Methodological functions of the history of psychology in modern science

The article discusses the role of the history of psychology in the search for adequate solutions to the methodological problems of psychological science. The most recent studies of consciousness, which combine a meticulous study of anatomy and physiology of the brain with the help of modern technology and introspective reports of the bearer of consciousness, differ little in their methodological foundations from those of more than a century ago, which were subjected to sound criticism for Cartesian dualism by L.S. Vygotsky and other representatives of cultural-historical activity theory in psychology. L.S. Vygotsky’s distinction between perezhivanie (experience) and scientific knowledge gives grounds to be critical of the assertion of some representatives and supporters of analytic philosophy that it is impossible to have a scientific comprehension of consciousness, which they identify with subjective reality. A comparative historical analysis of psychological ideas of B. Spinoza, A.N. Leontiev, and E.V. Ilyenkov leads to a conclusion that, in constructing his theory of activity, A.N. Leontiev was guided not by the official Soviet version of Marxism («dialectical materialism») but by the provisions of authentic Marxism. The philosophers of E.V. Ilyenkov’s circle fairly viewed Marxism as a continuation and development of Spinozism. On this philosophical basis, A.N. Leontiev’s scientific school created the concept of activity as a peculiar substance, with consciousness (and the psyche in general) being its function. This doctrine, confirmed by numerous empirical studies and the practice of forming consciousness in ontogenesis, is a good alternative to the Cartesian-oriented research on consciousness in modern cognitive sciences, which has reached a methodological dead end. The paper also shows the role of archival research in clarifying the origin and original meaning of terminology used in psychology. For example, the study of transcripts of the 1948 discussions presented in A.N. Leontiev’s book An Essay on the Development of the Psyche reveals that the phrase «the threefold scheme of analysis» originally appeared in the speeches of Leontiev’s opponents, while these terms (later used by Leontiev himself in his book Activity. Consciousness. Personality) only confuse the matter and do not allow one to adequately understand the non-trivial view on activity as a substance of consciousness developed by A.N. Leontiev’s school. In conclusion, the author argues that the special attention of the international scientific community to the historical heritage of the founders of cultural-activity psychology is due to its specific methodology, which makes it a «science of the future» and, in turn, requires a new historical-psychological and theoretical reflection.