The branches of learning...which is first?

I’m not sure if there is any unanimous agreement on this in educational circles, but was interested to find out if there is.

What is the most fundamental discipline one can study, and what other disciplines are branches of that one?

i.e. Is mathematics a branch of logic, or logic a branch of mathematics?

Is rhetoric a branch of philosophy, or is philosophy a branch of logic, or is epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics etc… only parts of the teachings of philosophy?

In science, which is considered the overall science - physics, chemistry, biology etc… Are any branches of the other, or do all exist independently?

I’m not really sure this makes any sense, but I have heard it argued that logic is the basis of mathematics, and chemistry is the basis for all of science at the fundamental level. (Although when I studied physics, chemistry was included as a branch of it, along with mechanics and fluid dynamics etc…).

Is there any agreement between disciplines as to which is the most fundamental basis / foundation for learning. If so, what?

Thanks.

I think you are making a semantical argument and would probably fit better as a debate as I don’t think there is a real answer.

However, what I call the first branch of learning my momma calls a switch. OUCH! :stuck_out_tongue:

Maybe you’re right. That’s really what I was trying to find out. I don’t want to debate the issue though.

Is there an accepted ‘tree’ or does the importance of particular discipline lie solely in the eye of the student?

I don’t think you’ll find any concensus, not least because of disciplines like theology, opinions on the status of which are likely to vary widely.
But that’s not to say there was never a concensus. Writing in the 12th century, Hugh of St. Victor had this to say on the subject:

These 7 liberal arts, as handed down by the ancients, became the basis for the medieval curriculum. The trivium was Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic, the quadrivium Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy. This division was based on difficulty, rather than “fundamentalness”. Basically everybody who went to university was expected to master the first three, but the other four were more advanced. Hugh is however expressing the idea, which was the concensus of the day, that these are fundamental in the sense that they’re the basic tools of well-educated mind.

Biology is less fundamental than chemistry which is less fundamental than physics which is less fundamental than mathematics which is less fundamental than logic which is less fundamental than philosophy which is less fundamental than thought which is less fundamental than the human brain which is less fundamental than biology which is …

Hope this helps :slight_smile: