The article raises the question of the applicability of the methodological principles of Soviet psychology to solve the actual issues of current science. The complexity of the issue is amplified by the fact that the methodological principles in the Russian psychology are generally poorly reflected, allow for different interpretations, relate to different methodological levels, and have different areas of application. This article presents a content analysis of one of the main principles of the Russian psychology of the Soviet period — the principle of ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Three main interpretations of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete in psychology, proposed by L.S. Vygotsky, S.L. Rubinstein and A.N. Leontiev are considered. Vygotsky's emphasis was on the analytical component of the method and the search for a "cell" of psychology while preserving the "old" empirical understanding of the general ("the abstract-general") as the same for everyone. The ascent to the concrete — the explanation of the diversity of mental phenomena in their interrelation — did not work here. Rubinstein uses the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete twice: as a psychologist and as a philosopher. He reconstructs the internal logic of the development of mental processes and formations from the original contradiction of the subjective and the objective, inherent in the nature of mental reflection, and then begins to explain the structure of human existence and the main ways of human relations to the world. Leontiev essentially completely "derives" the psyche from activity, defining it as a "functional organ" of activity. Thus, formally, the same method appears in Vygotsky as analytical, in Rubinstein — as analytical-synthetic, in Leontiev — as a method of "deduction". At the same time, the experience of Russian psychologists demonstrates the great methodological potential of this method, including for solving integrative problems of modern psychology.