DISCUSSION OF I. V. KUZNETSOV’S REPORT

“Against Idealistic Distortions of the Concepts of Mass and Energy” at the Academic Council of the Sector of Dialectical Materialism of the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences

(A Brief Overview of the Presentations)

N. F. Ovchinnikov

I. V. Kuznetsov’s report*) aroused great interest among those present, since the need for a broad discussion of the questions raised in the report had long since matured. Almost all those who spoke on the report noted the timeliness of the discussion of such a topic, approved the main line of the report, directed against manifestations of contemporary energetics, against idealistic distortions of the concepts of mass and energy. At the same time, other important aspects of the problem under discussion were also touched upon, aspects not illuminated or insufficiently developed by the speaker.

N. F. Ovchinnikov (Institute of Philosophy, USSR Academy of Sciences), in his presentation, cited statements by a number of bourgeois physicists and philosophers testifying to persistent attempts by idealism to distort the true meaning of the concepts of mass and energy, to try to remove from them their undoubtedly materialist content. Those who believe that there is no need to struggle against energetics, that manifestations of energetics are allegedly absent in contemporary science, are profoundly mistaken. True, in our day not a single bourgeois philosopher has written a special work in which, like Ostwald, he would set forth energetics in the form of the “newest” philosophical system. But this by no means signifies that energetics does not penetrate into scientific literature, does not distort scientific concepts by idealistically interpreting the basic content of scientific theories and hindering their development. For a successful critique of contemporary manifestations of energetics, it is necessary to expose it at its very foundation—in the interpretation of the concepts of mass and energy.

The widespread interpretation of the law of the interrelation of mass and energy as supposedly a law of the transformation of mass into energy is connected

) In expanded form it is printed in the present issue of Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk*, p. 221.

with an incorrect interpretation of the concept of mass. Those who recognize the convertibility of mass into energy thereby, in essence, reduce mass to an inessential property of material objects, a property that can disappear, be transformed into something entirely different.

Modern physics knows of no physical objects that do not possess mass. Mass is an essential characteristic of the atoms of the chemical elements, laid by D. I. Mendeleev at the foundation of the periodic law. The fact that the periodicity of the properties of the atoms of the chemical elements is directly connected with the charge of the nucleus does not remove the fundamental character of mass, for the increase in the charge of the nucleus is ultimately connected with an increase in its mass. The phenomenon of isotopy does not abolish, but only reveals, the complex character of this connection.

Mass is also an essential characteristic of all the “elementary” particles known to modern physics. This does not mean that mass is something unambiguous, inherent in all particles in one and the same form. Expressing one and the same property of inertia, mass differs in its nature among different particles. True, this qualitative difference of masses is not yet concretely grasped by contemporary theory.

The property of inertia itself cannot be separated from “elementary” particles, just as motion cannot be separated from matter. The motion of “elementary” particles is not only their spatial displacement, but also qualitative change, a change of their properties. But every material change cannot proceed instantaneously; it is always a temporal process. This latter circumstance determines the presence in material objects of a special property: to preserve the form of motion they have acquired and to change it over a certain finite interval of time. What we call inertia is only a manifestation of the spatio-temporal character of material motion. Motion is indestructible; it merely changes its forms. Inertia is an expression of the indestructibility of motion. Engels calls inertia a “negative expression of the indestructibility of motion.” This character of inertia is already revealed in mechanics. In the first law of Newtonian mechanics, inertia appears directly as the property of material bodies to preserve the state of uniform and rectilinear motion.

Qualitatively distinctive forms of motion (we are speaking, of course, only of physico-chemical forms of motion) correspond to manifestations of inertia that are specific in their nature. Ordinary macroscopic bodies possess mechanical mass, the nature of which still requires deep analysis. Electrically charged particles possess mass of an electromagnetic nature. Apparently, the case in which a particle lacks some concrete kind ofileswi

inertia. But any particle necessarily has one or another inertia, one or another mass, the specific nature of which is determined by the nature of the particle itself and by its real field connections.

Electromagnetic mass is apparently absent in the neutron. At the beginning of the century it was believed that the electron’s mass was entirely electromagnetic in nature; it was thought that it had no mechanical mass*).

Exposing the Machist fabrications about the “disappearance of matter,” V. I. Lenin wrote: “‘Matter disappears’—this means that the limit up to which we have known matter hitherto disappears, that our knowledge goes deeper; properties of matter disappear which formerly seemed absolute, immutable, primary (impenetrability, inertia, mass, etc.) and which now are revealed as relative, inherent only in certain states of matter”**).

Some philosophers and physicists dogmatically, scholastically interpret this statement of V. I. Lenin. They assert that V. I. Lenin wrote that any mass whatsoever may be absent in material objects. Such an interpretation of the above Leninist proposition is completely inadmissible. It distorts the very essence of Lenin’s struggle against Machism on this question.

In reality V. I. Lenin, relying on a profound analysis of the factual data of the physical science of his time, showed in this case that the absence, as physicists then supposed, of mechanical mass, or mechanical inertia, in the electron means only a deeper knowledge of the properties of the electron and, in particular, of its inertial properties. It is clear that V. I. Lenin in this case speaks only of mechanical mass, when he writes that this property is inherent “only in certain states of matter.” V. I. Lenin did not doubt that the electron possesses inertia, and consequently mass, but the electron’s mass had revealed another, non-mechanical nature. “...Strange as it may seem,” says V. I. Lenin, “the absence in the electron of any mass other than electromagnetic (emphasized by us.—N. O.), however unusual the limitation of the mechanical laws of motion to only one region of natural phenomena and their subordination to the deeper laws of electromagnetic phenomena, etc.—all this is merely a further confirmation of dialectical materialism”***).

) It was later shown that the mass of the electron has a more complex character and that its nature is not exhausted by electrodynamic processes.
) V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th ed., vol. 14, p. 247.
**) Ibid., p. 248.

Thus, the idea of the qualitative peculiarity of mass, as an essential property of all particles of matter known to modern physics, develops Lenin’s propositions concerning the electromagnetic mass of the electron. In this connection the following consideration may be advanced. If one recognizes the qualitative specificity of mass in accordance with its different nature in different material objects, then it would make sense to speak not simply of the law of conservation of mass, but of the law of conservation and transformation of mass, just as we speak of the law of conservation and transformation of energy.

The law of the interrelation of mass and energy, discovered by modern physics, is a generalization of two laws—the law of conservation and transformation of energy and the law of conservation and transformation of mass. Being a new, independent law of nature, it at the same time in no way abolishes the former laws. They retain all their significance and receive a deeper interpretation.

G. V. Chelintsev (Doctor of Chemical Sciences) drew attention to one variety of energetism in physics and chemistry which, in Prof. Chelintsev’s opinion, may be even more dangerous than Ostwald’s energetism. After the wave properties of the electron had been discovered, certain bourgeois physicists, instead of reflecting in a unified picture the dual, contradictory nature of the electron, proceeded along the line of creating one-sided conceptions that take into account only its wave nature. They began to speak of oscillation as such, of a wave as such, eliminating any mention of the carrier of wave processes. Such a conception, in essence, eliminates matter, reducing it to motion. Further, Prof. Chelintsev showed how this separation of matter from motion was adopted as, so to speak, the “physical” foundation of the so-called “resonance theory” in chemistry.

Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR A. A. Maksimov (Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) noted that the criticism of his statements on the transformation of mass into energy was just. He added, however, that he considers I. V. Kuznetsov’s general position on the question of mass and energy to be metaphysical.

Devoting a large part of his address to the so-called “resonance theory” in chemistry and to shortcomings in the area of the critique of idealism in physics, A. A. Maksimov expressed the following considerations on the question of mass and energy:

“I shall dwell first of all on the interpretation of the relation \(E = mc^2\). What is most fundamental for us on this question? I think it is indisputable that the most developed and fundamental statement on the relation \(E = mc^2\) is the article by the late S. I. Vavilov, published in the newspaper Pravda of January 5, 1949, under the title ‘Lomonosov’s Law...’ The basic

...its assertion is the assertion that the relation \(E = mc^2\) is one of the particular expressions of the universal law formulated by Lomonosov and stating: “All changes occurring in nature are of such a kind that as much as is taken away from one body, so much is added to another...”

Is it correct that the relation \(E = mc^2\) is an expression of the law of conservation and transformation of matter and motion? I think that it is correct.

Before the discovery of atomic transformations, before the study of the interaction of light and matter, the transformation of energy from one form into another was expressed by the formula \(E = F \cdot S\), where \(F\) is force and \(S\) is path, while the entire expression \(F \cdot S\) expresses work. Work here serves as a measure of the quantity of energy passing from one form into another. The left-hand side of the formula expresses the transformation of one form of energy into another; the right-hand side expresses the quantitative measure of these transformations. It indicates what quantity of one energy is equal to a definite quantity of another energy, i.e. it expresses the moment of conservation, of constancy. Consequently, the formula \(E = F \cdot S\) expresses both the moment of transformation and the moment of conservation in the processes of the motion of matter.

The formula \(E = mc^2\), as a measure of the quantities of mutually transforming forms of energy, has mass, since \(c^2\) is a constant quantity, although not dimensionless (it has the dimension of the square of velocity).”

Further, A. A. Maksimov said that allegedly the term “equivalence” is quite acceptable for denoting the law \(E = mc^2\). The whole point, in A. A. Maksimov’s opinion, is that, in using it, one must put into it Marxist, scientific content. In this case, he says, we obtain that mass becomes the equivalent of energy, i.e. the measure of energy. “True, some comrades,” continues A. A. Maksimov, “including Kuznetsov, Vyslobokov, Ovchinnikov, are inclined to accept the terms ‘equivalent’ and ‘equivalence’ in the Machist sense of the identity of mass and energy. But this means trailing behind the Machists in terminology.”

This last statement by A. A. Maksimov caused bewilderment, for the authors he named precisely do not accept the term “equivalence,” regard it as unsuccessful, and propose replacing it with another term, “interconnection.”

Considering the expression for kinetic energy, A. A. Maksimov arrives at the following conclusion: “The very expression \(\frac{mv^2}{2}\) indicates that the very concept of kinetic energy includes mass, i.e. the concept of energy embraces both the concept of motion and the concept of that which is moving. This,” he says, “is also true with respect to the expressions of electrical and other forms of energy.” In expressing these considerations, A. A. Maksimov, in our view,

in my opinion, inclines toward an energetic point of view. Energy is regarded as a concept that embraces both the concept of motion and the concept of matter (“that which moves”). Thereby he continues to defend the incorrect propositions expressed by him in the book Introduction to the Modern Doctrine of Matter and Motion.

Continuing the analysis of the concept of energy, A. A. Maksimov observed: “Thus, energy is not bare motion, as comrades Kuznetsov, Vislobokov, and others assert, but special manifestations of moving matter. In exactly the same way, the dialectical-materialist approach requires that in the manifestation of mass one should see not immobile, dead matter, but another form of manifestation of moving matter.”

Proceeding further to the question of mass and inertia, A. A. Maksimov set forth the following propositions concerning the specific nature of inertial properties.

Inertia, or the moment of conservation, manifests itself in all forms of motion. In mechanics and physics, as a rule, mass is considered the measure of inertia. But is there one and the same basis for the moment of conservation, or in other words for inertia, in mechanical, thermal, electrical, and intranuclear phenomena? The entire experience of the struggle of dialectical materialism against anti-scientific currents speaks in favor of the fact that the nature of “conservation,” the nature of inertia, is different in different phenomena. From the fact that we consider mass to be the measure of inertia, it does not yet follow that the inertial nature is identical in all phenomena. In the expression \(E = mc^3\), ordinary mass is taken as \(m\), and for quantitative calculations this is quite sufficient. But what is the nature of the inertia of light? Does light possess ordinary mass? Modern physics, often interpreted formalistically, does not give a definite answer to this question. But one thing is clear: light possesses a special kind of inertia, different from the inertia of ordinary bodies. In physics this is expressed by the assertion that photons do not possess rest mass.

Returning once more to his interpretation of the concept of energy, A. A. Maksimov emphasized: “Thus, the concept of energy is not identical with the concept of motion as such, as a form of the existence of matter. On the contrary, the concept of energy includes the concept of that which moves and the concept of motion. The Machists and the energetists, on the contrary, reduced and reduce energy to motion, denying matter. In his time Mach tried to interpret energy as pure motion, asserting that mass is merely a simple coefficient expressing the relation of acceleration... It is very surprising,” A. A. Maksimov declared, “that Vislobokov, in the pages of the journal Bolshevik, propagates a view of energy that is, in essence, identical with the view of Mach and Ostwald.”

Continuing further the analysis of the relation \(E = mc^2\), A. A. Maksimov noted that equations are of different kinds. For example, equa-

DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT BY I. V. KUZNETSOV

...identity equations (algebraic), transformation equations (chemical), and, finally, equivalence equations (20 arshins of canvas = 1 sirtuk). “The relation \(E = mc^2\) belongs to the last type. Just as the equation 20 arshins of canvas = 1 sirtuk contains no assertion that canvas is transformed into a sirtuk, so the equation \(E = mc^2\) contains no assertion that energy is transformed into mass, for the mass in the second part of the equation plays only the role of a measure of energy, just as 1 sirtuk serves as a measure of the value of 20 arshins of canvas.” “Consequently,” says A. A. Maksimov, “the assertion that mass is transformed into energy \(E = mc^2\) must be considered incorrect.”

In order to understand the essence of the transformations, he continued, which are represented by the left-hand side of the equation \(E = mc^2\), it is necessary to replace \(E\) by transformation equations, for example by equations of nuclear transformations, as physicists do. Unfortunately, such transformation equations are far from being disclosed in their physical essence and figure among physicists mainly only as instruments of calculation, i.e., purely empirically.

Having further noted the correctness of S. I. Vavilov’s position in the latter’s treatment of the relation \(E = mc^2\), A. A. Maksimov turned to a criticism of various incorrect statements on this question.

“In the physics course,” noted A. A. Maksimov, “edited by Academician Papaleksi, at the end of the section written by Prof. Rytov, the relation we are considering is treated as an assertion of the equivalence of any energy and inertial mass (p. 545). The relation itself is called the law of equivalence. Since Prof. Rytov not only does not dissociate himself from Einstein’s Machist views, he evidently invests in the term equivalence the Machist meaning of the identity of mass and energy and of their transformability.

In the general physics course by Frisch and Timoreva, the relation \(E = mc^2\) receives no special name and is interpreted as an expression of proportionality between change in energy and mass. This proportionality is also called a connection between mass and energy, and it is explained at once that this connection consists in the fact that a change in one of them leads to an equivalent change in the other. The whole matter, as we see, is reduced to simple arithmetical proportionality.

In Shpolsky’s Atomic Physics there is only the name ‘the relation between mass and energy’ and then the application of this relation to the calculation of the corresponding atomic transformations.

As we see, in the presentation of questions concerning the relation \(E = mc^2\) there is no proper consideration of the question, and the whole matter is reduced to a purely formal definition (‘proportionality,’ ‘connection’).

From the approach developed by S. I. Vavilov, we have lately rather taken a step backward, for the whole matter is reduced to the so-called

...of the connection between mass and energy, by which nothing is meant except simple proportionality. And this means a shift, on the question of the relation \(E=mc^2\), to metaphysical positions similar to Helmholtz’s positions in the interpretation of the law of conservation of energy, when only the moment of conservation was emphasized, while the moment of transformation was discarded. And this, in my opinion, is the negative result of the publications of Kuznetsov, Ovchinnikov, Suvorov, and some others.

The metaphysics of the views of Kuznetsov and others is reflected in their interpretation of mass and energy and of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. According to Kuznetsov, mass is a manifestation of matter devoid of motion, i.e., he considers mass from Newton’s standpoint. But already Engels comprehensively refuted such a view of mass, proving that there is no matter without motion, for motion is the form of existence of matter in all its manifestations. Mass, too, is not simply immobile matter in some manifestation of it, but a manifestation of moving matter. Kuznetsov and others discard motion when they speak of mass.

In exactly the same way, when they speak of energy, they interpret energy only as pure motion, torn away from matter. Dialectical materialism rejects such a metaphysical point of view, leading to idealism. Kuznetsov even went so far as to say that energy must have, as he writes on p. 24 of his report, a “carrier.” In accordance with this metaphysical point of view, which Kuznetsov carries through with respect to mass and energy, he tears apart the laws of conservation of mass and energy. For him these are two parallel, completely separate laws. And this is asserted by people who abuse the term interconnection of mass and energy.

In contrast to the metaphysical point of view of Kuznetsov and others, S. I. Vavilov wrote: “The two laws of conservation ceased to be separate, having nothing in common. Lomonosov’s anticipation of a certain more general principle of conservation began to be realized.”

It must be noted that, while criticizing various points of view on the relation \(E=mc^2\) and setting forth his own understanding of this question, A. A. Maksimov did not reveal the roots of the erroneous assertions about the transformation of mass into energy and of matter into energy, and did not give a principled assessment of these incorrect assertions. Moreover, in his argumentation A. A. Maksimov sometimes permits contradictory formulations that cause bewilderment. It remains, for example, unclear what is meant by the proposition that in the law \(E=mc^2\) it is necessary to emphasize the moment of transformation. This statement can be understood as an assertion of the transformation of mass into energy, which undoubtedly contradicts his own acknowledgment of the incorrectness of such assertions. Also unconvincing is A. A. Maksimov’s statement that Kuznetsov allegedly considers mass from Newton’s standpoint, and energy as pure motion torn away from matter. From the entire text of I. V. Kuznetsov’s report no such conclusion can be drawn. Completely

it is not clear why it is wrong to say that energy has a carrier, and so on.

Answering questions from those present, A. A. Maksimov noted that contemporary idealistic views on energy are being propagated energetically and broadly by the supporters of Bohr, Heisenberg, Jordan, and others. In all textbooks it is not Ostwald’s point of view on energy that is presented, but the Einsteinian, Bohr-like idealistic point of view, according to which energy is reduced to the results of measurement and depends entirely on the arbitrary choice of a coordinate system.

Ya. P. Terletskii (Doctor of Physical Sciences) observed that in I. V. Kuznetsov’s report, as well as in A. Vislobokov’s article in the journal Bolshevik, attempts to use imprecise formulations in order to smuggle in the idea of the emergence of matter and motion from nothing had been completely exposed. A definite achievement of the report is the recognition that formulations about the transformation of mass into energy, or about the transformation of matter into energy, and so forth, are incorrect. I think, he said, that after this report and the aforementioned article our physicists will not become confused on these questions.

However, it seems to me, continued Ya. P. Terletskii, that both I. V. Kuznetsov’s report and A. Vislobokov’s article to a certain extent reflect a certain stagnation in the question of mass and energy, whereas both physics and philosophy require forward movement on this question. Philosophers have fully assimilated Engels’ propositions on the law of conservation and transformation of energy, have assimilated the proposition on the indestructibility of motion, and know well Engels’ formulations concerning these questions; but, unfortunately, they have not been able (this applies also to physicists, but first of all to philosophers) to move forward in the face of new facts that appeared in physics long ago.

Energy, according to Engels, is the measure of motion in its transformation from one form into another. Engels showed that the law of conservation of quantity of motion expresses the conservation of motion in the transformation of mechanical motion into mechanical motion. These are the propositions well known to us, which have come down to us from Engels. However, these propositions, in the form in which they are formulated, as well as the proposition on the indestructibility of matter, are difficult to apply to those new physical laws of conservation that have been discovered by contemporary high-speed physics, or in the theory of relativity, as this area of physics is usually called.

In the theory of motion at high speeds, essentially new conservation laws were formulated that did not exist in earlier physics. In this new area of physics it turned out that space and time acquire certain new qualities,

some new properties. In this domain, space and time appear as closely connected with one another, and this connection has a definite and concrete character—a geometrical character. Space and time appear as a certain single four-dimensional continuum.

In connection with these new properties, the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, and mass also acquire a new form. They appear in a new form, unlike the form analyzed by Engels, and this form must be specially analyzed in order to reveal in it the conservation of matter and motion, just as this was done by Engels for classical physics.

What are these laws? They are formulated quite unusually, in the form of certain vector and tensor four-dimensional equations. The law of conservation of energy, momentum, and mass is formulated in the form of a single law as follows:

\[ \frac{\partial T_{ik}}{\partial x_k}=0, \]

where \(T_{ik}\) is the so-called energy-momentum tensor.

Each kind of matter is characterized by its own energy-momentum tensor. The general energy-momentum tensor may be represented as the sum of the corresponding tensors: \(T_{ik}^{(1)}+T_{ik}^{(2)}+\ldots\). From the general law of conservation there follow its already known particular expressions. If, in the appropriate way, we integrate over space the fourth components of the energy-momentum tensor, then we obtain a four-dimensional vector, the so-called energy-momentum vector. It has four components and, in passing from one frame of reference to another, transforms in the same way as a vector having three components in the corresponding three-dimensional space transforms under the corresponding rotation of axes.

For the four-dimensional energy-momentum vector the following relation is valid:

\[ P^2+m_0^2c^2=\frac{E^2}{c^2}. \]

If we take several particles or an aggregate of a number of forms of matter, then the following relation proves valid:

\[ \sum\left(P_k^2+m_{0k}^2c^2\right)=\sum\frac{E_k^2}{c^2}. \]

In this equality is contained what we call the law of conservation of energy. From this equality one may also extract what we call the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of momentum. If we pass to the cases of very small velocities, then from this law we obtain the customary laws of conservation of energy, momentum, and mass.

DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT BY I. V. KUZNETSOV

In the conservation laws for high velocities it is necessary to disclose the conservation of motion and of matter just as Engels did this for the physics of slow motions. This work, unfortunately, has not been done, and neither physicists nor philosophers have yet set about it.

A question was asked from the floor: “It is unclear what further work is required? Your departure from Engels is not evident.” Ya. P. Terletskii answers that it is necessary to disclose where the law of conservation and transformation of energy is here and where the law of conservation and transformation of mass is; it is required to show concretely that the new laws used by physicists also contain the law of conservation of matter and the law of conservation of motion. I do not want, Ya. P. Terletskii added, to show this here in detail; I shall do it in the near future in a special report.

Continuing his speech, Ya. P. Terletskii expressed the consideration that the relation \(E = mc^2\) does not yet express new conservation laws. It allegedly contains no conception of the conservation of matter. Ya. P. Terletskii also denied the necessity of calling the relation \(E = mc^2\) a law of nature. The relation \(E = mc^2\), he said, is wrongly elevated to the rank of a law. It is only a particular relation, while the more general conservation laws, expressed more complexly, are the principal ones.

“As in Comrade Kuznetsov’s report,” Ya. P. Terletskii observed, “so also in Comrade Vislobokov’s article, the laws of motion for high velocities are not analyzed. Everything is concentrated on the particular relation \(E = mc^2\); but this relation is very simple and thereby proves seductive: it seems that one can confine oneself to an analysis of this simple algebraic relation. However, this is far from the case: the given relation does not exhaust and does not reflect the essence of the new conservation laws; in this relation there is no conception of the conservation of matter. Incidentally, for this reason it is considered that mass is a measure of inertia and is not regarded as a measure of the quantity of matter, as Lomonosov did in his time.” Ya. P. Terletskii added that, unfortunately, it has not been disclosed and analyzed what is the measure of the quantity of matter.

Answering the question of what is the philosophical essence of the erroneous assertions about the transformation of mass into energy, Ya. P. Terletskii remarked that this is a manifestation of “physical” idealism.

V. E. Lvov (Leningrad), in his speech, proposed, in essence, a return to the Newtonian understanding of mass as the quantity of substance. Further expressing, in general, the correct idea that energy does not exist without matter, without a material carrier, he at the same time identified substance with matter, ignoring the distinction between substance and field.

B. M. Kedrov (Corresponding Member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR) noted that the critical part of I. V. Kuznetsov’s report is completely correct,

As for the positive part, it requires further concretization, development, and discussion. B. M. Kedrov devoted the subsequent part of his speech to characterizing two directions in the interpretation of the concepts of mass and energy, to defining the basic concepts, and to clarifying the terminology.

The thesis of the transformation of mass into energy, says B. M. Kedrov, is not merely a physical error, but an error that represents a manifestation of “physical” idealism.

The materialist line on this question rests on the recognition of the inseparability of matter and motion. The proposition that mass is transformed into energy, and even that matter or substance is transformed into energy, is an expression of the idealist, energeticist line. No pseudoscientific propositions, no logical tricks can conceal the basic and decisive fact that what is at issue here is a struggle between two irreconcilable, opposed, mutually incompatible conceptions—the materialist conception, which has materialist traditions in our national science, and the idealist conception, which preaches the disappearance of mass, the transformation of mass, or even of matter, into energy.

According to the point of view of A. A. Maksimov, expressed in the present discussion, energy embraces both motion and that which moves, and matter moves. Thus, according to Maksimov, matter is subordinated to energy, is encompassed by the concept of energy; the concept of energy is allegedly broader than the concept of matter.

It should be said, B. M. Kedrov says, that the attempt to find a generic concept in physics under which the remaining concepts could be subsumed led in its time to Ostwald and his followers among contemporary philosophers repeating the thesis that “energy is the universal substance” (T. P. Kravets and other authors). Abroad this is Einstein’s line.

Is the very posing of the question correct—that one can find such a generic concept in physics under which mass, motion, force, etc., can be subsumed? From B. M. Kedrov’s point of view, such a posing of the question is incorrect. Why should these formal-logical devices (the subsuming of the concept “donkey” under the concept “animal”) be used to solve the fundamental questions of contemporary physics? We know how complex the relations among things themselves are, and how important it is in science to investigate concretely all the logical categories advanced by contemporary science; for without analyzing these categories, without revealing their content, without giving them precise definitions, we cannot avoid the danger that one or another category, at a certain moment, will be interpreted in the spirit of idealism.

We cannot take as a basis one expression—for example, one that gives the definition of mass as a measure of inertia, or another—as a measure of gravitation, or any other proposition. Not on any one of

DISCUSSION OF I. V. KUZNETSOV’S REPORT

we cannot construct the concept of mass from them separately. The concept of mass is broader than an expression about relations in the domain of mechanics, or the doctrine of gravitation, etc. We have much more complex relations, into which one and the same magnitude of mass enters. In order to define the concept of mass, it is necessary, first of all, to take in the aggregate all those relations and connections, those laws, in which this concept figures, and to analyze them, finding as a result of this analysis that common element which lies at the basis of the definition of these particular formulas and laws. Whence, for example, did the concept of energy arise? Through the law of the conservation and transformation of energy. The concept of the element existed before Mendeleev, but it was incorrect, crude; with the discovery of the periodic law, however, the concept of the chemical element acquired an entirely different character, one deriving from the periodic law. This was Mendeleev’s definition of the fundamental chemical concept through a law. Such a definition through a law is entirely natural when one is speaking of a very broad scientific concept.

While correctly emphasizing the necessity of analyzing the content of concepts in connection with the basic laws of science, B. M. Kedrov at the same time expressed the consideration that the concept of mass is the broadest concept in physics and that, just as in gnoseology we cannot subsume the concept of matter under any broader concept, so too the concept of mass allegedly cannot be subsumed under a broader concept.

In expressing this latter consideration, B. M. Kedrov is undoubtedly wrong, for he loses sight of the obvious fact that any science, including physics, is obliged to lay at the foundation of its investigations the concept of matter—the broadest concept in all the sciences.

Concerning the interpretation of the law \(E = mc^2\), B. M. Kedrov said the following: Let us take the example of the so-called “annihilation” of a positron and an electron, their transformation into photons. Substance possesses a rest mass and an energy corresponding to this mass. But a field also possesses a corresponding mass and corresponding energy. We discover here that one form of matter is transformed into another, but mass and energy are thereby conserved, conserved in their indissoluble unity.

What do the confused persons do? They mix up two things: first, they forget that energy is inherent in substance and identify substance with mass; and, in addition, they assert that field and energy are one and the same, thereby ignoring the results of P. N. Lebedev’s experiments. Of course, if we adopt this confused point of view, we shall find that the transformation of substance into light must be equivalent to the transformation of mass into energy. Since, moreover, matter is identified with substance, it follows that matter, mass, and substance must all be transformed into energy.

Turning to the question of terminology, B. M. Kedrov noted that there are about a dozen different terms for denoting the law \(E = mc^2\). All of them are unsuccessful. The term “equivalence,” still the most widespread, although it contains an expression of the quantitative relation between mass and energy, is at the same time also unsuccessful. This term has been dragged in by Einsteinists, “physical” idealists, and is borrowed not from political economy, but from the law of conservation and transformation of energy. It has been transferred into the interpretation of the law of the interconnection of mass and energy in order to say that mass and energy are related to one another in the same way as mutually transforming forms of energy.

The most successful of the terms now in use is the term “interconnection,” but even it is insufficient, because it is necessary to emphasize more sharply the moment of inseparability.

Concluding his speech, B. M. Kedrov drew attention to the necessity of the most resolute criticism of idealistic distortions of the concepts of mass and energy, irrespective of authorities.

R. Ya. Shteinman (BSE) emphasized the importance of the question under discussion for physics itself, since an erroneous interpretation of the concepts of mass and energy is a manifestation of Einstein’s idealistic line in contemporary physics. The vicious point of view on mass and energy is organically connected with the interpretation of physical fields as something immaterial. The gravitational field, for example, is still regarded as a metric of space-time. Eddington, in his book The Theory of Relativity, tries in every possible way to prove that the gravitational field is not a physical object, but only a metric.

In reality, space and time are fundamental forms of the being of matter. They cannot be identified with matter itself. Only Menshevizing idealists regarded matter as a synthesis of space and time. The fact that the field was not considered a material object at one time impeded the development of the theory of the electromagnetic field. An analogous interpretation of the gravitational field has made it difficult to solve a number of current physical problems. It led to the fact that the question of the microstructure of the field was removed from the agenda of theoretical physics for a long time. All this was reinforced by the fact that mass was regarded as a measure of energy, being identified with energy.

The discoveries of the last two decades have convinced the majority of physicists that the field cannot be reduced to space-time, that it is necessary to work out the question of the structure of the field, of its nature. An especially important discovery here was the experimental discovery in 1948 of the action of the so-called “vacuum.” This action is manifested in the change of the magnetic moment of the electron, in the shifting of energy levels in atoms, etc. It was definitively

it has been proven that the so-called “pure space,” “emptiness,” in fact acts, manifests itself. Hence, here we are dealing with matter. This is why the problem of the microstructure of the field has been placed on the agenda.

The Einsteinian line of interpretation of the field also led to the fact that it removed from the agenda the problem of the study of mass. If it is accepted that mass is identical with energy, then an explanation of inertia as a property of an object, an elucidation of the various forms of the inertia of matter, prove unnecessary. Precisely for this reason the work that had been begun by a major materialist physicist of the beginning of our century—Lorentz (and even before him had already been outlined by Umov)—was in fact interrupted, and after Lorentz’s theory of mass, for 30 years, essentially nothing new was done on this question in theoretical physics. This is why I believe, R. Ya. Shteinman emphasized, that the correct solution of the question of the relation between mass and energy is not a particular question; this question is organically connected with a whole complex of the most important problems over which a struggle is taking place in contemporary physics.

At the end of his speech R. Ya. Shteinman noted that in I. V. Kuznetsov’s report and in the article in the journal Bolshevik the question of energetism and the necessity of combating it had been posed correctly. Energetism is one of the manifestations of “physical” idealism, which hampers the development of physics. R. Ya. Shteinman added that A. A. Maksimov, in his speech, had not indicated the direction of the main blow in the struggle against “physical” idealism, that his struggle against Einsteinian distortions in the field of physics was torn away from the pressing tasks of science and was being conducted dogmatically.

S. G. Suvorov (the journal Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk) assessed the basic propositions of I. V. Kuznetsov’s report and of A. Vyslobokov’s article in the journal Bolshevik as unquestionably correct. He added that, of course, it was not difficult to notice, as Ya. P. Terletskii had done, that the article in Bolshevik contains no further development of the problem in the physical plane, that tensors, etc., are not analyzed. But it must be clear to everyone that Bolshevik had to pose the question of the struggle against energetism politically, and it did so.

It is clear that the counterposing of matter and energy, as though standing above matter, just like the assertion that contemporary physics has supposedly proved that the concept of energy embraces not only the concept of motion but also matter—these are non-Marxist, unscientific assertions. V. I. Lenin proved this already in 1908, and, noting the viciousness of these assertions, we discover nothing new here. We urge only that Lenin be followed by those who have departed from him on this question. Also incorrect is the assertion that substance is transformed into energy,

...for substance is one of the forms of matter. These propositions are of a directly philosophical order, and they are understandable to the principal cadres of philosophers and physicists.

But we must also make clear another thought: that modern physics provides no proof whatever of the transformation of mass into energy, or vice versa.

Further, S. G. Suvorov dwells in detail on the fact that all modern physics leads us to the conclusion that another, deeper understanding is necessary of the essence of any physical process and, in particular, of mechanical motion. Physical processes occurring in substance are inevitably connected with changes in the relations of substance with the field, for the interaction of substance is effected through fields. Only by taking this circumstance into account can one correctly understand the relation \(E = mc^2\), without falling either into one extreme—the assertion that mass is transformed into energy—or into the other extreme—the identification of mass with substance or even with some as yet unknown form of matter.*)

At the end of his address S. G. Suvorov criticized the erroneous treatment of the question of mass and energy, including the position of the journal Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk, which in 1948 published T. P. Kravets’s confused and disorienting article “The Evolution of the Doctrine of Energy.” We must resolutely correct these errors, and not cover them up, said S. G. Suvorov. One must not shield oneself behind the authority of S. I. Vavilov, as A. A. Maksimov does. S. I. Vavilov in 1928 expressed an erroneous judgment, but he himself was the first later to explain the meaning of the error. The unprincipled position of A. A. Maksimov’s self-defense leads to a deepening of the former errors. This is expressed, in particular, in his assertion that energetism is connected only with the denial of atoms and that in our time, when atomic physics has achieved successes, there is no longer any energetism. An analogous, fundamentally incorrect point of view, but with respect to Machism, was expressed by A. F. Ioffe in 1934**) and was, in its time, subjected to decisive criticism. V. I. Lenin showed that energetism is expressed in the attempt to think motion without matter; this tendency is manifested among many foreign physicists who, although they recognize atoms, regard them as a mental construction. Therefore the struggle against energetism in physics is a pressing task in our own time as well.

A. F. Kapustinsky (Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) devoted a considerable part of his address to explaining the errors he had made in his treatment of the concept of mass and energy. In

*) The main propositions of S. G. Suvorov’s address concerning this aspect of the question are being published separately in the present issue.

) See A. F. Ioffe, “The Development of Atomistic Views in the Twentieth Century,” Pod znamenem marksizma, No. 4, 1934.

DISCUSSION OF THE PAPER BY I. V. KUZNETSOV

In this connection he stated that the incorrect proposition on the transformation of mass into energy, which occurs in his brochure published in 1947, he had simply borrowed from the book by S. I. Vavilov devoted to the theory of relativity (published, let us add on our own behalf, in 1928).

Touching on the question of energetism, A. F. Kapustinskii said that the energetic errors that occur in contemporary physics should not be connected with Ostwald’s energetism, on the grounds that Ostwald himself supposedly renounced energetism. Meanwhile it is known that Ostwald merely recognized the existence of atoms (it would have been unwise not to make such a recognition!).

The following statement by A. F. Kapustinskii made a strange impression. If I were asked, he said, whether I am an energetist, I would answer: “Yes, I am an energetist, because for almost twenty-five years I have been engaged with questions of energy, and in the Academy of Sciences there even exists an Energetic Institute.” In the present case A. F. Kapustinskii revealed an inadmissible identification of a variety of “physical” idealism, speculating on distortions of the concept of energy, with a branch of science concerned with the use and study of energy resources.

N. V. Pilipenko (Academy of Social Sciences) spoke with resolute criticism of those comrades who proposed not to call the relation \(E = mc^2\) a law of nature. He recalled that a law is, above all, an essential connection between phenomena, and in the present case modern physics has undoubtedly disclosed an essential, inseparable connection between mass and energy. N. V. Pilipenko noted that S. I. Vavilov, in his article “Lomonosov’s Law,” calls the relation \(E = mc^2\) a law.

Kh. M. Fataliev (Physics Faculty of Moscow State University), at the beginning of his speech, dwelt on the fact that the erroneous point of view on the question under discussion was not held by A. A. Maksimov alone. It is a matter, he said, of the responsibility of a large group of philosophers and physicists who overlooked these errors and did not react to them.

Kh. M. Fataliev noted that it is necessary to approve the initiative of the editorial board of the journal Bolshevik, shown in raising this question. Energetism, he added, now appears as a component part of the idealist conception in quantum mechanics, developed by Bohr and Heisenberg, and as a component part of the relativistic conception developed by Einstein. Therefore the task consists in linking the criticism of energetic errors with the exposure of the fashionable trends of bourgeois philosophy under whose banner energetism appears.

Proceeding to an examination of the concept of mass, Kh. M. Fataliev stated that the question of the qualitative specificity of mass up to

...still unclear. However, this problem must be posed. I, for example, cannot allow, he says, that qualitatively different forms of energy in the relation \(E=mc^2\) should always be connected with a uniform mass. As for the law \(E=mc^2\), it ought to be considered as a particular consequence of the more general law of the conservation of matter and motion.

M. I. Batuev (Institute of Organic Chemistry) emphasized that contemporary energetism as a variety of “physical” idealism consists in the fact that it tears motion away from matter and absolutizes it as such. In this respect it differs in principle in no way from Ostwald’s; it is merely clothed in other verbal garments. A. Vislobokov in his article and I. V. Kuznetsov in his report convincingly showed the presence in our time of energetism as a variety of “physical” idealism; in this lies the merit of their work.

How could A. A. Maksimov ignore the existence in our time of energetism as a variety of “physical” idealism, arising on the basis of the absolutization of motion torn away from matter? How could he pass by a mountain of facts testifying to this, and assert that there is no energetism as a variety of “physical” idealism in our time? This is in general difficult to understand; I think, says M. I. Batuev, that certain subjective factors played a role here—A. A. Maksimov’s mistakes on this question in the past and his unwillingness to examine them critically.

At the same time M. I. Batuev expressed doubt as to the advisability of calling the relation \(E=mc^2\) the law of the interconnection of mass and energy. In this terminology he saw “something reminiscent of the metaphysical materialism of T. P. Kravets.” M. I. Batuev for some reason saw in the term “interconnection” an indication that allegedly here “matter and material motion are spoken of as standing, as it were, in one row of material objects.” “But matter and motion,” he remarked, explaining his position, “stand to each other in the relation of form and content, and not in the relation of interconnection of material objects with one another.”

Here M. I. Batuev is wrong: the law of the interconnection of mass and energy by no means places energy in one row with matter, if only because mass is not matter, but only one of its properties. Consequently, in this law what is at issue is the interconnection of two properties inherent in one and the same material object.

At the end of his speech M. I. Batuev noted that the attempts of A. A. Maksimov and A. F. Kapustinsky to hide behind the back of S. I. Vavilov had produced an unpleasant impression. S. I. Vavilov’s work Experimental Foundations of the Theory of Relativity dates from 1928. S. I. Vavilov is well known as a man who...

...who continuously grew and became a conscious dialectical materialist. His works from the early 1930s and later (“The Dialectics of Light Phenomena” in the journal Under the Banner of Marxism, 1934, No. 4; “The Development of the Ideas of Matter,” ibid., 1941, No. 2; The Eye and the Sun, 1950, and others) now help to defend the positions of dialectical materialism against idealist distortions. Can one, taking all this into account, cite S. I. Vavilov in justification of one’s former errors?

I. V. Kuznetsov delivered the concluding remarks. He summed up the discussion that had taken place. The discussion showed, above all, that, with the exception of A. A. Maksimov, everyone acknowledged that in bourgeois science there is modern energetics as a variety of “physical” idealism. In the course of the discussion, he stated, creative attempts were made to illuminate a number of serious questions connected with the problem of mass and energy; errors of an energetistic character in the works of individual Soviet scholars were subjected to criticism.

At the same time, in his concluding remarks the speaker expressed disagreement with certain propositions put forward in the course of the discussion. He did not agree with Ya. P. Terletsky’s proposition that we have all assimilated very well the statements of Engels and Lenin concerning the question under discussion. It is precisely the poor assimilation and uncreative study of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism that is the cause of the energetistic errors of certain comrades. A. A. Maksimov, for example, on this question has committed gross deviations from the Marxist-Leninist point of view. In his works Engels systematically advances the idea that energy is the measure of motion. If we know this well, then on what basis is the proposition advanced that the concept of energy includes within itself both the concept of matter and the concept of motion? Is it not clear that this proposition is not a development, but a direct retreat from Engels’ position? It seems to me, I. V. Kuznetsov noted, that there are no grounds whatsoever for departing from Engels’ view of energy as the measure of the motion of matter.

I. V. Kuznetsov also said that Ya. P. Terletsky is mistaken in characterizing A. Vyshobokov’s article in the journal Bolshevik as marking time. This article has undoubtedly given our science theoretical and political assistance. It is a step forward in the development of this question.

I. V. Kuznetsov expressed a resolute protest against the attempts of A. A. Maksimov and A. F. Kapustinsky to explain their errors as supposedly a simple borrowing of them from S. I. Vavilov. Vavilov did allow erroneous propositions in 1928. But from whom did S. I. Vavilov borrow the erroneous propositions he expressed in 1928? Clearly, from the “physical” idealists. Consequently, in the final ...

ultimately A. A. Maksimov and A. F. Kapustinskii borrowed their erroneous propositions from the “physical” idealists.

But S. I. Vavilov had long since revised his former erroneous point of view, subjected it to criticism, and corrected it. This, however, was done neither by A. A. Maksimov nor by A. F. Kapustinskii. One cannot refer, in justification of one’s errors, also to S. I. Vavilov’s article “Lomonosov’s Law,” published in Pravda. That article is correct, although it does contain certain terminological inaccuracies. In this article S. I. Vavilov speaks directly of the connection between mass and energy. Here are the relevant quotations: “This relation indicates the existence of a fundamental, indivisible connection between mass and energy.” “This relation, with particular simplicity and clarity, speaks of such a connection between mass and energy.” “From the relation \(E = mc^2\) there followed a quite definite connection between the energy of light and its mass.” Here is the term “equivalence,” behind which some comrades wish to hide: “the equivalence of mass and energy indicates only the quantitative value of the energy corresponding to a given mass.”

Concerning the speech by B. M. Kedrov, I. V. Kuznetsov noted that in his speech, which as a whole was interesting and substantive, there is one incorrect assertion. B. M. Kedrov is mistaken when he wishes to present the concepts of mass and energy as maximally broad concepts in physics. The maximally broad concepts in physics, as in philosophy, are the concepts of matter and motion, and not of mass and energy.

Great creative tasks stand before us, said I. V. Kuznetsov. We must not confine ourselves merely to criticism of energetics. First of all, it is necessary to analyze deeply the question of the content of the concepts of mass and energy, to work out their precise, scientific definitions, based on the ideas of the classics of Marxism-Leninism and taking into account the newest achievements of physics. It is required, in particular, to clarify the question of the relation between the concept of energy and the concept of the form of motion of matter. It is necessary to investigate the question of the profound connection between the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass, especially for processes proceeding at high velocities.

It is necessary to analyze the philosophical foundations of the modern theory of mass, the ways of its elaboration and further development. Investigation and a deep physical substantiation of the problem of the specificity of mass in various material objects are required. It is necessary to bring clarity to the question of the relation between the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of matter.

Questions of terminology are also essential. It should be acknowledged that the name “law of the interconnection of mass and energy” is the most successful. This name makes it possible to dissociate oneself decisively from the vicious point of view concerning the transformation of mass into energy and conversely. Of course, one can and must think about further refinement.

In summing up the results of the discussion, the chairman of the session of the Academic Council, A. F. Okulov, noted the following:

Our common opinion comes down to the fact that the thorough discussion of the question of mass and energy confirms the timeliness of the publication of Comrade Vislobokov’s article in the journal Bolshevik.

The discussion also showed the advisability of a joint discussion by physicists and philosophers of the most important theoretical questions of modern physics, for the philosophical side of modern physics is of enormous significance not only for physicists, but also for philosophers. The certain disunity of physicists and philosophers that existed in the past has had a very negative effect on our common work.

It seems to me, said A. F. Okulov, that in our discussion, despite Comrade Kuznetsov’s good report and the substantive speeches of the comrades, an insufficient analysis was nevertheless given of the contemporary forms of energetism and of its struggle against materialism. The reason for this phenomenon evidently lies in the fact that our physicists and philosophers do not closely follow contemporary foreign literature on questions of physics and do not always come forward in good time and resolutely against all manifestations of idealism in contemporary bourgeois science. Therefore this conference must serve as an important stimulus in this direction. The efforts of physicists and philosophers must now be directed toward criticism of bourgeois contemporary physical and philosophical literature, toward criticism of all active preachers of energetism and other forms of “physical” idealism.

In waging the struggle against contemporary energetism in bourgeois literature, Soviet philosophers and physicists must also struggle against all deviations from materialism in our own literature.

Therefore I believe that the criticism of Comrade Maksimov’s errors in the pages of the journal Bolshevik was entirely correct, and it will be useful not only to Comrade Maksimov, but will also help the whole cause of developing the philosophical questions of modern physics. The criticism of Comrade Maksimov at the present Academic Council was also correct, and this criticism will benefit him, especially since Comrade Maksimov’s speech was not self-critical.

All those critical remarks that were expressed in the present discussion concerning the workers of the Institute of Philosophy we shall take into account with the utmost attention, and for our part we shall take all necessary measures so that the workers of the Institute of Philosophy will more actively join in the struggle against various idealistic perversions in contemporary natural science.

The Academic Council of the Sector of Dialectical Materialism of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR adopted a resolution in which it noted that one of the active and militant varieties

the present-day “physical” idealism is modern energetics, based on a falsification of the genuine content of the most recent physical discoveries, in particular of the physical law expressing the interconnection of mass and energy. Like Ostwald’s energetics, which was demolished by V. I. Lenin, modern energetics smuggles in the idea of motion without matter; the pseudo-scientific “substantiation” of these attempts consists in the assertions of idealists about the “transformation” of mass into energy and of matter into energy, allegedly following from the law of the interconnection of mass and energy. In reality, however, such a “transformation” has no place in nature. The genuine content of scientific discoveries speaks of the inseparability of mass and energy, and once again confirms the proposition of dialectical materialism concerning the inseparability of matter and motion.

The Scientific Council noted that errors of an energetical character had also penetrated into the works of a number of Soviet scholars who defended the proposition that there allegedly takes place a “transformation” of matter into energy and of energy into matter. Assertions of this kind were found in the works of the physicists Academician A. F. Ioffe, Corresponding Members A. F. Kapustinsky and T. P. Kravets, Professor E. V. Shpolsky, and others. They are also contained in the works of some Soviet philosophers, in particular some staff members of the Institute of Philosophy.

“In the fact that some of our physicists,” the journal Bolshevik rightly points out, “in one way or another pay tribute to ‘energetism,’ entering into contradiction with contemporary science and with the proposition of dialectical materialism on the inseparable connection of matter and motion, some Soviet philosophers are above all to blame. Instead of resolutely exposing ‘energetism,’ they themselves sometimes make mistakes, make concessions to ‘energetism,’ and adopt and use the terminology of the ‘energetists.’ Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR A. A. Maksimov, being a specialist in the philosophy of natural science, correctly criticizes modern ‘physical’ idealism on a number of questions. At the same time A. A. Maksimov conducts almost no struggle against such a variety of ‘physical’ idealism as ‘energetism.’ Moreover, in some of his works he himself develops views that are fundamentally incorrect on the relation between mass and energy and even between matter and energy”*).

The presence of errors of an energetical character in the works of Soviet physicists and philosophers is the result of an insufficiently deep study of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, and also a consequence of an uncritical attitude toward the views of bourgeois scientists. Criticism of modern “energetism” and of errors of an energetical character in the works of some Soviet scholars,

) Journal Bolshevik*, No. 6, 1952, p. 52.

given in the statement by the theoretical and political organ of the Central Committee of the VKP(b), Bolshevik, is wholly and completely correct.

The Academic Council resolved:

1. To deem it necessary to organize at the Institute of Philosophy a comprehensive and thorough elaboration of the problems connected with the concept of mass and energy, with the law of the interrelation of mass and energy, and with the law of the conservation and transformation of energy, on the basis of the latest data of physical science.

2. To entrust the elaboration of these problems to the Sector of the Philosophy of Natural Science. To oblige the Sector of the Philosophy of Natural Science to draw into the elaboration of the indicated problems a broad circle of specialist physicists from the physical institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences and from non-academic scientific institutions.

3. To deem it necessary to expand the criticism of “energeticism” in the journal Problems of Philosophy.

4. To note the lack of self-criticism in Comrade A. A. Maksimov’s presentation at the session of the Academic Council.

5. To publish the materials of the present discussion in print.