The article deals with the problem of the relationship of the holistic and the analytical in modern neuroscience. Despite the significance and relatively long history of the problem, no generally valid solution has been found. On the contrary, as the number of studies increases, contradictions multiply. This problem stems from philosophical views on the relationship of the one and the many, of the part and the whole. The study and analysis of the history of philosophy and science has shown, first, that the main solutions developed within the framework of ancient and modern European philosophy were reflected and assimilated by the leading schools of psychology of the 19th and 20th century. Secondly, the very problem of the relationship between the holistic and the analytical is complicated by the fact that when Plato identifies the epistemological plan of this problem (whether it is possible to know the whole), an implicit question about the limits of knowledge and the possibility of understanding the whole is formulated. Finally, since the formation of the classical ideal of rationality, with R. Descartes’s notion of the subject as a simple and closed system, the prevailing tendency was to simplify both the phenomena studied and the ways of knowing them. The limitation of cognitive faculties determines the difficulties that are noted in modern neuroscience. The study of the holistic through analytical research attitude, together with the lack of well-developed theoretical and methodological understanding of the essence and heterogeneity of the holistic itself, creates great obstacles to adequate understanding of cognition processes. In this paper, an alternative way to consider the problem of the holistic from the perspective of fundamental works of Russian cultural and activity psychology is proposed.