomness in the frame.

But this is a very private matter, and it is of great importance where industrial activity has developed strongly. And what do we have? What have we made of it? We have driven this idea to the level of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The brain, the head was put down, and the legs up. That which constitutes the culture, the mental strength of the nation, has been devalued, and what is still brute force, which can be replaced by a machine, has been 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 in which there is almost a boast of one's savagery. But I think that it would be much more fair to say the opposite: "What is healthy for a German is death for a Russian." I believe that the German Social-Democrats will still acquire new strength, and we, because of our Russian Social-Democracy, may perhaps end our political existence.<...>

The pursuit of scientific thought for simplicity

The next property of the mind is the desire of scientific thought for simplicity. Simplicity and clarity is 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, relate to this property? In what respect we have this technique, the following facts will show. In my lectures, I stand on the fact that everyone understands me. I cannot read if I know that my thought does not enter in the way I understand it myself. Therefore, my first condition with my listeners is that they interrupt me at least in 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 am, of course, mindful of the various conditions which may render my proposal unacceptable. They are afraid that they will not be considered an upstart, etc.

I give a full guarantee that this will not matter in the exams, and I keep my word. Why are they not using this right? Understand? No. And yet they are silent, indifferent to their misunderstanding. There is no desire to fully understand the subject, to take it into one's own hands. I have more examples than this. Many people of different ages, different competencies, different nationalities have passed through my laboratory. And here is the fact, which was invariably repeated, that the attitude of these guests to everything they see is sharply different.
The Russian man, I don't know why, does not seek to understand what he sees. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner will never refrain from asking a question.
I had both Russians and foreigners at the same time. And while the Russian agrees, not really understanding, the foreigner will certainly try to get to the root of the matter. And it runs like a red thread through everything.<...>

Pursuit of Truth

The next property of the mind is the desire for truth. People often spend their whole lives in an office looking for the truth. But this striving breaks down into two acts. First, the desire to acquire new truths, curiosity, curiosity. And the other is the desire to constantly return to the acquired truth, to constantly be convinced and enjoy the fact that what you have acquired is really the truth, and not a mirage. One without the other is meaningless. If you turn to a young scientist, a scientific embryo, you can clearly see that there is a desire for truth in him, but he does not have a desire for an absolute guarantee that this is the truth. He is happy to collect results and does not ask the question, is this a mistake? While the scientist is captivated not so much by the fact that it is a novelty, but by the fact that it is really a solid truth. And 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 know something, and our interest ends there. (“Oh, that’s all already known.”) As I said at the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths, for them it is a process of enjoyment. But with us it is a commonplace, 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 feature of the mind. Since the attainment of truth involves great labor and torment, it is understandable that in the end a person constantly lives in obedience to the truth, learns deep humility, for he knows that truth is worth it. Is it so with us? We do not 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 the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don't we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity! And does this not testify to what extent we do not know reality, to what extent we live fantastically!
I went over all the traits that characterize a fruitful scientific mind. As you can see, the situation with us is that in almost every feature we are on the disadvantageous side. For example, we have curiosity, but we are indifferent to the absoluteness, immutability of thought. Or, instead of a specialty, we take general provisions from the line of detail of the mind. We are constantly taking a 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 inconsistencies with the surrounding reality. Mind is cognition, adaptation to reality. If I do not see reality, how can I correspond to it? Discord is always inevitable here.

<...>The characterization of the Russian mind I have drawn is gloomy, and I am aware of it, I am bitterly aware of it. You will say that I exaggerated, that I am pessimistic. I won't dispute this. The picture is bleak, but what Russia is going through is also extremely bleak. And I said from the very beginning that we cannot say that everything happened without our participation. You will ask why I gave this lecture, what is the use of it. What, I enjoy the misfortune of the Russian people? No, there is a life calculation here. First, it is the duty of our dignity to be aware of what is. And another, that's what.

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 influenced most of all by the influences of life, and it is by it that the organism of the individual and of nations develops most perfectly.
Therefore, even though 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 can have a nervous system with very little development of an important inhibitory process, the one that establishes order, measure. And you will observe all the consequences of such weak development. But after a certain practice, training, before our eyes, there is an improvement in the nervous system, and a very large one. So, regardless of what happened, we should not lose hope.

Full text.

About the mind in general:

[...] every mind has one task, and that is 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 can 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 complicated, one can only say that here the urgency of those methods that the mind uses in general is all the more prominent. If certain qualities are required from the scientific mind, they are required from the vital mind to an even greater degree.
***
[...] The second method of the mind is the desire of thought to come into immediate communication with reality, bypassing all partitions and signals that stand between reality and the cognizing mind. Science cannot do without methods, without intermediaries, and the mind always understands this technique so that it does not distort reality.
The word is also a signal, it can be suitable and inappropriate, accurate and inaccurate.
***
[...] Let's move on to the next quality of the mind. it freedom, absolute freedom of thought, a freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what is established in science as immutable. If I do not allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new.
***
[...] The next quality of the mind is the attachment of thought to the idea where you left off. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, no success. You must love your idea in order 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 anything turns out to be contrary to your idea, you must sacrifice it, you must abandon it. Means, attachment associated with absolute impartiality, is the next trait of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a learned man is constant doubt when a new detail, a new circumstance arises.
***
[...] The next, fifth feature is thoroughness, detail thoughts. What is reality? It is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. Outside of this, there is no reality.
[...] How many times some little phenomenon that barely catches your eye turns everything upside down and is the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about a detailed assessment of the details, conditions. This is the basic feature of the mind.
***
[...] The next property of the mind is the desire of scientific thought for simplicity. Simplicity and clarity is 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.
***
The next property of the mind is striving for truth. [...] But this aspiration falls into two acts. First, the desire to acquire new truths, curiosity, curiosity. And the other is the desire to constantly come back to the extracted truth, constantly make sure and enjoy the fact that what you have acquired is really the truth, and not a mirage. One without the other is meaningless.
***
Let's move on to the last feature of the mind. Since the attainment of the truth involves great labor and pain, it is understandable that a person, after all, constantly lives in submission to the truth, learns deep humility for he knows what truth stands for.

About the Russian mind:

It seems to me that we are not inclined towards concentration, we do not like it, we even have a negative attitude towards it.[...]
Let's take our arguments. They are characterized by extreme vagueness, we very soon depart from the main theme. This is our feature.
[…]Obviously, our recommended traits are not concentration, but onslaught, speed, raid. This, obviously, is what we consider a sign of talent; painstaking and perseverance for us do not fit well with the idea of talent.
***
[...] how the Russian mind is not attached to facts. He loves words more and operates with them.
[...] Russian thought absolutely does not apply the criticism of the method, i.e. does not in the least 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 the study of life.
***
[...] Do we have this freedom [absolute freedom of thought]? I must say no.
[...] If someone speaks differently from what you think, some dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?
And here's another example for the previous one. We have always enthusiastically repeated the word "freedom", and when it comes to reality, it turns out to be a complete mistreatment of freedom.
***
[...] Attachment [thought to the idea on which we stopped] we have. 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, which we are experiencing, I do not even know whether it is worth giving examples.
***
[...] How is this feature [thoroughness, detail of thought] in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate through general propositions, we do not want to know either the measure or the number. We all believe dignity in driving to the limit, regardless of any conditions. This is our main feature.
***
[...] How do we, Russians, relate to this property [simplicity and clarity]? [...] The Russian man, I don't know why, does not seek to understand what he sees. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner will never refrain from asking a question. I had both Russians and foreigners at the same time. And while the Russian agrees, not really understanding, the foreigner will certainly try to get to the root of the matter. And it runs like a red thread through everything.
[...] In general, our audience has some desire for the foggy and dark.
***
[...] for us, first of all, the first thing is the desire for novelty, curiosity. It is enough for us to know something, and our interest ends there. [...] As I said at the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths, for them it is a process of enjoyment. But with us it is a commonplace, hackneyed truth, and it no longer interests us, we forget it, it no longer exists for us, it does not determine our position.
***
We do not have this [submission to the truth, deep humility before it], we have the opposite.
[...] Where does this pride and confidence come from? And you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don't we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity! And does this not testify to what extent we do not know reality, to what extent we live fantastically!
***
[...] it is the case with us that in almost every feature we are on the disadvantageous side. For example, we have curiosity, but we are indifferent to the absoluteness, immutability of thought. Or, instead of a specialty, we take general provisions from the line of detail of the mind. We are constantly taking a 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 inconsistencies with the surrounding reality.
***
[...] The characterization of the Russian mind that I have drawn is gloomy, and I am aware of it, I am bitterly aware of it. You will say that I exaggerated, that I am pessimistic. I won't dispute this. The picture is bleak, but what Russia is going through is also extremely bleak. And I said from the very beginning that we cannot say that everything happened without our participation. You will ask why I gave this lecture, what is the use of it. What, I enjoy the misfortune of the Russian people? No, there is a life calculation here. First, it is the duty of our dignity to be aware of what is.
[...] Therefore, even though 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.

On Russian Social Democracy:

[...] We have driven this idea [of social democracy] into the dictatorship of the proletariat. The brain, the head was put down, and the legs up. That which constitutes the culture, the mental strength of the nation, has been devalued, and what is still brute force, which can be replaced by a machine, has been 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 in which there is almost a boast of one's savagery. But I think that it would be much more fair to say the opposite: "What is healthy for a German, for a Russian is death." I believe that the German Social-Democrats will still acquire new strength, and we, because of our Russian Social-Democracy, may perhaps end our political existence.

On the Russian Revolution:

[...] Somehow, a few weeks ago, at the very height of the Bolshevik regime, my servant was visited by her brother, a sailor, of course, a socialist to the marrow of his bones. All evil, as expected, he saw in the bourgeoisie, and under the bourgeoisie meant everything except sailors, soldiers. When it was noticed to him that you could hardly do without the bourgeois, for example, cholera would appear, what would you do without doctors? - he solemnly replied that all this was nothing. "It's been known for a long time that cholera is caused by doctors themselves."
[...] It seems to me that what has happened now in Russia is, of course, the work of the intellectual mind, while the masses played a completely passive role, they accepted the movement along which the intelligentsia directed it. To refuse this, I believe, would be unfair, unworthy. 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 the masses of the people in a wild state, then, on the other hand, it should be recognized that progressive thought did not so much try to enlighten and cultivating the people, how much about revolutionizing them.

Pavlov, judging by this speech, was practically the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky! It is a pity that in vain then he wrote and said all this ...

I am sure that the point here is not in nationality and not even in culture or place of residence, but in the degree of maturity and development. The Russians (then) were simply not mature enough yet. I have in mind, first of all, the Russian persons of letters - the thinking elite, the intelligentsia. It seems that many of them were somehow too gullible that one of them once called them "Mr." And until now, many willingly act in this role - it can even be seen from the LiveJournal. But this is very harmful and simply suicidal ... And Pavlov's explanation - about the flaws in the mind of such people - clarifies a lot and even gives hope ... A hundred years ago it didn’t work out, maybe now it will work out?...

Update-correction. It turns out that this is not Pavlov's Nobel speech (he received the Nobel Prize in 1904, here is an article about this: I.P. PAVLOV'S NOBEL PRIZE for the 100th anniversary of the award Reflex of Freedom. It's a pity that you can't buy it anymore (in Ozone they write "The product is out of stock ")... Although I made an order just in case.

Any Soviet pioneer knew about Pavlov's dog. Portraits of the scientist along with Mendeleev, Popov, Lobachevsky and Michurin hung in every classroom.

At the 14th International Congress of Physiologists in 1935, Ivan Pavlov was crowned with the honorary title of “Elder Physiologists of the World.” Neither before nor after him, no biologist was awarded such an honor.
Ivan Petrovich is also known for being the first among Russian scientists to receive the Nobel Prize.
A little-known fact in the life of a scientist is the Nobel lecture he gave in 1918, in St. Petersburg, where he reflected on the "Russian mass mind".
It is difficult to accuse Pavlov of Russophobia and rejection of "spiritual bonds", but he is a scientist and therefore perceives reality as it is.
Here are a few points from the lecture useful for self-understanding.
-Russian thought does not at all apply criticism of the method, i.e. does not in the least 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 the study of life. How the Russian mind is not attached to the facts. He loves words more and operates with them. This is a verdict on Russian thought, it knows only words and does not want to touch reality. After all, this is a common, characteristic feature of the Russian mind.
- Take our Slavophiles. What did Russia do for culture at that time? What examples did she show the world? But people believed that Russia would rub the eyes of the rotten West. Where does this pride and confidence come from? And you think that life has changed our views? Not at all! Don't we now read almost every day that we are the vanguard of humanity?
- I feel that our intelligentsia, i.e. the brain of the motherland, in the funeral hour of great Russia, has no right to joy and fun. We should have one need, one duty - to protect the only dignity left to us: to look at ourselves and our surroundings without self-deception.
Let's take our arguments. They are characterized by extreme vagueness, we very soon depart from the main theme. This is our feature. Let's take our meetings. We now have so many meetings, commissions. How lengthy, verbose, and in most cases fruitless and contradictory these meetings are! We spend many hours in fruitless, pointless conversations.
-Take the Russian public that attends debates. It is a common thing that both the speaker “for” and the speaker “against” are equally passionately clapped. Does this speak of understanding? After all, there is only one truth, because reality cannot be both white and black at the same time.
-Do we have this freedom? I must say no. I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. You were dragged from your place, called almost a spy. But it doesn't just happen to us when we're young. Aren't our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, namely enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this?
P.S. I recommend that you read the entire

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

About the Russian mind

Gracious sovereigns! I beg your pardon in advance that in the depressing times that we are all going through, I will now be talking about some rather sad things. But I think, or rather, I feel that our intelligentsia, i.e. the brain of the motherland, in the funeral hour of great Russia, has no right to joy and fun. We should have one need, one duty - to protect the only dignity left to us: to look at ourselves and our surroundings without self-deception. Prompted by this motive, I considered it my duty and took the liberty of drawing 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. Mind is such a huge, vague topic! How to get started? I dare to think that I have succeeded in simplifying this task without losing efficiency. I acted in this respect purely practically. Abandoning the philosophical and psychological definitions of the mind, I settled on one sort of mind, well known to me partly from personal experience in a scientific laboratory, partly literary, specifically the scientific mind and especially the natural scientific mind, which develops positive sciences.

The correctness, 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 past, then it is clear that there will be no good results either, the goal will remain unattained. We are therefore quite capable of forming an exact notion of the properties and methods of a proper, active mind. I have established eight such general properties, methods of the mind, which I will list today specifically in an appendix to the Russian mind. What to take from the Russian mind for comparison, comparison with this ideal natural science mind? What to see the Russian mind? This issue needs to be stopped. Of course, several kinds of mind stand out clearly.

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, truly scientists, especially in backward countries, is very small. According to the statistics of one American astronomer, who has taken up the task of determining the scientific productivity of various peoples, our Russian productivity is negligible. It is several dozen 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, on the other hand, went beyond scientific influence, it was determined by the work of another mind, and the fate of the state does not depend on the scientific mind. In proof of this we have extremely harsh facts. Take Poland. Poland delivered to the world 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. We buried our genius Mendeleev ten years ago, but this did not prevent Russia from reaching the position it is in now. Therefore, it seems to me that I am right if I do not take into account the scientific mind in the future.

Extreme concentration of thought

I had to sit in one collegium together with an acquaintance who used to be a member of one of the Western European collegiums. And he could not marvel at the length and fruitlessness of our meetings. He was surprised: “Why do you talk so much, and the results of your conversations are not seen?” Farther. Address Russian people, for example, students. What is their attitude to this feature of the mind, to the concentration of thoughts? Lord! You all know that as soon as we see a person who has become attached to a case, sits over a book, ponders, does not get distracted, does not get involved in disputes, and we already have a suspicion: a narrow-minded, stupid person, a crammer. And perhaps this is a person whose thought captures the whole, who is addicted to his idea! Or in society, in a conversation, if a person asks, asks again, inquires, answers the question directly - we already have an epithet ready: stupid, narrow-minded, hard-thinking!

Direct contact with reality

(1) Manassein Vyacheslav Avksentievich (1841-1901), clinician, public figure, professor at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, editor of the Russian Doctor magazine.
Thus, gentlemen, you see that Russian thought does not at all apply the criticism of the method, i.e. does not in the least 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 the study of life. I gave you examples regarding students and doctors. But why refer these examples only to students, 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 the mind. It is freedom, absolute freedom of thought, freedom that goes straight to absurd things, to the point of daring to reject what is established in science as immutable. If I do not allow such courage, such freedom, I will never see anything new.<…>Do we have this freedom? I must say no. I remember my student years. It was impossible to say anything against the general mood. You were dragged from your place, called almost a spy. But it doesn't just happen to us when we're young. Aren't our representatives in the State Duma enemies of each other? They are not political opponents, namely enemies. As soon as someone speaks differently than you think, some dirty motives, bribery, etc. are immediately assumed. What kind of freedom is this? And here's another example for the previous one. We have always enthusiastically repeated the word “freedom”, and when it comes to reality, it turns out to be a complete mistreatment of freedom.

Attachment of thought to idea and impartiality

The next quality of the mind is the attachment of the thought to the idea where you left off. If there is no attachment, there is no energy, no success. You must love your idea in order 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 anything 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 next attachment of thought to that idea of the mind. That is why one of the torments of a learned person is constant doubts when a new detail, a new circumstance arises. You look anxiously whether this new detail is for you or against you. And long experiments solve the question: is your idea dead or has it survived? Let's see what we have in this respect. 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, which we are experiencing, I do not even know whether it is worth giving examples.

Thoroughness, detail of thought

The next, fifth feature is the thoroughness, the detail of thought. What is reality? It is the embodiment of various conditions, degrees, measures, weights, numbers. Outside of this, there is no reality. 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, they decided that there must be some other mass that affects the movement of Uranus. And that mass was Neptune. It was all about the detail of thought. And then they said that Le Verrier discovered Neptune with the tip of a pen. It's the same if you go down to the complexity of life. How many times a little phenomenon that barely caught your eye turns everything upside down and is the beginning of a new discovery. It's all about a detailed assessment of the details, conditions. This is the basic feature of the mind. What? How is this feature in the Russian mind? Very bad. We operate through general propositions, we do not want to know either the measure or the number. We all believe dignity 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 are getting 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 they have freedom and discipline side by side, while we certainly have extremes for the sake of the general situation. At present, physiological science is also coming to an understanding of 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 is called irritation<…>what is usually called discipline - physiologically corresponds to the concept of “inhibition”. And it turns out that all nervous activity is made up of these two processes - of excitation and inhibition. And, if you like, the second is even more important. Irritation is something chaotic, and inhibition puts this randomness in the frame.

But this is a very private matter, and it is of great importance where industrial activity has developed strongly. And what do we have? What have we made of it? We have driven this idea to the level of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The brain, the head was put down, and the legs up. That which constitutes the culture, the mental strength of the nation, has been devalued, and what is still brute force, which can be replaced by a machine, has been 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 in which there is almost a boast of one's savagery. But I think that it would be much more fair to say the opposite: "What is healthy for a German, for a Russian is death." I believe that the German Social-Democrats will still acquire new strength, and we, because of our Russian Social-Democracy, may perhaps end our political existence.<...>

The pursuit of scientific thought for simplicity

I give a full guarantee that this will not matter in the exams, and I keep my word. Why are they not using this right? Understand? No. And yet they are silent, indifferent to their misunderstanding. There is no desire to fully understand the subject, to take it into one's own hands. I have more examples than this. Many people of different ages, different competencies, different nationalities have passed through my laboratory. And here is the fact, which was invariably repeated, that the attitude of these guests to everything they see is sharply different. The Russian man, I don't know why, does not seek to understand what he sees. He does not ask questions in order to master the subject, which a foreigner would never allow. A foreigner will never refrain from asking a question. I had both Russians and foreigners at the same time. And while the Russian agrees, not really understanding, the foreigner will certainly try to get to the root of the matter. And it runs like a red thread through everything.<...>

Pursuit of Truth

The next property of the mind is the desire for truth. People often spend their whole lives in an office looking for the truth. But this striving breaks down into two acts. First, the desire to acquire new truths, curiosity, curiosity. And the other is the desire to constantly return to the acquired truth, to constantly be convinced and enjoy the fact that what you have acquired is really the truth, and not a mirage. One without the other is meaningless. If you turn to a young scientist, a scientific embryo, you can clearly see that there is a desire for truth in him, but he does not have a desire for an absolute guarantee that this is the truth. He is happy to collect results and does not ask the question, is this a mistake? While the scientist is captivated not so much by the fact that it is a novelty, but by the fact that it is really a solid truth. And 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 know something, and our interest ends there. (“Ah, it’s all already known”). As I said at the last lecture, true lovers of truth admire old truths, for them it is a process of enjoyment. But with us it is a commonplace, 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