Most Important Branch

This question is too HARD!

Post 1

Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 3:09pm

I suppose it's hard because in this context, "important" is a little vague. To me, the most important branch is the one that I gain the most benifit from by making explicit and studying.

My natural common sense Metaphysics and Epistemology before I ever encountered philosophy were very much like the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Objectivism. Where I've gained the most from studying Objectivism is definitely in Ethics -- so for me, that has been the most important branch.

Post 2

Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 8:41pm

My money is on epistemology. If you don't have a good grasp of epistemology, any knowledge you have in any other field is open to being shot down by skeptics, subjectivists, and mystics.

Post 3

Friday, May 17, 2002 - 9:02am

I agree with MBallin on epistemology; knowing the difference between right and wrong is useless without knowing *how* one knows and how that knowledge can be obtained.

Post 4

Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 10:30pm

This is a little like asking which is the most important part of proper nutrition-- carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, or minerals?

But if I must decide, my money is on logic: the principle of identity, the principle of contradiction, the principle of the excluded middle. You might note that this entails both epistemology and metaphysics, which is right...the two combined are the foundation of rational living. A vote for one is a vote for the other.

Post 5

Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 10:35pm

Such eloquent waffling. :-)

Post 6

Monday, May 20, 2002 - 4:18am

There's only one possible answer to this question. To paraphrase: "It's the epistemology, stoopid." :-)

Post 7

Monday, May 20, 2002 - 10:53pm

The question is a normative abstraction it is an ethical question "what is more important." How would you prove that epistemology is the more important without using ethics and without a basis in reality, metaphysics, to answer the question. I think the question is invalid: it is not possible to answer without using some reference to the three branches. I think that you will find that if you try to answer the question the response will either be rationalistic (epistemology without reference to metaphysics), subjectivistic (ethics without reference to epistemology or metaphysics), or ANAL-RETENTIVISTIC (metaphysics without reference to ethics or epistemology!)

Post 8

Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 1:55am

Wrong on all counts, Michael - especially "anal-retentivistic." On SOLO??!! :-) Philosophy is a conceptual enterprise, first & foremost, so that wherever it takes us we must first know that our concepts are valid, or at least that the process by which we form them is valid - i.e. tied to reality. That's epistemology. Doesn't mean the other branches of philosophy aren't important - of course they are. It's not a matter of sundering them - just of establishing a hierarchy. Subjectivists know this. First thing they ask every step along the way: "Ah, but how do you know?"

Post 9

Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 10:57am

But, "tied to reality", doesn't that imply you've already accepted that there is an objective reality, and that that's the starting point?

Post 10

Friday, May 24, 2002 - 3:08am

Yes, absolutely - only it's not a "branch of philosophy" which is what the question is about. Objective reality simply is, whether or not there are people around to philosophise about it. The study of its nature is metaphysics. Whether we CAN study it with impunity in the first place is epistemology. If we don't get THAT right ...

Post 11

Friday, May 24, 2002 - 3:50am