Allakhverdov, V.M.

Relevance. The article is written in honor of the anniversary of the outstanding scientist. It examines the paradoxical nature of Leontiev’s creative path. He keenly felt the scale of unsolved problems facing psychology. A talented experimentalist, fascinated by concrete empirical phenomena, not only did he try it himself but urged his students to develop psychology “not into a forest but into a tree” as well. However, he framed his creative ideas with philosophical constructions somewhat superfluously.

Objective. Leontiev’s concepts are not discussed in the current article, but all their merits are presented. Despite the efforts of their creator, these concepts cannot be directly deduced from philosophical constructions and cannot be substantiated by them. Leontiev was aware of the tragic incompleteness of his own views. Since he had to adapt to the official government ideology, he had to use Aesopian language to deliver his concepts.

Results. Leontiev’s problem was his excessive and sincere fascination with the Marxist philosophy. However, it turned out to be a blessing for Soviet psychology since it allowed him to defend the young science in a country where Marxism was recognized as the only true doctrine and all other views were ostracized.

Conclusions. Leontiev’s talent for organization and passion for science contributed to the emergence of a powerful research school, famous for its brilliant students and followers. The fact that A.N. Leontiev’s school not only endures, in whatever directions it takes off, but also continues to have great influence on psychology is an indicator of the true greatness of its founder.

This article claims: the nature of consciousness is mysterious, the definitions are contradictory, and its theory is non=existent. The article presents the results of studies that cannot be explained within the recognized models. Specifically, we describe the phenomenon of negative choice. We introduce an idealized brain that does not have limitations in either volume, or speed of processing the information, nor does it have the limits of the storage capacity. Under this view, we answer the question: what does an ideal brain needs consciousness for? We propose that consciousness is the imitator of the acts of cognition.