 you come to accept. These answers are the province of metaphysics — the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being" — the basic branch of philosophy.

No matter what conclusions you reach, you will be confronted by the necessity to answer another, corollary question: How do I know it? Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason — or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses — or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man's mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality — or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty — or is he doomed to perpetual doubt?

The extent of your self-confidence — and of your success — will be different, according to which set of answers you accept. These answers are the province of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, which studies man's means of cognition.

These two branches are the theoretical foundation of philosophy. The third branch — ethics — may be regarded as its technology. Ethics does not apply to everything that exists, only to man, but it applies to every aspect of man's life: his character, his actions, his values, his relationship to all of existence. Ethics, or morality, defines a code of values to guide man's choices and actions — the choices and actions that determine the course of his life.

Just as the astronaut in my story did not know what he should do, because he refused to know where he was and how to discover it, so you cannot know what you should do until you know the nature of the universe you deal with, the nature of your means of cognition — and your own nature. Before you come to ethics, you must answer the questions posed by metaphysics and epistemology: Is man a rational being, able to deal with reality — or is he a helplessly blind misfit, a chip buffeted by the universal flux? Are achievement and enjoyment possible to man on earth — or is he doomed to failure and distaste? Depending on the answers, you can proceed to consider the questions posed by ethics: What is good or evil for man — and why? Should man's primary concern be a quest for joy — or an escape from suffering?
you come to accept. These answers are the province of metaphysics — the discipline of being as such or, in Aristotle's words, of " being qua being " — the basic branch of philosophy. 

 No matter what conclusion you reach, you will be confronted by the necessity to suffice another, corollary question: How do I know it? Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you suffer to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to raise the validity of your conclusions. Does homo learn knowledge by a procedure of reason — or by sudden revelation from a supernatural ability? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrate the material provided by man's senses — or is it feed by innate ideas, implanted in man's mind before he was give birth? Is reason competent to perceive reality — or does man possess some other cognitive staff which is superscript to reason? Can man achieve certainty — or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? 

 The extent of your self - confidence — and of your success — will be different, according to which set of answer you accept. These answers are the state of epistemology, the hypothesis of knowledge, which studies man's means of cognition. 

 These two branch are the theoretical initiation of philosophy. The third branch — ethic — may be regarded as its technology. Ethics does not apply to everything that exists, only to homo, but it applies to every aspect of man's life: his fictional character, his actions, his value, his relationship to all of existence. Ethics, or morality, defines a code of value to guide man's choices and actions — the choices and actions that determine the course of his life sentence. 

 Just as the astronaut in my history did not know what he should make, because he refused to acknowledge where he was and how to discover it, thus you cannot know what you should dress until you know the nature of the universe you deal with, the nature of your means of cognition — and your own nature. Before you come to ethical motive, you must answer the question posed by metaphysics and epistemology: Is man a rational being, able to deal with world — or is he a helplessly blind misfit, a chip buffeted by the cosmopolitan flux? Are achievement and enjoyment potential to man on earth — or is he doomed to failure and distaste? Depending on the answers, you can proceed to consider the questions posed by ethics: What is full or malefic for man — and why? Should man's primary concern be a quest for joy — or an escape from suffering?
 yok come to accept. These akswers are the ptocince mf metzphysics — the study of existence as duxh or, in Aristotle's words, ow "being qla being" — the vasic branrg of phljosolmy.

No ketter what conckusions yog reach, you winl bz confronted by the necessity to ansrer anoyhfr, corollary qoestipg: Hos do I know it? Since man is not omhiscienu or infallible, yoi have to discover what yok caj claim as knowledhe and how jk pwive the valiaity of yolx conclusiohs. Does man acquire knowledge bh a pxocess of rgcwon — or by suddxn revvlation from a superndtural lower? Is reasok a feculry that identifies anv integrates the matgrial provhdzd by man's senses — or iw it xed ty ivbatd isees, jmplanhed in man's mjnd before ye was born? Is reaspn bpmpetent to lerceide reality — or does man possess some otheg cofnitive faculty which iw superior to reason? Fan man ashieve certainty — or is he doomed to perpetual dogbt?

Thx dxttnb ud jour self-confidence — and of your success — wilj bt dpfferent, accordinn to which set of sndwrts you accept. Jhese auawsrs are the provinfe of ekistemilogy, the thepry of knowledge, which studues man's meaus if cognition.

These cwo branches are the yheoretical foundation uf pgilosophy. Tje third gfanch — ethics — mxy ne segarded as its technology. Ethics dies uot applh to everyehing that exisbv, only to man, but lt apklies do every adpect of man's life: his charactec, his actions, hhs nalues, hif relstionship to wll of existenee. Ethicf, or oorality, dvfines a rode of valuqs to guide mdj's choices aid actionf — tye cyoices xvd actions thay determiut the courwe of his life.

Just as fhe astronaut iu ny story did noy kvow wjav he fvould do, becduse he tefusdd to know chdre ne was and how to divcovsr it, so you cannoy hnow whaj you shotld do until uou know the naturt of tie uniterse uou deal with, the nature of your jeans of fogkition — and yjur iwn nature. Bzfore you come to ethics, you must answer the questions poswd by metaphysics aud epistemolojy: Is ian a rathonal being, able to eeal with reality — or is he a helplessmy blitd midfit, a chip buffeted by the universal flux? Are achievement and enjoyment possible to man on earyh — og if he dojmed vo failure and dixtaste? Depending on the answers, you can pxoceed to consider the questipnr posed by etfics: What is good or evim for mam — and why? Should man's primary voncern be a quest for jpy — or ab esczpe from snffering?
you come to accept. These answers are of — the of existence as of qua being" — basic branch of No matter what conclusions you reach, will be confronted by the necessity to answer another, corollary question: How do know it? Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover you claim knowledge how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of — or by sudden revelation from a supernatural Is reason a faculty identifies and integrates the material by senses — is fed innate ideas, implanted man's mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality — or does man possess other cognitive is superior reason? man certainty — or doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent — and of your success — will be according to set of answers you accept. These are the province of epistemology, the theory of which studies man's means of cognition. These two branches are the theoretical foundation of philosophy. branch — ethics — be regarded as technology. does apply everything that only to man, but it applies to every aspect of man's his character, his actions, his values, his relationship to all Ethics, morality, defines a of values to guide choices actions — the choices that the life. as astronaut in my story not know what he should because he refused to how to discover it, so you cannot know you should do until you know the of the universe you deal with, the nature of your means of — and nature. Before you come to ethics, you must the questions posed by and epistemology: Is man a rational being, able to with — or he a helplessly misfit, a chip by the universal achievement and possible man or is he doomed to failure distaste? on the answers, you can to questions posed by ethics: What is good or evil for man — and why? Should concern be a quest joy or an escape from suffering?
 you come to accept. These answeRs are the prOvincE of MetApHysiCs — thE study of existeNCe as Such or, in Aristotle's wordS, of "beInG Qua bEInG" — the bAsic braNCh OF PhiLoSoPhy.

no MAtTer whAt cOnclusiOns you reacH, yoU wIll be confronTEd By the necesSitY to answer anoTheR, corolLaRy qUEstioN: HoW do I kNow it? SINce man Is not omniScIEnt or iNFalliblE, YOu Have To discover what you CAn CLaim as knowledgE and hoW tO PrOVE thE vaLidity of yoUr ConclUSions. DoES mAN ACquIRe knowledge by A process of rEAsoN — or by sUdDen REvelatIon frOm A SupErnatural poWer? IS reason a fAculty THat idenTIfies anD integRatEs tHe maTErIaL prOvIDed BY mAn's SEnsEs — or is it FeD bY innaTe idEAS, IMplaNteD in mAn's miNd before he was BorN? Is rEAsoN compEtent To peRcEive rEality — Or doeS mAn possess some otHer cOgnitive fAcuLtY whIcH is suPErior tO reAsoN? Can man Achieve CErtAiNTY — Or Is he doomed to perpetUaL DOuBt?

The extEnt of yOUr SeLF-confideNcE — anD of yOUR succEss — wILl Be differEnt, accORdInG to whicH sEt of anSwErs You AccepT. thesE answeRs are the ProviNCe of epistemoloGY, the theory of kNOwLEDgE, WhicH stUdies man's meAns oF CognItioN.

thEse TWo braNches ArE ThE Theoretical foundatiOn Of philOsophY. The third branCh — ethics — maY BE Regarded As itS TeCHnology. Ethics dOes noT apply to evERything tHat exIsts, only To man, but iT APplies to EveRy aSpeCt oF MAn'S life: his charaCTEr, hiS aCtions, hIs vAlues, hiS reLatIonShiP tO all of exiStence. EtHiCs, Or MoRalIty, deFInes a codE oF vaLuEs tO guidE Man's chOices And aCtIoNS — thE choiceS AnD ACtioNs ThAt deTerMiNe the CourSE of His life.

just as the AstROnauT iN mY story dId not know what He Should do, beCaUse He refuSED to know wHere he was and how to discovER it, so yoU caNnot kNow wHat you shoUld Do untiL yoU Know thE naturE of thE uNivERSe you DEAl WitH, tHe nature of YOUr mEans oF cOgniTion — and Your own nature. BeforE You Come to ethics, yOu mUst aNSWeR thE QuEStiOnS PosED By metaphysics anD epistemolOgY: is Man a rationAL beInG, able to Deal witH realITy — or is hE a helplesSly blind mIsFit, a CHIp bUffeted by tHe univerSal flux? ArE AchieVEmEnt anD enJoymenT pOssIble tO man on EArtH — or is He doomEd To failUre anD dIstaste? DEpending on the answers, you Can proCeed tO coNsider the QueSTioNs posed by EthiCs: What is goOd oR evIl for Man — ANd why? shouLD mAn's PRimarY conCErn be a queST fOr jOY — Or An escape froM SUFfeRing?
 you come to accept. These  answers a re th e p rov in ce o f me taphysics — th e  stu dy of existence as suc h or,  i n  Ari s to tle's  words, of " bei ng  q uabe i ng " — t hebasic b ranch of p hil os ophy.

No ma t te r what con clu sions you re ach , youwi llb e con fro ntedby the necess ity to an sw e r anot h er, cor o l la ry q uestion: How do I kn o w it? Since ma n is n ot om n i sci ent  or infall ib le, y o u havet od i s cov e r what you ca n claim ask now ledgean d h o w to p roveth e  va lidity of y ourconclusio ns. Do e s man a c quire k nowled gebya pr o ce ss  of  r e aso n  —  or bysudden r ev el ation  fro m a supe rna tura l pow er? Is reason  afacu l tythatident ifie sand i ntegra tes t he  material provi dedby man'ssen se s —  o r isi t fedbyinn ate ide as, imp l ant ed i n  m an's mind before h ew a sborn? Is  reaso n  c om p etent to  p erc eive r ealit y —o rdoes man  posse s sso me othe rcognit iv e f acu lty w h ichis sup erior to  reas o n? Can man ach i eve certainty —o r  i s  hedoo med to perp etua l  dou bt?Th e e x tentof yo ur se l f-confidence — andof  yoursucce ss — will bedifferent, a c cordingto w h ic h  set of answer s you  accept. T h ese answ ers a re the p rovince o f epistemo log y,the  th e o ry  of knowledge , whic hstudies  ma n's mea nsofcog nit io n.

These  two bra nc he sar e t he th e oretical  f oun da tio n ofp hiloso phy.Theth ir d  br anch —e th i c s —ma ybe r ega rd ed as  its tec hnology . Ethicsdoe s  not  a pp ly to e verything tha texists, on ly  to  man,b u t it app lies to every aspect of man's l ife : his  cha racter, h isaction s,h is val ues, h is re la tio n s hip t o al l o fexistence. E thi cs, o rmora lity, d efines a code of v a lue s to guide ma n's  cho i c es  an d  a c tio ns — t h e  choices and ac tions that  d e te rmine thec our se  of his  life.
Just as theastronaut  in my st or y di d not  know what  he shou ld do, be c auseh erefus edto kno wwhe re he  was a n d h ow to  disco ve r it,so yo ucannot k now what you should dountilyou k now  the natu reo f t he univer se y ou deal wi th,  th e nat ure of yo ur m e an s o f  cogn itio n  — and yo u rown n at ure. Before y o u c ome t o e t hics,youmust answer the q u estions posedby m e t aph ysi c s an depistemology:Isma n a ration al  being, abl e to dea lw ith r eality  — oris he a h el p lessly  bli ndmisfit, a  ch ip buffete dby the un iver sa l flux ? Area chie v e ment and enjoyme nt po s s iblet o m an on  e arth —o r is  he doomed  to failure  and d ista ste?Dependi ng  on th e a ns wers, youc an procee d toconside rtheque stions  pos e d  by e thic s:  Wh at is goo d or ev il for  man  — an dwhy?  Should m a n's prim ary concern  b e a q uest f o rj o y — or anesc ape f r o m sufferin g ?
 you_come to_accept. These answers are_the province_of_metaphysics —_the_study of existence_as such or,_in Aristotle's words, of_"being qua being"_—_the basic branch of philosophy.

No matter what conclusions you reach, you will be confronted_by_the necessity_to_answer_another, corollary question: How do_I know it? Since man_is not_omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what_you_can claim as_knowledge and how to prove the validity of your_conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by_a process of_reason_—_or by sudden revelation_from a supernatural power? Is reason_a faculty that identifies and integrates_the material provided by man's senses —_or is it fed by innate_ideas, implanted in man's mind_before he_was born? Is reason competent_to perceive reality_— or_does man possess_some other cognitive faculty which is_superior to reason?_Can man achieve certainty — or_is_he doomed to_perpetual_doubt?

The_extent of_your self-confidence —_and_of your_success_— will be different, according to_which_set of answers you accept. These answers_are the province of_epistemology,_the theory of knowledge,_which studies man's means of_cognition.

These two branches are the theoretical_foundation of_philosophy. The_third branch — ethics — may be regarded as its technology._Ethics does not apply to everything_that exists, only to_man, but_it_applies to every_aspect_of man's_life: his character, his actions, his values,_his relationship_to all of existence. Ethics, or_morality, defines a code_of_values to guide man's choices and_actions — the choices and actions_that determine the course of_his_life.

Just_as the astronaut in my_story did not know what he_should do, because_he refused to know where he was_and_how to discover it, so you_cannot_know what you should do until_you_know_the nature of the universe_you deal with, the nature of_your means of cognition — and your own nature._Before you come_to ethics, you must answer_the_questions_posed by metaphysics and epistemology: Is man a rational being,_able to_deal with reality_— or is he a helplessly blind misfit, a chip_buffeted by the universal flux? Are achievement_and enjoyment possible to man on earth — or is he_doomed to failure and distaste? Depending on the_answers, you can proceed to consider the_questions posed by ethics:_What_is good or evil for man —_and_why?_Should_man's primary concern_be a quest_for joy —_or an_escape from suffering?