All posts by Kirill Vavilov


I believe that emotions can’t help you to learn. Emotions only distract you from studying. It becomes harder to focus on your work. As a result you have troubles learning new things. Although, sometimes emotions might help you to finish your work, you won’t be able to productively start something new. Emotions are useful for learning life lessons, but not class ones. It is due to the fact that books are not alive, they don’t have emotions, and the essential thing about emotion is that it is used in (live) communication. And there is no communication during studying (in general, of course you can communicate with your tutor, but it is not cause of you studying, but cause communication goes on!), that is why emotion do not support learning that much. I want to give an example that emotions for communication and logic is for learning: when you read a chemistry book, you don’t relate yourself with the author, but when communicating though text you use emojis, and it is easier to express your mood. So as I have said knowledge and emotions do not go along.

Unless it is intuition!? No! Some people argue that intuition can help you, even if you haven’t got logical explanation. However, I believe that it is an emotion as well as fear. And here three things you should consider, for my conclusion to be logical. First of all, we shouldn’t confuse intuition with paranoia, cause paranoia is not an emotion, but just our primary instinct, which saves you from wondering too much and then finding yourself in trouble. Next there are no people, who would say: well my intuition told me to jump, cause they are dead. We often do not see negative effects of our intuition as it can sometimes lead to things such as death. Additionally, we don’t often share our failures as we don’t like to shame ourselves, meaning that we wouldn’t tell others about failures of our intuition. So we can conclude that intuition is just a feeling/emotion we experience, which makes us decide on the things and have 50/50 success. It seems beneficial cause of paranoia, but in fact the same thing as feelings/emotions*.

Universal Moral Values

There are no universal values, we appear in this world in different starting positions, some are better than others. Country, family, appearance, intelligence – some things from the top of my head, which is already a great influence on human’s life. Moreover, I could start talking about genes or permanent disabilities, what has even bigger effect. As we say that every one is different, there can’t be same expectations from everyone, so can’t be same rules. However, we are good at finding patterns, which lead to survival. One’s who are not, don’t survive. So as the time was going on, people, who were killing each other- happened to be dead. However, people, who decided not to kill each other, stayed alive. Alternatively, if somehow most aggressive people, were to survive, we would decide on the rule that murder is good. Even though, this rules  often work, they are not universal. In order to take the right decision, we should be considering only our decision, and do what ever we think is right.

I think that there are no thing such as moral fact. It is better to use something like “Most common thought”. However, we can’t say that some kind of action is right in any situation.


To decide on a action whether it is good or bad we have to look on to the fact if this action related to live object or not. If it is related to non living object, action is neutral. Otherwise it can be bad or good, and to tell if it is a good or bad, we have to ask if the object (you doing action on) would have done the same to you. If he would have done the same, action is good. If not action is bad.


Logic Fallacies (By Kirill)

Logic Fallacy: Unrepresentative Sample.

Often hear: “He was bad at school but now owns biggest company somewhere”. This is a great example, cause we better to look not onto the individuals, but statistics and trends. Such statement does not include that other 99%, who studied bad, now have no work, no salary. Nothing. It works because people want to believe in bright and wonderful future, ignoring reality and pretending to be somewhat spacial in comparison to others.

Logical Fallacies

Logic Fallacy: False analogy.

In my opinion, false analogy is one of the most common, tricky and hypocritical argument . From personal experience would say that it is common for parents to say: “If your friends would be jumping out from windows, you would do so to?”. But when some one needs you to do or not do something they give you false analogy of smokers/drug addicted/alcohol addicted not reaching the same social status as some actors or etc.

Plato’s Meno 5 (Kirill Vavilov)

Part 5

In this “Chapter” Socrates, says that virtue can not be taught on purpose, nor given by a birth. What I consider as a right statement, although I would say it differently. The knowledge, is not given by nature, it is not given by teachers, but it is picked up by those who wonder and open to new experience.

Generally, now I have nothing to oppose and argue against. However, I can say that surroundings, can make you “pick up knowledge at faster rate”, what we can say a some-what form of teaching. For example, surrounded by a classroom, teacher, books and etc., you are more likely to start picking up. However, not a fact.

Summarizing the whole text, I would say that most of the time it was kinda boring, and mostly (except the ending) not life related. But it is made me think, and to try my self to connect it to our   daily life, interpret some stuff and explore beyond OUR REALITY. And the ending of chapter 5, really surprised me with good final idea. I enjoyed this work, although the reading it self was so so.

Plato’s Meno Parts 3 and 4 (Kirill Vavilov)

Part 3

Socrates sates in part 3 states that virtues is some kind of knowledge, and it is profitable, so what wisdom. That means that any virtue can not be given by berth, but only thought. I completely agree with that statement, think it is a really good explanation, but for some reason at the end of chapter, Socrates’s “teenage maximalism” wakes up and he started to argue against his own ideas. He supports the opinion that if virtue can be thought there must be teachers. And then part 4 starts.

Part 4
In part 4, Socrates explains to Meno (by talking to Anytus) that virtue is not a thing which can be thought. However, Socrates forgets to consider the fact that, knowing/obtaining virtue does not guarantee that you have enough teaching skills to pass your virtues to someone. Knowing and teaching different things. And at the end Socrates, openly says to Anytus that he is just a piece of brown substance. What I find, not really professional from his side.

My notes:

Chapter 4 for me seemed so fake, in there it is clear that author, Plato starts to push his own, uncovered thoughts/opinions. All the text gets felling of just an attempt to promote some really biased ideas on his own. The character, of Anytus is so cliched, as an example lines 23-33 on page 35, literally say:
-Do you like “something”.
-Have you ever tried that “something”
-How can you judge? Ah? Ah?
Come on, only complete vegetable would say that… This is so bad way, to flourish a character’s badness. Even children in kindergarten do not have such dialogues.

I have liked part 3 until the end, and for me part 4 is the worst one out of all. The virtue can be though only, but you need a great desire for you to learn.

TOK Plato’s Meno part 2 (Kirill Vavilov)

In the part 2 of Plato’s Meno, Socrates develops an interesting idea, that as soon as you understand that you know not something, you learn. It is basic, but significant at the same time. You can not learn unless you know what you need to learn and where you have knowledge blanks. That is why in our days we have such lot of testing, so to help students learn and develop on their mistakes. This looks to me quite interesting. Now I mostly agree with him, but on the other side, the idea is to basic and obvious, so it is hard to not agree with it, and even harder not to notice. He says that you learn only what you don’t know. So I can say that you eat, when you are hungry, it is obvious. In addition it doesn’t change a concept of thinking, or doesn’t make you look from different perspective, I think maybe the time this work was written, it could be actual, due to the fact that most of the people were alliterated. But our time, it is strange to say that «you go for knowledge only when you realize the lack of it» is at least strange.

Plato’s Meno Personal Response by Kirill Vavilov

Personal Response.

This pice of reading was quite a double one, and it made me think. However, it also gave a slight push for my ideas in others direction, different from virtue question. Want to remind that it is my personal opinion, the reality might be different. 

The idea of a virtue as a personal or a wide spread thing, was quite catchy. I think that even modern ways of interpreting things say that we can not apply rules on anything, whether it qualities, ideas or objects. The question about goodness can be answered differently from different perspectives, some might interpret it as a perspective good and evil, or as a difference, between doing good and getting good back against doing evil and getting evil back, so in the first one we do not have a clear answer, and second says that good made with a reason or an expectance for certain outcome, doesn’t appear as a true good, the same with an evil, was an evil caused by evil nothing more than evil, or it is different? All those answers are abstract, and can not be valued properly. There is always «or». May be it this way or may be not, you get it? But what makes me wonder, is the question: «does it matter? Does it actually matter? If we talk about something abstract, something what is being valued by infinite amount of opinions. How can we discuss something what is beyond our world (not the actual world, but it is an interpretation, which is only thing for one observer), discuss something what might be completely different only due to your subjective judgment, which can change with a snap of two fingers? Why would those two even try to discuss such global topics, if they have no real application to our daily life, I mean their daily life?». 

By the way, I wanted to mention that this text, for me, seems fake. I think that plato did those dialogues himself. Although, it is just an opinion, but I can not skip over the fact that Meno most of the time either agrees or just disagrees, when socrates gives his answer in the form of the question (most of the time). The fact that they are friends (socrates says himself), and no-one forces Meno to talk, indicates to as that either Meno likes to be verbally raped or he has some mental problems (I apologize for my language, but Meno’s talking style actually makes me furious). I suppose that Plato made Socrates smarter, on purpose to help reader have a side to choose, because otherwise if both of them were throwing a bunch of questions at each other readers, especially at that time wouldn’t keep up with a stream of ideas. You can check your self and see that 99% of Socrates’s talks end up with a «?»,  when Meno’s with «.» or «!».