this is, as Lenin has frequently pointed out, the very essence of materialism. The existence of natural science qua science is due to the ability to distinguish in our experience between what exists objectively and independently and what exists subjectively. This is not at variance with the different philosophical interpretations or whole schools in natural science which think idealistically. Natural science qua science is in itself, and independently from its proponents, materialistic. Psychology proceeded as spontaneously, despite the different ideas of its proponents, from an idealistic conception.

In reality, there is not a single empirical system of psychology. All transcend the boundaries of empiricism and this we can understand as follows: from a purely negative idea one can deduce nothing. Nothing can be born from “abstinence,” as Vvedensky has it. In reality, all the systems were rooted in metaphysics and their conclusions were overstated. First Vvedensky himself with his theory of solipsism, i.e., an extreme manifestation of idealism.

Whereas psychoanalysis openly speaks about metapsychology, each psychology without a soul concealed its soul, the psychology without any metaphysics—its metaphysics. The psychology based on experience included what was not based on experience. In short, each psychology had its metapsychology. It might not consciously realize it, but this made no difference. Chelpanov (1924), who• more than anyone else in the current debate seeks shelter under the word “empirical” and wants to demarcate his science from the field of philosophy, finds, however, that it must have its philosophical “superstructure” and “substructure.” It turns out that there are philosophical concepts which must be examined before one turns to the study of psychology and a study which prepares psychology he calls the substructure. This does not prevent him from claiming on the next page that psychology must be freed from all philosophy. However, in the conclusion he once more acknowledges that it is precisely the methodological problems which are the most acute problems of psychology.

It would be wrong to think that from the concept of empirical psychology we can learn nothing but negative characteristics. It also points to positive processes which take place in our science and which are concealed by this name. With the word “empirical” psychology wants to join the natural sciences. Here all agree. But it is a very specific concept and we must examine what it desiguates when applied to psychology. In his preface to the encyclopedia, Ribot [1923, p. ix] says (heroically trying to accomplish the agreement and unity of which Lange and Vaguer spoke and in so doing showing its impossibility) that psychology forms part of biology, that it is neither materialistic nor spiritualistic, else it would lose all right to be called a science. In what, then, does it differ from other parts of biology? Only in that it deals with phenomena which are ‘spirituels’ and not physical.

What a trifle! Psychology wanted to be a natural science, but one that would deal with things of a very different nature from those natural science is dealing with. But doesn’t the nature of the phenomena studied determine the character of the science? Are history, logic, geometry, and history of the theater really possible as natural sciences? And Chelpanov, who insists that psychology should be as empirical as physics, mineralogy etc., naturally does not join Pavlov but immediately starts to vociferate when the attempt is made to realize psychology as a genuine natural science. What is he hushing up in his comparison? He wants psychology to be a natural science about (1) phenomena which are completely different from physical phenomena, and (2) which are conceived in a way that is completely different from the way the objects of the natural sciences are investigated. One may ask what the natural sciences and psychology can have in common if the subject matter and the method of acquiring knowledge are different. And Vvedensky (1917,