>>11466160Yes, anything which requires thought over a longer enough period of time will eventually formulate their own schools due to compounding knowledge. Why do you think there are branches of science or philosophy (and this isn't using the well achktually science is just materialism)?
Would you consult a physicist for an academic take on the moral quandary of animal agriculture? Would you console a theologian for the percentage products of a chemical reaction at varying factors? Would you query a musician for the complexities of economics?
Would you studying how to pass an IQ test and sincerely believe this informs on you any school of thought, or makes you more adept at adsorbing this knowledge? No. There are tools used to quantify reality such as mathematics that are born throughout each school, but being proficient in mathematics alone will not inform you of the others, but it may present a opportunity to waste one's life questioning all the things instead of deferring to others that have done so, thus eliminating the need to rediscover everything, which is effectively what you're asking for.
I doubt you sincerely understand the complexities of a car's engine to the point you could not only deconstruct and perform maintenance on one, but design one entirely from the ground up; yet despite this clear deficit in comprehension of reality - i.e. your capacity to deconstruct the world - none the less it still plays a role in your everyday life, and informs your culture, aspirations and modality.
