Many people know " main question Life, Universe and Everything Else ", many people know and the answer to it is" 42 ". However, many of these people, strangely, have no idea where he came from at all. They think that this is a new meme that has appeared on the Internet. This is really a meme, only now it appeared much earlier. And it was like this.
A young Briton named Douglas Adams decided to hitchhike to Istanbul right before entering college: to see the world and show himself. But the story ended with a complete failure: the dude was caught by the Turkish authorities and expelled from the country. It's good that at least they didn’t go to jail! Years later, when Adams was writing the script for a new science fiction radio show, this was the story he remembered.
Many enlightened dudes have already realized that we are talking about the series of novels "The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy", or "The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy". It all started like a radio show. It was the first successful unconventional fantasy play to have quite a few traditional fantasy elements. The first part of this story came out on March 8, 1978. She immediately had a great many fans. The management of the radio station was completely shocked: they had no idea that this show could become popular. “Half an hour of wordplay and philosophical jokes about the meaning of life and fish in the ears,” they said about the show. And they were right. The fact is that for the leadership, science fiction was an absolutely primitive genre with chases, shuttles, gray men and blasters, these bureaucrats had no idea that science fiction could be different. And the "Guide ..." was just another fantasy.
For non-fans of blasters, the show was remembered for the fact that it was a beautiful satire on the surrounding reality with excellent British humor in the spirit of "Monty Python". In addition, nowhere else did they go through human nature: at that time in science fiction there was an opinion that humanity is the essence, if not the pinnacle of the development of an intelligent form of life, then somewhere near it. Adams, like Stanislav Lem, argued the opposite: there cannot be a civilization that believes that the pinnacle of progress is an electronic wristwatch, to take place among representatives of progressive races. And this was especially remembered by everyone.
In 1979, the first novel of the series was released. The book was a stunning success. First, the book could literally be disassembled into quotes, there was a sea of \u200b\u200boriginal, caustic, meaningless and deeply meaningful phrases. There was a plot in the books, but, by God, many who read the story will not be able to reproduce it in detail: it is extremely confusing. But absolutely anyone who has read the book will easily answer the "Main question" - well, or remember a couple of quotes.
Actually, where does "42" come from? Fans of the series will remember this episode with warmth and pleasure, and he will surely force beginners to read a book (shame on you, man, we are scattering beautiful words here, right now go download or buy a book and read!). Some ancient, intelligent, progressive, but passion, what a lazy race decided that they had to bleed from their nose to answer the most important question. What a question? Well, of course, the most important! Everybody knows him, right dude? For this purpose, they built a supercomputer that would give the answer to it. We say it was a very lazy race! When the computer was ready, the best of the best asked the “Master Question”, to which the computer replied that it took 9 million years to find the answer. After that time, the clever delegation asked the computer again. The dudes were full of yearning and were sure that all their moral problems were over now and forever. But it was not there! The computer responded: "42". If you thought that this was complete nonsense and heresy, then we will explain everything for you now. The fact is that the ancient progressive race did not know not only the answer, but also did not understand that they had asked an absolutely wrong question. And what was the computer counting all this time? We do not know, but we know for sure that he counted everything.
The story of a simple Englishman, Arthur Dent, is the story of the last man from Earth. Not the last though ... But she's definitely worth your attention, dude.
After the "Guide ..." there were such books as "A restaurant on the edge of the Universe", "Life, the Universe and everything else" and "All the best and thanks for the fish!" There were also a couple of books, but in 2001 Adams died of a heart attack, so most of his fans believe that the cycle is not finished yet. Well, as it is not finished yet, we can tell you with certainty that everything is over. Everything!
76 856
While most people are comfortable with their beliefs, there are some who are interested in exploring the true nature of things. These are the people who discovered the power of deep thinking, driven by curiosity with an almost unlimited desire to find out the truth. Thinking deeply can help you broaden your perspectives and see the big picture and can enrich your life. Here are some deep pondering questions to ask yourself: We know that our solar system is part of a huge galaxy. We also know that there are roughly 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the “close proximity” to Earth. This is what scientists call the observable universe. But what lies beyond what is observable? Are there even more galaxies and these galaxies go on forever? Are these galaxies part of one universe, or are they part of many other universes? In this regard, the question arises: is our Universe all that is or do we live in? Is the universe / multiverse just incredibly large or is it infinite? The Big Bang Theory describes how the universe came into being. It is a model that seeks to understand how the universe is rapidly expanding from a high-density state. For scientists, the big bang marks the beginning of everything. But what happened before the big bang? Nothing? What caused the singularity - that is, the birth of the universe? The question of why we live in a universe with three visible dimensions in itself makes you wonder. However, it also makes one wonder about the possibility that there are more than three dimensions. Daily life shows us that we clearly live in a three-dimensional world. Height, depth, and width affect everything we do. But is there something else besides what we see? The theory of everything suggests that there can be more measurements - much more. Interestingly enough, when string theory is applied to nine spatial dimensions, things start to wobble. All mathematical theories assume that the fabric of the universe will disintegrate without these nine or more dimensions. Of course, we all live completely different lives. We all grew up in completely different conditions and have different opinions about almost everything. But what's really interesting is the question: Do we all perceive reality the same way? For example, due to the different differences in our brains, each of us perceives colors differently. Of course, we all know what a red or yellow t-shirt looks like. But does everyone perceive this particular color the same way? Unlikely. At the same time, everything that we experience in life is not interpreted objectively. Instead, the events of the world are always subjectively interpreted by our brain. Based on our views, beliefs, and the culture we grew up in, we may perceive these experiences in a completely different way. Today science is trying to explain how life developed on planet Earth. Scientists have a good understanding of human evolution, but how life itself came to be remains one of the greatest mysteries. If you have ever heard of development, you will know that the earth was formed as a result of frequent collisions with other celestial bodies about 4.5 billion years ago. It was then a molten and highly toxic planet. Her environment was so toxic that she simply could not support any kind of life. But how is it possible that life could arise out of nothing? What caused initial development life? Scientists know approximately when life began, but they still cannot answer the question of how life originated. The origin of life remains largely unknown fact... There are certain hypotheses, but there is no definite answer. The question of whether there is life after death is perhaps the greatest mystery of all. While we all have definite opinions about the concept of death, no one really knows for sure. Some people have a sacred belief in the afterlife, while others are equally convinced that after death there is nothing at all. We may not know until we get through this. Some of the greatest minds have thought deeply and are contemplating the nature of reality. This is the highest philosophical question that cannot be answered so simply. For centuries, men and women have tried to understand life, consciousness and reality. But few have found convincing answers. Is life really just a physical manifestation of matter and energy? Or is reality a completely mental manifestation? If life is completely physical, it can only be investigated empirically - scientifically. However, if there are also psychic aspects of reality, introspection can be another way of exploring. We know that the sun is much larger than the moon. However, when viewed from Earth, the Sun and Moon appear to be about the same size. The reason for this is that the Sun is about 400 times larger than the Moon, but at the same time about 400 times farther away. As a consequence, the Sun appears to be the same size as the Moon. But isn't it a strange coincidence that the Sun is 400 times larger and 400 times farther away? Is this just a coincidence or a thought-provoking question? For most scientists, the question is not “is there”, but rather “where”. What's even more interesting is thinking about what kind of life there might be. Are there other organisms, such as microbes and bacteria, on planets in distant galaxies? And is it possible that there is also intelligent life there? What would these intelligent creatures look like from distant galaxies? Another interesting question to think about is fate. Do you think that you are in control of your destiny or do you believe that your future has already been formed and you are simply moving along a path marked by someone or something? This is a thought-provoking question about free will and the power to shape your own destiny. If we look at human evolution, we see that there has been continuous progress over the past centuries. Of course, there have been ups and downs, but it cannot be denied that there have been significant improvements. In this technological age, however, it is interesting to ponder whether people are really getting better with every generation? This question is not so much directed at scientific and technological progress. It focuses more on human qualities and behavior. Have we really evolved over the decades? Our ancestors were morally and intellectually less gifted than we are? Where does morality come from? Is this what we absorb from our families, friends and teachers? Or is it something innate that lies within us? If we absorb morality from our families, then how did it appear one day, from our most distant ancestors? When we look superficially at this question, we can come to the conclusion that life is much better now than, for example, 50, 200, or even a thousand years ago. However, this judgment is based mainly on advances in various areas such as technology, health, human rights and ease of life. But if we subtract these achievements from our consideration, is modern life much better than in the past? Are we happier today than people were 50 years ago? Are we leading a more fulfilling and meaningful life? Is it possible that our ancestors were also content with their lives, despite much harsher conditions? Scientists keep telling us that the sun will eventually run out of the hydrogen that powers it. As soon as this point is reached, it will die. But before that happens, it will begin to expand until it ultimately destroys whatever is left on Earth. It's actually interesting to think about how the Apocalypse will happen. Will it be 5 billion years from now, or will humans settle in other galaxies by then? Perhaps the Apocalypse is much closer than many might think. Perhaps humans will cause some apocalyptic events or will asteroids contribute? With impressive advances in space technology, it seems very real that humans will eventually start living on other planets. We are preparing to send a manned one. Are these plans just the beginning of the Great colonization of other planets? This development does not have to be limited to Mars alone. Perhaps people will be able to identify earth-like planets in others solar systems and also live on these planets. Philip K. Dick's sci-fi short story “Minority Report” raises questions about dealing with crime predictions. If we assume that one day in the future, advanced algorithms, or something else entirely, can predict crime, do we have the moral right to imprison people long before they commit a crime? If you are looking for a really contentious issue, it is the question of whether a Higher Power exists. A large number of living people today feel (at least in some way) something more than themselves. There are approximately 900 million atheists, and many more people, who believe in higher powers. While unbelievers and believers are firmly convinced of their beliefs, it is not easy or even impossible to find a definite answer to the question. In any case, it is equally interesting to think about: the world simply emerged from ingenious coincidences, or there is some " supreme power"That set all this in motion? Otherwise, this question may sound like this: Is it better to do and regret than to regret what you did not do? You may deeply despise failure and fear failure, but is it worse than not trying to accomplish anything at all? Often, even small changes can have a huge impact on people's lives, be it economic or political changes, or the discovery of new drugs. Do you think there is something that can be changed in this world that can benefit hundreds or even thousands of other people? Let's say you got the power to change just one aspect of this world, what would it be? Would you change anything for yourself and your life? Or did you change something that would help other people lead better lives, even if you don't gain anything from it? How much more important is your life to you than the life of your loved ones - are you ready to sacrifice it for the sake of someone dear? Is there a person in your life for whom you would sacrifice your life? Would you be able to sacrifice your life to save a large group of people, perhaps even strangers? There are many questions that humanity needs to solve. But what do you think - what is the most important issue that must be resolved immediately? Which question is so important that all the other issues seem less important? Who you have become is largely shaped by circumstances and life experience... But think about the most important events in your life that influenced your development and shaped you into the person you are today. We often aspire to something more, in the hope that by adding something new to our life, we will eventually become happy. However, it looks like this mouse bustle will never end. At the same time, we strive to fulfill all our desires, without even realizing that they are to some extent insatiable. Food for thought: what is true happiness, where does it come from? Maybe true happiness can only be found within yourself, or are there external sources that allow you to be happy? IN recent times more and more new knowledge and achievements are opening up before us. Humanity today knows much more than the humanity of past centuries, however, there are still many mysteries and. But what if one day scientific progress reaches knowledge to such an extent that we can explain any phenomenon in life? Will life without mystery become more interesting? What will we strive for when we know everything? In most cases, the fear of being exposed and punished keeps us from doing bad things. But if no one finds out about your immoral act, will it be okay to do it? Life is much better today than it was 50 years ago when you look at the great strides we have made in areas such as technology and healthcare. If this rapid progress continues in the future, will our descendants live much better than we do today? What would this life look like? You know how quickly beliefs about certain things can change. (At one time people were convinced that the earth was flat.) You may have once firmly believed in something, but eventually you discovered the true nature of things and realized that you were wrong. How can you be so sure that your current beliefs are absolutely correct? We all lie to ourselves, day after day. Sometimes, you may be expecting something unreal from your life, thereby being deceived. Do you understand when you lie to yourself? And even more interesting, how many lies do you repeatedly tell yourself? Could you stop lying to yourself? In most films, villains are portrayed as truly evil. There are only a few films that explore the underlying motivations of the antagonist's behavior. The same is true for reality. While there are scary psychopaths who do evil things for no good reason, it is also possible that there are people who do evil because they believe it is right. This is a thought-provoking question: Are there any evil people who really believe they are heroes? If you are reading this article, the chances are high that you are living in a free and open society. But sometimes, people live within a mental prison. They may perceive themselves to be free, but theirs is theirs. At the same time, there may be boundaries that society imposes on us without imprisoning us in a physical prison. Can you honestly tell yourself that you are leading a free life? How can you increase your level of personal freedom? Does every person have a purpose in life? Is your existence really meaningful? Finding your life's purpose is definitely not an easy task. Do you find the purpose of your life or do you create it yourself? How confident are you that you are truly responsible for creating a lice of purpose in life? Every day, something happens in the world that no one, not even animals, is watching this event. But do these things really happen if no one noticed it? Will a tree falling in the forest make a crash if no living thing hears it? Will the world exist if for some reason there is not a single observer left? Every day, cells in the body die off and are replaced by others. This is a normal process that occurs throughout our life. Curiously, white blood cells have an incredibly long lifespan of over a year. This means that all cells in the body are replaced after just over a year. Other cells live much shorter lives, some are even replaced within an hour. Are you still the same person you were a few years ago, even though every cell in your body has been replaced? Eternal life is a pretty interesting concept. But what would you do if you could live forever? Do you think the advantage of not dying outweighs the potential disadvantages? Is it easy to see all the people you love die over and over again? If there is one constant thing in human history, it is war. Will there be a time when there will be world peace? Will humanity of the entire planet be able to find a common language in views? Will we stop hunting for someone else's territory and resources, given that the number of people is growing every year? What makes people do evil? Is that what comes from within? Or could it be potentially influenced by external circumstances? Do you consider yourself angry? Do you wish someone evil in your thoughts? Or are you doing evil without knowing it? Would you make a big difference in your life if you got access to unlimited resources? Would you be a completely different person? How would your life change if you had an inexhaustible source of income? What would you do when you are fed up with luxury? If you had the opportunity, would you like to bring back the long-dead person you long for? What if he is really in better worldhow selfish is it to bring him back to this world? We used to think that love is something special, peculiar only to people, but scientists explain falling in love as a result of chemical processes in the body. During the mating season, animals produce the same hormones as people in love. Now think - do you love because you want to love, or because nature intended it to be? If the hormones of love stop being produced by the body, does this mean that you will not be able to love?1. What lies behind the observable universe?
2. What happened before the big bang?
3. Are there more than three dimensions?
4. Is your perception of reality akin to someone else's experience of reality?
5. How did life originate and evolve on Earth?
6. Is there life after death?
7. What is the nature of reality?
8. Why do the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size?
9. Is there life in other galaxies?
10. Are you shaping your own destiny?
11. Do people get better through the generations?
12. Is human morality studied?
13. Is life better now than in the past?
14. What will the Apocalypse look like?
15. Man can never populate other planets?
16. Can an alleged offender be imprisoned prior to committing a crime?
17. Is there something more than ourselves?
18. Which is worse: failing or not even trying?
19. Can small changes significantly improve people's lives?
20. What would you change in this world?
21. For what reason or for whom would you sacrifice your life?
22. What is the most important question in the world?
23. What events in your life have influenced you the most?
24. What is happiness?
25. Will we one day learn the truth about everything?
26. Can you do something wrong if no one knows?
And can this act be considered wrong if no one ever finds out about it and condemns you? Would you be able to do such an act?27. Will the future be much better than now?
28. How do you know your beliefs are true?
29. What lies do you repeatedly tell yourself?
30. Do villains consider themselves heroes?
31. Are you really free?
32. Does everyone have a purpose in life?
33. If no one observes the event, does it happen?
34. Are you the same person you were 7 or 10 years ago?
35. If you could live forever, what would you do?
36. Will there be a time when there will be no war?
37. What makes people angry?
38. If your resources were not limited, would you like to live a different life?
39. If the resurrection was real, would you use it?
40. Is love really your choice?
Introductory word or not - this is the question that often confronts the writer when he has to use a word or expression with a not very important meaning, which, it would seem, is not necessary to understand the meaning of the phrase. Are commas needed here, where to put them - all these questions very often cause difficulties. That is why the question so often arises whether the words "thereby" are separated by commas or not, although it is solved very simply: these words do not require the use of signs, except in rare cases.
"Thus" is separated by commas
Before the phrase
It is very rare to find sentences built using the union "thus". In this case, a comma is required to separate the parts of the complex sentence.
- The teacher allowed himself to feel deeply, to cry, to open his soul, thereby he demonstrated, in the opinion of the schoolchildren, a certain weakness.
- However, the hero of the work was not in the least frightened or lost in an unusual situation, thereby he showed himself to be a decisive and extremely brave man.
No comma needed
However, much more often, when combining "thus", commas are not put, since it is not an introductory or union. To him you can pick up a synonym "in this way"; in a sentence it is usually a circumstance.
- We often visited this place and sat for a long time under the shade of an old oak tree, thereby repaying, as best we could, our debt to the memory of our dead friends.
- Sergei Sergeevich was not surprised and thus gave rise to suspicion that he had already heard from someone about the incident.
Ecology of life Lifehack: Sometimes the success of a business lies not in what answers we find to the questions posed, but in what questions we ask.
Sometimes the success of a business lies not in what answers we find to the questions posed, but in what questions we ask. Almost all the creative sessions in which I participated, for the most part, consisted of correctly selected and structured questions. Not for nothing, we called such a list of questions "Key". The beauty was that everyone answered them in their own way and produced a unique result. When a large group of people gathered, their answers with a high degree of probability not only solved the problem, but also offered many solutions to choose from, even in those cases when it seemed that there was no solution at all.
The benefit of interrogative sentences is that our brain is designed in such a way that it cannot help but think. He is always busy with his work, and is always in a state of searching for answers. Any question makes him find the answer. In this article, I offer a list of 10 ways that will surely help you ask the right questions in any situation.
1. Questions about the problem itself.
The surest way to solve a problem is to ask questions about the problem itself. The beauty is that the brain itself will generate the answers, you just have to try to ask the most versatile questions. In addition, after a series of questions, even if you do not immediately find the answer, then do not be discouraged. Your brain continues to work in the background to find a solution!
2. Questions in a different formulation.
Much depends on the packaging. Whatever question you decide, that's the answer you get. Play around with the wording of your problem, how can you formulate it differently? Surely the problem can be solved in several ways, what will the question sound like for each satisfactory solution to the problem? Check if the wording of the question itself is correct?
3. Questions in time.
Focus on time frames. If the question is specific, expand it; if it's too broad, narrow it down. For example: "How can I improve my life?" or "How can I improve my life this month" or "What can I do today to improve my life?"
4. Questions in other directions.
The search for a solution cannot go in one direction. It could be a change of direction. From the geographical: "Where else can we find the thing we need?" to the mental: "Now let's forget about the disadvantages, what advantages do you see?"
5. Questions to improve education.
Every teacher knows that the most effective student is the one who wants to learn himself. In this case, questions are a great way to stimulate creative thinking and work much better than just giving the right answer.
Instead of just an explanation, it is better to just ask the question: "What do you think would happen in this case if we changed our actions ...", "What result will we get if we do not take into account the costs at the initial stage .."
This same type of question works great not only in college or school, but also in the business environment. The habit of answering a subordinate's question, "What about this?" answer with the question "What do you think should be done?" - not only saves time, but also teaches the employee to think independently.
6. Questions to keep the conversation going.
Questions are great for building communication between people. If you ask questions, then you are almost certainly listening to what you are told. A good question can not only liven up the conversation, but also attract new participants.
Recently, dialogues have increasingly turned into monologues in turn. Instead of listening to each other, each side now and then waits for its turn to talk. Simple questions "How can I help?" And "Have you encountered something like this before?" - a great way to show that you are listening to the interlocutor and participating in HIS conversation yourself.
7. Questions for critical thinking.
We often talk about completely different things. It's a shame to spend a lot of time and find out that the other person meant something completely different from what we thought, and he did not fully understand us. To prevent this from happening, you need not be afraid to ask simple questions, which, moreover, may seem naive.
As effective starting questions, you can use the "Kipling Technique": "Who exactly did it?", "Why did they do it", "Did I understand you correctly, you say that ..."
8. Questions to shift attention.
Changing your point of view is easier said than done. If we are sure of something as an absolute, then it is very difficult to question this absolute. Try to shift your attention away from the obvious. If someone says "This is not possible," it is better to ask "How can we make this possible?" or "Under what conditions will it work?" etc.
9. Questions for introspection.
It can be a powerful tool for finding answers about the meaning of your own life. A great start is the 100 Questions technique, which consists of only the questions that matter to you at the moment. Then you can narrow this list down to 20 of the most important and periodically return to them.
10. Interrogation as a way of life.
Developing the habit of asking yourself questions can be very, very rewarding. I believe that asking questions is the most basic way to develop and stimulate our brain activity. But how to introduce into a habit, a skill - to ask yourself versatile questions? Like everything in this life - with practice. Carry a notebook and a pen with you, or write down questions on your phone.
Learn to be comfortable with unresolved issues and learn to deal with them. Play with them and your quality of life will surely improve. published
Dedicated to the revolutionary past of our country. Together with Russian historians, politicians and political scientists, we recall the key events, figures and phenomena of those years. About why the Provisional Government did not justify the hopes placed on it and how the fate of its members after the October Revolution was formed, Doctor Lente.ru told historical sciences Igor Grebenkin.
Which ones are temporary?
"Lenta.ru": What people were in the Provisional Government in 1917? Can we say that their role in history is underestimated or, on the contrary, overestimated?
Igor Grebenkin: When we talk about the Provisional Government, it must be remembered that in a historically insignificant period of its existence - less than eight months - it went through three crises and changed four memberships, experiencing a gradual drift to the left. Its first composition consisted of 11 portfolios, and the only leftist in it was the Minister of Justice, Alexander Kerensky. In the fourth composition, among 17 members, the leading role was played by right-wing socialists - Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and the only cadet minister who retained his post since March was Aleksandr Konovalov.
What were the most striking figures in it?
First of all, these are the heads of the Duma factions and liberal parties, Alexander Guchkov and Pavel Milyukov, the "heroes" of the liberal opposition to tsarism. A curious figure should be recognized as Mikhail Tereshchenko, who by 1917 was 31 years old. A prominent businessman and a prominent freemason, he was not a party leader and a deputy of the State Duma, but remained a minister in all four government structures.
How did the relationship between the members of the Provisional Government develop?
Although these people were united by activities in the liberal and leftist factions of the State Duma, they belonged to different political directions. Each of them had their own burden of very complex mutual relations and conflicts. Definitely a "black sheep" among them was initially the only leftist minister - Kerensky, who was the link between the government and the Petrograd Soviet.
The most pretentious ministers of the first composition of the government were State Duma veterans Guchkov and Milyukov. War Minister Guchkov started a large-scale purge of the army's command personnel, which led to very controversial results. Foreign Minister Miliukov was distinguished by his tendency to conflict.
It was Milyukov's Note about Russia's loyalty to allied obligations in April 1917 that led to the first government crisis and the resignation of the most prominent liberal ministers.
He made this statement without agreeing with anyone?
The fact is that the government shared his position, but the social situation of that time was characterized by a steady leftward movement of mass moods. The statements of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Provisional Government of Revolutionary Russia intends to abide by all allied obligations and bring the war to a victorious end caused an outburst of indignation, not only in socialist circles, but also simply among the urban population and military personnel. For them, the revolution was an event that promised radical changes, and the main one was to end the war, the meaning of which for the absolute majority of society was lost over the three war years.
Democracy and reality
There are regular references to the fact that the members of the Provisional Government took over the government of the country and the people, whom they did not know and did not understand, and naive faith in the people was interspersed with fear of the "dark masses".
One circumstance should be kept in mind here: for Russia, even at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was customary to understand “society” and “people” as two different categories. Society is an educated part of the population with some kind of systemic education, living in cities, having a service and a job. And the huge mass of the population, more than 80 percent, is agrarian, peasant Russia, which it was customary to denote by the word "people".
The confrontation between "society" and "people" existed both in practice and in the minds of politicians. The whole feature of the political life of the twentieth century is that the "people" begin to declare themselves as an independent force with their own ideas and interests. In this sense, I am ready to agree that no one in the Provisional Government imagined how to take possession of these "dark masses". And this also applies to the first composition, and all subsequent ones.
Was it true that the members of the Provisional Government were characterized by idealism and the confidence that they could build a democratic state in Russia simply by introducing the institutions characteristic of democracy?
The provisional government is a very specific phenomenon. Its very name characterizes its role in political process... I do not think that they considered it their goal to introduce a democratic system in Russia - unless the most presumptuous, like Kerensky. The Provisional Government faced completely different tasks. The main one is to ensure elections and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, which was to solve the most pressing problems of the country.
That is the tragedy of the Provisional Government, of all its members, that concrete, obvious tasks were not solved - they were even afraid to approach them.
The main one was the question of the war, the agrarian question and the question of the political future of Russia. They can vary in degree of importance, but they all, in one way or another, focused on convening the Constituent Assembly. In practice, only the last composition of the Provisional Government approached its preparation, and then already in the conditions of the most severe crisis, when danger hung both from the right and from the left.
Why didn't the first squads even try to solve this issue?
Their political experience made it possible to assume that society and the entire political situation still have a margin of safety. The Constituent Assembly was supposed to solve the most important problems that the political coup brought to the agenda: the political future of Russia and the agrarian question. But it seemed correct to postpone the reforms until the end of the war. It turned out that these questions turned into a vicious circle.
By the fall, both the right and the left realized that the question of making peace had become tantamount to the question of power. Whoever allows it, who has a specific program, will rule Russia. In the end, it happened.
Bohemian man
Who was Alexander Kerensky?
Describing this undoubtedly bright character of the revolutionary era, it must be emphasized that in essence he did not belong to the state or political circles. Rather, it is a bohemian man.
Here you need to understand what the popular, demanded metropolitan lawyer was at the beginning of the twentieth century. Of course, this is a person who is not devoid of a wide variety of talents, but, probably, legal training is not the first and not the main one. The main one is oratorical skills and acting talent, enterprise, a tendency to adventure. In tsarist Russia, an open court was not just a legal procedure, but an open tribune for discussing pressing social and sometimes even political issues. Kerensky gained popularity precisely as a lawyer in political affairs.
And so he comes to The State Duma, into its left wing, and then energetically makes its way into the first composition of the Provisional Government. The secret of his success is his connections in the left and democratic revolutionary circles. For Kerensky, unlike many of his associates, the dominating feature was the desire to stay afloat all the time.
Opinions about him have always been different, sometimes polar: some considered him a bright leader and leader, others - a buffoon and a political vulgar man. He himself, regardless of anything, tried to stay on the crest of the wave, no matter what happened.
The stage associated with the August crisis can be explained only by understanding this essence of Kerensky. The point is that there was certainly an attempt at collusion with the military, and Kerensky eventually lacked self-control and readiness to go to the end, and there was no mutual trust between them. It is common knowledge - Kornilov despised Kerensky, Kerensky feared Kornilov and those who stood behind him.
What drove him in the conflict with his former associates and Kornilov after the July events?
For some time he managed to push back the opposition from the left in the person of the Bolsheviks, accusing them of preparing a coup and in connection with the enemy, that is, with Germany. The search for a coalition from the right - in the person of the top generals and Supreme Commander-in-Chief Lavr Kornilov became logical. Definitely, they had plans for joint efforts. Only time and mutual trust were lacking, and this led to the August crisis.
As a result, contacts with the military were cut off, Kornilov and his associates were arrested and under investigation, and after that Kerensky could no longer count on serious support in military circles. In September and early October, the last composition of the Provisional Government is making convulsive efforts to at least not lose the initiative.
On September 1, 1917, Russia is proclaimed a republic. Neither the government nor the minister-chairman definitely had such powers. This issue was to be decided by the Constituent Assembly. However, Kerensky took such a step, hoping to gain popularity in left circles. The political improvisation of the government and the minister-chairman continued. In the second half of September, a Democratic Conference will be convened, from which the Pre-Parliament will then be allocated. But these bodies no longer had the resources - neither the time nor the trust - because the most serious opposing force, this time from the left, are the Soviets and the Bolsheviks, which since the beginning of October are definitely taking a course towards a forceful armed seizure of power.
Did the so-called "Kerensky" really clear the way for the Bolsheviks?
If we understand by "Kerensky" the period from July to October, that is, the period when Kerensky was the head of the Provisional Government, then we can say that this is so. But with one caveat: in this case, probably, it was not the efforts of Kerensky and the Provisional Government that played a role, but the objective course of events that cleared the way for the Bolsheviks. They offered solutions that more and more appealed to the broad masses of the population, and not to "society" in the then accepted understanding.
Despite the defeat in the days of the July crisis, the Bolsheviks manage to gradually take control of the Soviets, which has never happened before. At the same time, the movement comes from the bottom: since the summer, the Bolsheviks have become the most recognized force in the lower cells, such as the factory committees in large cities, and after the Kornilov events - and in the military committees at the front and in the rear.
They fought for this for a long time ...
After the Kornilov events, they are gradually squeezing out their right-wing opponents from the Soviets. By the way, it was the Bolsheviks who responded to the call of the Provisional Government to defend democracy. Having mobilized the workers, they created military revolutionary formations, which became the force that made the coup in October.
The period between February and October is not only the mistakes and failures of the then Russian government. This is also a completely logical and consistent path that the masses of the people are taking along with political Russia.
As for the figure of Kerensky, the opposite process is taking place with him. He was repeatedly and reasonably accused of Bonapartism, that is, maneuvering between various political forces in the absence of his own clear platform.
Can we say that he was most interested in power?
For some, power instills a sense of responsibility, others hypnotizes, depriving them of the ability to adequately perceive reality. Kerensky played a very dangerous game, trying to form a party with the right against the left, and then, having broken with the right, seek support from the left ...
Repression and emigration
How later, after the October Revolution, did the fate of the ministers of the Provisional Government take shape?
The last cabinet consisted of 17 portfolios. In the Winter Palace, 15 of its members were arrested and several more officialswho happened to be there in one way or another by accident. They were escorted to the Peter and Paul Fortress, but within a short time they were all released.
This is an extremely curious situation related to the early days. October coup... After the Bolsheviks came to power, a hope arose in society that the hard power, wherever it came from - from the right, from the left - would finally stop the collapse that had lasted for eight months under the Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks have not yet encountered open opposition from the bourgeois and right-wing socialist parties. Therefore, such "liberal" phenomena as the release of ministers are observed.
The most tragic were the fates of two cadet ministers - Andrei Shingarev and Fyodor Kokoshkin. In January 1918, both were in the Mariinsky prison hospital and were killed there by the soldiers and sailors who burst in. The Council of People's Commissars ordered an investigation, some of the perpetrators were identified, but in those conditions it was not possible to bring this matter to the end.
And if we talk about the fate of the last cabinet?
We can say that he divided in two. Eight people ended up in emigration, someone was engaged in political activities, some don't. The most famous figure is probably Finance Minister Mikhail Bernatsky, who was known as a prominent Russian specialist in the field of public finance. He played a prominent role in the White movement, was a member of a special meeting under the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia, Anton Denikin. For a considerable time he served there as the head of the financial department. He died in exile.
Another part remained in Soviet Russia, and their fates developed differently. Several ministers of the last composition of the Provisional Government, who survived until the end of the 1930s, were repressed during the Great Terror. In particular, these are the Mensheviks Pavel Malyantovich and Alexei Nikitin.
One of the most prominent representatives of Russian Freemasonry was Nikolai Nekrasov, who held the posts of Minister of Railways and Finance in various government structures. For twenty years he managed to remain in major responsible posts in the economic sphere. He was repressed only during the Great Terror.
Some ministers of the Provisional Government, who did not live to see the Great Terror, remained in Soviet economic work, were engaged in science - for example, Sergei Salazkin, the minister of public education, who died in 1932. The figure of Alexander Liverovsky, the Minister of Railways in the last composition of the Provisional Government, who was involved in the restoration of railways in the 1920s, showed himself as one of the most authoritative experts in the field of communications in the 1930s, advised the construction of the Moscow metro, and during the Great Patriotic War was engaged in the planning and construction of the famous Road of Life for besieged Leningrad... Having received many Soviet awards, he passed away in the 1950s.
And Guchkov and Milyukov?
They left the Provisional Government during the first government crisis, and later both represented the right-wing opposition. Both contributed at the start stage Civil Warbeing the inspirers of the White movement. Both died in exile.
The road from February to October
Was the failure of the Provisional Government natural and inevitable?
The Provisional Government was faced with specific tasks requiring solution, it was necessary to react very energetically to the rapidly changing political situation. Alas, the representatives of the political elite of the then Russia who entered the cabinet did not have the appropriate abilities. As a result of the decisions, decrees, legislation of the Provisional Government, which were supposed to defuse the situation in the country, on the contrary, it aggravated it. Aphoristic: the path of the Provisional Government is the path from February to October.
Bad to Worse?
As a historian, I refrain from evaluative categories like "good" - "bad", "better" - "worse." After all, when someone is bad, the other is very good.
The path of the Provisional Government ran from crisis to crisis. It would be wrong to answer unequivocally the question that the fault is the personal qualities of the ministers or the features of the situation in the country. The qualities of the ministers and the composition of the cabinet reflected the socio-political situation. The Provisional Government did not direct this process, it only followed it.