5 Branches of Philosophy

1. Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Epistemology deals with the process
by which we can know that something is true. It addresses questions such as:
--What can I know?
--How is knowledge acquired?
--Can we be certain of anything?
Within epistemology there are two important categoriesrationalism and
empiricism.
Rationalism stresses reason as the most important element in knowing.
Rationalism holds that knowledge is gained primarily through the mind. It also
asserts that we are born with innate ideas that precede any experiences we may
have with our physical senses.
Empiricism, on the other hand, asserts that all our knowledge comes from our
five senses. To use the terminology of the empiricist, John Locke, our minds are
a blank slate at birth. Thus knowledge comes from our experiences.

2. Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the study of reality. More specifically it is the study of reality that
is beyond the scientific or mathematical realms. The term metaphysics itself
literally means beyond the physical. The metaphysical issues most discussed
are the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife.

3. Ethics
Ethics is the study of moral value, right and wrong. Ethics is involved with placing
value to personal actions, decisions, and relations. Important ethical issues today
include abortion, sexual morality, the death penalty, euthanasia, pornography,
and the environment.

4. Logic
Logic is the study of right reasoning. It is the tool philosophers use to study other
philosophical categories. Good logic includes the use of good thinking skills and
the avoidance of logic fallacies.

5. Aesthetics
Aesthetics is the study of art and beauty. It attempts to address such issues as:
--What is art?
--What is the relationship between beauty and art?
--Are there objective standards by which art can be judged?
--Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Difference between Essence and Existence

Essence and Existence
Everything has two principles that explains its being, essence and existence. In
all beings except for God, these principles are both required in order for the
actually existing individual thing to be. Each is distinct from the other, yet this
distinction is a real, not merely logical, one. The following explanation
summarizes the main argument of On Being and Essence, Chapter 4, which can
be found by following this link.
Essence may be described as the "what" of a thing. It is the quiddity of the thing,
that which is known about it by our forming of a concept. It is a formal principle
since for material reality, it is abstracted by the human intellect. Hence, it is a
universal principle making many material individuals to be of the same kind (for
angels, it makes each angel to be a species unto itself). But, it is obvious upon
reflection that "what a thing is" and "that it is" are completely different
statements.

That a thing is or has existence, is a principle really distinct from its quiddity. In
no case (except for God) does the essence of a thing indicate anything about
whether that thing really is. The essence of a horse that exists, and the essence
of a horse that doesn't are absolutely the same, namely horse-ness; a horse's
existing is totally different from what kind of a thing it is. Therefore, there must be
something about really existing things that accounts for this very existing, and it
is not their essence; it is their existence. Existence then is that which makes
essences to be, to exercise the act of existing. St. Thomas indicated the activity
of being, existence, with the Latin of "to be", esse.
By saying that existence is the act of being (esse) exercised by beings, Thomas
understands it to be similar to form, in that it actualizes a potency as form
actualizes matter. Taking the notions of an act/potency relationship learned from
cosmology as form and matter, he expands the notion of form by means of
analogy. Just as the substantial form of a material being determines and makes
actual some part of matter, so esseactualizes the potency of a thing's essence.
This similarity is an analogous one because, theesse and essence of a thing are
not separable in real beings, as the form is separable from matter in abstraction;
the two are only distinguishable because of their own very real
distinction. Esse is logically prior to all other actuality because a thing cannot be
in a certain way unless it simply is. So, because of this logical priority of
existence, Thomas calls it "the most formal of all." "It is the actuality of all acts"
since a thing is in virtue of esse and "acts are of supposits."

Does Freewill Exist?

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. It is
closely linked to the concepts ofresponsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other
judgments which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected
with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition.
Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or
blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of
free will, varying by how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some
debate.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity for an agent to make choices in which
the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests
that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with the
existence of such free will. This problem has been identified in ancient Greek
philosophy,[1] and remains a major focus of philosophical debate. This view that
conceives free will to be incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism,
and encompasses bothmetaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is
false and thus free will is at least possible, and hard determinism, the claim that
determinism is true and thus free will is not possible. It also encompasses hard
incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also its negation to be
incompatible with free will, and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case
may be regarding determinism.
In contrast, compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism.
Some compatibilists even hold that determinism isnecessary for free will, arguing
that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, requiring a
sense ofhow choices will turn out.[2][3] Compatibilists thus consider the debate
between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false
dilemma.[4] Different compatibilists offer very different definitions of what "free
will" even means, and consequently find different types of constraints to be
relevant to the issue. Classical compatiblists considered free will nothing more
than freedom of action, considering one free of will simply if, had one
counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without
physical impediment. Contemporary compatibilists instead identify free will as a
psychological capacity, such as to direct one's behavior in a way responsive to
reason. And there are still further different conceptions of free will, each with their
own concerns, sharing only the common feature of not finding the possibility of
determinism a threat to the possibility of free will.[5]