of these differences) specific experiments, and in general 

 with the proper method of decision and judgment about 

 things. "^ 



Diadkovskii based his objection on his opinion that 

 living bodies could form from the non-living. In general, he 

 objected to the terms "dead bodies" and "dead powers." The 

 use of these terms could lead to the conclusion that "all 

 these bodies are considered products from the beginning of 

 the world and are considered to exist without activity. But 

 daily experience shows that these bodies have appeared in more 

 recent years. The dead bodies act like those which are called 

 living and, like the latter, are subjected in their actions to 

 laws. "75 Diadkovskii asked "how this dead nothing, this 

 absolute nothing, could reactivate dead, inert bodies and 

 prompt them to activity?" 



Instead of fruitless argument about the life power, 

 Diadkovskii suggested careful investigation of the conditions 

 necessary for the creation, formation, and preservation of 

 bodies. In characterizing the condition of life, Diadkovskii 

 gave some postulates and a general conclusion which was 

 considered a decisive confirmation of materialism. He wrote 

 that: 



All the mystery of the development and preservation of 

 bodies is included in certain materials that combine in 

 certain quantity and are present in a defined relation- 

 ship to the chemical and mechanical powers of surrounding 

 bodies. If that is the case, then it is clear that the 

 primary source must include and explain all the phenomena 

 of nature. ^6 The primary source should not be considered 

 a power or a particular beginning, which until now we 



74. Ibid ., p. 163. 



75. Ibid ., p. 164. 



76. The translator Lebedev has inserted at this point an 

 interlinear note relating the materialistic confirmation 



of Diadkovskii. To the phrase "all the phenomena of nature," 

 Lebedev add "Apparently, materially, nature is also 

 spiritually related to another, higher world." It is 

 difficult to say whether that was a compromise to meet the 

 requirements of censorship or "a correction" of the 

 specific ideas of Lebedev. 



196 



