Corollary, not Postulate.
I was thinking...
Although the first postulate was postulated, I think it somehow is not a postulate, but rather a corollary of Beitia's First Law of Physics. You see, every science thinks they need to start from principles. But the problem in the modern academy is the inability to have structure or hierarchy. We have departments, disciplines, concentrations and so forth. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when we have no discernible structure in knowledge. Most sciences draw upon lower sciences for the basis of their arguments, and report to higher sciences. I guess the problem I see is made clear in de Anima. Group Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Sociology. Their certitude goes from most to least in the order I gave them. In that way, one could reasonably say that Mathematics is the better science than Sociology. But Sociology deals with a higher object intrinsically, therefore it must be accounted better. All this babbling aside, I think it is necessary to see Theology as the queen of the sciences, philosophy as her handmaid, and all other things subject to that. Of course, that is not to say that these things are not worthwhile studying in their own right (math and so forth) but that they are lower sciences. Physicists would not have it this way. Paul Davies goes so far as to say that Physics is the queen of sciences.
I guess that is why Postulate one will further more be named Corollary One of Beitia's First Law. I'm too lazy to go back edit all my posts, so there it is. If all learning leads us to truth, and truth is one, then all disciplines are subject to that truth. The sarcasm and self-reference of the first law indicated (humorously, I had hoped) the necessity of stepping outside of the current science to appeal to another science - a higher one.
I fear all my verbiage will make it impossible to follow the thread... Alas. I may have to recapitulate one of these days. . .
