Philosophy = ‘love of wisdom’ ?
It is frequently noted (especially around here) that the original meaning of philosophy is philos sophia, ‘love of wisdom’, and that this definition greatly informed how the Greeks practiced the discipline in its earliest days. Therefore, it is sometimes claimed that philosophy today is defined by ‘love of wisdom’ and must pursue similar goals and proceed by similar means as it did in its earliest days.
This limited assessment of the purpose of philosophy appears to be completely erroneous. To insist that the modern practice of philosophy is exclusively defined by its historical meaning is a form of genetic fallacy (a misleading reference to origins); specifically the etymological fallacy (the assumption that a word’s meaning can be discerned from its etymology or origins). A word’s meaning is determined by its current usage, not its historical origin. For example, ‘meat’ no longer refers to food in general, and ‘hobby horse’ is no longer a euphemism for mistress. Similarly, the meaning of the term ‘philosophy’ and the discipline itself are not circumscribed by what it meant or how it was practiced in the fourth century B.C.E. Greece.
Consider a similar case: Imagine if someone were to use Aristotle’s understanding of logic (with its heavy focus on his central theory of the syllogism) as its current definition. Surely any contemporary logician would instantly point out the extent to which Frege and the advent of modern formal logic changed the field? The boundaries and methods of logic as Aristotle understood them—long held as authoritative—do not determine the field today, no matter how significant a contribution he made. That the term ‘logic’ has its origins in a Greek word does not restrict its meaning today.
No philosopher would deny the profound importance of Greek philosophy, nor the value in reading their works, but that doesn’t mean the boundaries and methods of the discipline were set in stone two-and-a-half millenia ago. Many have in fact changed considerably since its inception, although its general concerns remain . ‘Love of wisdom’ is certainly a commendable principle, but not a working definition for the contemporary specialty.
As for the famously difficult task of offering a definition of philosophy, it is usually given as something like the systematic use of rational enquiry and critical reflection, guided/supported/characterised by logical argument. I personally like Anthony Flew’s comment that it is ‘thinking about thinking’, and this outline given by my old philosophy department. To quote a little of it:
[Philosophy continues] the tradition of critical discussion that originated with the ancient Greeks. Philosophers aim to reject dogmatic, authoritarian or purely rhetorical approaches to philosophical questions, and seek instead to proceed by means of arguments that can be critically assessed. We value lively critical conversation, where people with different views engage respectfully with one another in a common effort to advance their understanding.
Of course, to continue ‘the tradition of critical discussion that originated with the ancient Greeks’ does not imply we must slavishly uphold everything the Greeks represented—the mode of thought they inaugurated is in many ways more important that the specific doctrines they argued for. Any current definition of philosophy has to encompass how philosophy—particularly academic philosophy—is practiced today, taking into account its many sub-categories and diverse interactions with other disciplines, rather than the narrow and misleading assessment: The Greeks defined philosophy as X, therefore philosophy is, forevermore, X.
Comments
23 Comments so far
I think that those who cite the Greek roots of the term “philosophy” are simply saying that this what they love about the possibility of philosophy as a thinking endeavor. Most careful or informed folks would never say that the “love of wisdom” strictly defines philosophy today. To go to your example, I love the older form of logic (i.e. Aristotelian), not the symbolic logic primarily practiced today. But maybe I’m disputing you because I’m a historian, and constantly couch my discussions of the roots of anything. – TL
Quick rebuttal:
“”Any current definition of trees has to encompass how modern foresters – particularly academic socialist foresters – define it today, taking into account its many sub-categories and diverse interactions with other disciplines, rather than the narrow and misleading assessment (that a tree is a tree): The ancient peoples defined trees as X, but since that is passe, today ‘trees’ can mean anything we want them to mean today.”
Pardon, while I take a tree and walk my tree, and since I had a hard tree, I am going to early to tree. Words have no meaning, Modern Man has the right and the duty to change anything we want to mean. We shall have no loyalty or fidelity to traditional meanings.
See, one forgets, that your “critical discussions” that you so highly value, centered around defintions and if definitions change then there can be no science. Socrates was all about Definition.
Cicero said, “The Truth is not one thing in Athens and another in Rome, it is not one thing yesterday and another thing today”. This blog turns this dictum of Cicero on its head. In order to build a New World Order, the Language was must conform to the New Order. That is what is being advocated on this blog. Changing language to fit the new modern modes and orders of the Socialist World Order.
Socrates said, “False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”
Again the Father of Western Philosophy, Socrates said, “Why we valiantly and pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth,…”. But this blog turns this upside down.
“It is the opinion of Plato, that changes in the dress and habits of the citizens portend great changes and commotions in the state; and I am inclined to believe that when the language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin or their degradation. For what do terms used without skill or meaning, which are at once corrupt and misapplied, denote but a people listless, supine, and ripe for servitude? On the contrary, we have never heard of any people or state which has not flourished in some degree of prosperity as long as their language has retained its elegance and its purity.” ~ John Milton
“Confusion of words and meanings leads to the confusion of minds, and the confusion of minds breeds upheavels and revolution, as a well-known American once rightly pointed out”. ~ Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
“A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.” ~ Paul Johnson
“”"Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth”"”. Certainly there is no treasuring of truth here and Socialists have always been at the forefront of violence everywhere they go. They do violence to the language, they will do violence to men as well.
Again, please find for me where philosophy is defined as “critical discussion” in any ancient text. Please.
Next, are you confusing the Socratic elanchos, your critical discussion, with philosophy? The two things are quite different yet one is the material cause. “Critical discussion” is the material cause of philosophy but not its formal nor telos. What is the telos of philosophy? Just to have “critical discussion”? The Telos of philosophy is wisdom. The Socratic elanchos is composed of three elements the principle of identity, Paramenides principle of non-contradiction, and the principle of consistency. Socrates remarks “What is the nature of courage THAT WILL FIT EACH AND EVERY instance that courage is required”.
The Socratic elanchos is not philosophy per se, but a tool of Socrates to make his interlocatur perform a guided discovery with his interlocutor coming to the truth without Socrates having to tell him. It is a guided discovery.
All about discovering Truth which is the object of Philosophy. Truth and Wisdom go together. The criteria of Truth is consistency.
How can we be Western Civilization if we cut off our heritage with the past? Western Thought, Western Civilization begins with the Greeks. Western Thought and Western Civilization is built on the foundations of the Greeks. Western thought can only be Western Thought if it has CONSISTENCY with its Past.
Critical discussion is critical discussion. Car mechanics engage in critical discussion but that discussion is NOT philosophy. Philosophy may use critical discussion as a tool but Philosophy is Philosophy and critical discussion is critical discussion but critical discussion is NOT the definition of philosophy or what philosophy is all about or is by Essence.
“Philosophers were once called wise men. It was Pythagoras who first invented the term philosophy (phila tns sofias, love of wisdom) {1}, observing that wisdom belongs in the strict sense to God alone, and for that reason not wishing to be called a wise man, but simply a friend or lover of wisdom”.
So begins Introduction to Philosophy by Jacques Maritain, the great French Catholic philosopher. {1} refers to the footnote, and it refers to “Cicero, Tusc., v. 8; cf Diogenes Laertius, i. 12.
Jacques Maritain continues, “His modesty was itself a mark of great wisdom, for the sublimity and difficulty of the highest truths, and the weakness of our nature ‘in so many respects enslaved,’ forbid man to acquire ‘a property right in wisdom’ such that he can employit in entire freedom. {2}
And this {2} refers to the footnote and it reads “Aristotle, Metaph. i, 2, 982b. St. Thomas, In 1 Metaph, 1.3. Cf. De Veritate, q.7, a. 7.
Jacques Maritain writes a whole chapter on the “Definition of Philosophy”.
“It (philosophy) is a wisdom whos nature consists essentially in knowing.” ibid pg 60
“Philosophy is a science.”
“The rule of philosophy, its criterion of truth, is the evidence of its object.”
“It follows further that philosophy is in strictest truth wisdom, for it is the province of wisdom to study the highest causes.”
“Philosophy is the science which by the natural light of reason studies the first causes or highest principles of all things—is, in other words, the science of things in their first causes, in so far as these belong to the natural order.” pg 64-65.
This book was written 1930. You mean to tell me that 1930 is Ancient times? 1930 is Old? Jacques Maritain begins with Phythogoras and continues the traditional meaning of Philosophy into the Modern Age. His book is a standard text of Roman Catholic seminaries.
Who better to defend and uphold Philosophy than the Roman Catholic Church who was the central institution of Christendom and of Western Civilization? Who has practiced and kept alive philosophy throughout the centuries? The Roman Catholic Church. The Church Fathers, practically all growing up in Hellenistic Culture, were infused with Greek philosophy. One of the earliest and greatest Church Father, St. Justin the Martyr and then the latest Church Father St. Augustine.
Who better to teach what philosophy is? No one.
And yet the Greek definition of Philosophy is still being used today to teach Roman Catholic seminarians. 2700 years of Western Thought, Consistent, whole, living.
Who said the Definition of Philosophy is “critical discussion”? Who originated this? Is it in conformity with the traditional meaning, the 2700 year old living history and living of Philosophy?
And what is Philosophy based on?—-The Natural Order.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comment. I maybe should have pointed out that the post was in response to a claim that’s been repeatedly made in the comments on previous posts, and made in its strongest form (the form you note ‘most careful or informed folks’ would stay away from) – but I’m sure you can see that now…
Mr Wheeler:
“Again, please find for me where philosophy is defined as ‘critical discussion’ in any ancient text.”
This comment (and your extensive collection of quotes) is a clear indication of how you’ve failed to grasp the main point of the above post. I don’t need to provide textual citations from the classical Greek canon to back up my position as I’m arguing something completely different: that philosophy today is defined by how it is practiced and understood by thousands of professional philosophers today, not by its etymological roots. If you were to contribute comments that dealt with that argument, we could begin to get somewhere. Another appeal to the authority of the Greeks or others contributes nothing. ‘Socrates says…’, ‘Cicero says…’, ‘Milton says…’, ‘Jacques Maritain says…’, ‘Aristotle says…’… An endless list of historical figures who think the same as you will never constitute an argument, especially not when the majority represent a simple reassesertion of a position that has already been challenged.
As for your other comment, perhaps we could change its name from ‘quick rebuttal’ to ‘cheap caricature’? I don’t argue that a word can arbitrarily mean anything that anyone wants at any time; I simply state that its meaning is determined by its common/contemporary usage. Semantic change (the gradual evolution in word meanings over time) is a fact acknowledged by all modern linguists (many of whom aren’t Socialists). Would you argue that no-one can surf the Internet as surfing by definition involves oceans and long narrow boards? Or are you going to allow that that word has taken on a new meaning? You achieve nothing by attacking weak imitations of opposing arguments, other than once again displaying your complete disinterest in honest debate.
At this point I’m asking you directly to raise the quality of your responses, or I’m simply going to end this discussion. I’m tired of taking the time to respond to you to have you either ignore my arguments, fail to understand them, or attack weak misrepresentations of them. Furthermore, this infantile “You’re just Marxist/Socialist/Politically Correct” nonsense is – as has already been pointed out [Socrates on Women comments] – the philosophical equivalent of name-calling.
And why would anyone give any precedence to a text written for Roman Catholic seminaries in the 1930s? Could you possibly site an authority more irrelevant or partisan? And as it doesn’t deal with the critique above it is therefore simply a reiteration of the same argument.
Well, it’s the kettle calling the pot black. I quote the best minds and the Father of Western Philosophy and their authority. My work is dismissed because I do quote from the greats. No authority is allowed.
Now, Mr. Mathews, who dismisses everything I wrote, Himself, refers to authority, to wit: that ‘philosophy’ today is defined by how it is practiced and understood by thousands of professional philosophers today, not by its etymological roots.” “”Thousands”" of professional philosophers. This is Mr. Mathews authority. He dismisses true authority and then gravitates to “”thousands”". I use quality and he uses quanitity.
Mr. Mathews if everybody jumped off the bridge—would you follow? Following the Herd is what is right?
St. Maximos the Confessor said, “One man with the Truth is the Majority”. See, Mr. Mathews is not concerned with Truth. Only that “Thousands” said something. But I vaguely remember Socrates saying “The great mass of people DON’T know the Truth”.
So, Mr. Mathews condemns me for going to authority while he himself quotes HIS authority. It’s the kettle calling the pot black. It’s plain, pure hypocrisy. See, the criterion of truth is consistency. If Mr. Mathews was consistent, he wouldn’t be a hypocrite. But one man’s authority is another man’s heretic.
Who has passed out more philosophy degrees in the last 400 years? The Roman Catholic Church, and Mr. Mathews throws that out the window. See, Thousands of Modern Professional philosophers are better than the Hundreds of Thousands of Roman Catholic philosophers. Wow, hypocrisy doesn’t get any better than this.
The second point I would like to make is ‘philosophy’ is an ancient Greek term. If the word is an ancient Greek term—let the Greeks define it.
I acknowledge that terms may grow in usage, Mr. Matthews. To grow in usage does NOT imply that that the first original term is nullified. The growth in usage has some connection to the first but doesn’t and can not negate the first. Look in any dictionary of secondary, tertiary, etc, meanings of words and they are all interconnected through the essence of that term. Other than the term ‘republic’, out of thousands of words, I do not know of any other term that completely negates the original meaning of a word. I mean it goes against Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. This is the beginning of logic and core principle of logic–the principle of non-contradiction—that a subject can NOT have two opposing predicates.
Well, I have proposed the standard classical definition of philosophy. Mr. Matthews proposes a another which is modern which he says denies the standard classical definition—well, that breaks the principle of non-contradiction. Philosophy has now two different definitions, an old original one and a new modern one that counterdicts the original! How can that be? One negates the other. It breaks the principle of non-contradiction.
(1) The reference to the law of non-contradiction (it is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context) is a complete red-herring: ‘Philosophy’ meant one thing to the Greeks; it has another (although obviously related) meaning in contemporary usage. Two meanings at two points in time and in two contexts = no problem with the law of non-contradiction. Please take the time to check your definitions (this particular one you’ll find in Aristotle) before offering more empty arguments.
(2) The issue of authority here centers on relevance.
Simply stacking up more and more quotes from Greek philosophers and their modern disciples achieves nothing. How the Greeks defined philosophy is not being disputed here; it’s whether that definition is still valid today that is at issue. Unless the central critique in this post is dealt with (the etymological fallacy), repeated references to how Socrates et. al. defined ‘philosophy’ remain, in the context of this discussion, largely irrelevant.
How philosophy is understood and practiced by contemporary philosophers is, on the other hand, an entirely relevant authority. We are talking about what ‘philosophy’ means in the 21st century, so referring to the way it is understood by contemporary practitioners is completely appropriate (we’re not going to rely on what carpenters and electricians think it is, are we?). It is in fact the most relevant authority there can be.
This really is getting extraordinarily tedious, because you keep repeating variations of the same arguments over and over. The situation is quite simple: your position has been challenged at its most fundamental level, with what is effectively a meta-critique (arguing that your entire position is based on an error, as you commit the etymological fallacy). Before doing anything else, you have to deal with that critique: either by showing that it doesn’t commit the etymological fallacy (a difficult task, given that it clearly does), or arguing that the fallacy is not valid (even more difficult, given how widely accepted it is, and your failure to do so thus far despite numerous attempts), or simply acknowledging that you don’t have a response to it.
Since my library is closed today. I will wait to answer your post. So in the meantime, I will post further info on what philosophy means from other sources.
The Oxford English Dictionary has:
“the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.”
This is exactly what Jacques Maritain says, i.e. the study of the fundamental nature of reality. So philosophy is based on the natural order.
From Dictionary.com, one gets:
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
# Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
# Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
Again, the American Heritage Dictionary further buttresses the work of Jacques Maritain.
Also from Dictionary.com quoting the Online Etymological Dictionary:
Nec quicquam aliud est philosophia, si interpretari velis, praeter studium sapientiae; sapientia autem est rerum divinarum et humanarum causarumque quibus eae res continentur scientia. [Cicero, "De Officiis"]
All these dictionaries describe the ancient/Greek meaning of philosophy. Even Wikipedia does. Nowhere does Wikipedia on the philosophy article itself say that the Greek meaning of philosophy is an etymological fallacy. Wikipedia being very anti-traditional, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, one would think the new modern definition would be the forefront at Wikipedia and it is not. Now, if it is a fallacy that philosophy is the love of wisdom is an etymological fallacy then why is a modern dictionary continuing in false information? So again, the old definition of philosophy is being promulgated. Many people, the commoners, are reading these dictionaries and this old definition is being learned, used and practiced in general society.
Now, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy does define Philosophy as “critical thinking”. Since I have found another error in the Oxford reference books, in my opinion, one must be careful with Oxford originated reference material.
We’re going around in circles. You simply reassert the argument that has been challenged, without dealing with the challenge. But your quotes don’t help you much anyway. To say that philosophy is “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge (etc.)” does not in any way require that we accept your realist assumptions. We can accept the existence of a metaphysically true, mind-independent natural world without having to support moral realism or realism in the philosophy of language. And the second example you give from Dictionary.com is far closer to my position than yours.
And then this: “Nowhere does Wikipedia on the philosophy article itself say that the Greek meaning of philosophy is an etymological fallacy.” The argument is not that the Greek meaning of philosophy is an etymological fallacy, the argument is that insisting the Greek meaning of the term defines contemporary usage is an etymological fallacy. Once more you misrepresent/misunderstand my position. (Besides which, I don’t need Wikipedia to sanction my argument, it’s holding up quite well by itself.)
And not that Wikipedia is the most credible authority, but perhaps you missed this entry on the definition of philosophy. “There is some agreement, therefore, that the philosophical method is rational, systematic and critical, or characterised by logical argument.” Sound familiar?
I just noticed the outrageously weak (and entirely self-serving) argument against the Oxford definition of philosophy. “Since I have found another error in the Oxford reference books, in my opinion, one must be careful with Oxford originated material.” So: Oxford have made one (unspecified) error in the thousands of claims that they present in their hundreds of books, therefore we can’t rely on Oxford material. Does that conclusion really follow from that premise? Are we really going to call into question the entire output of one of the leading contemporary philosophy publishers because they’re not completely infallible? Pathetic.
For the record, here’s what The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says (p.1694):
“A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). “
Wow. You must think I am some ignorant hick that needs to be educated, that I don’t have a clue on what is going on in the world. And when I say something along this lines, you abuse me.
Do you know the paradigm of “Revolution within the form”?
Prof. Paul A. Rahe wrote a three volume work called Republics, Ancient and Modern. His work is about how people in Renaissance began to consciously change the meaning of the words and specifically how the meaning of the word “republic” was changed.
Paul A. Rahe quotes Machiavelli:
“”He who desires or wishes to reform the condition of a city and wishes that it be accepted and that it be able to maintain itself to everyone’s satisfaction is forced to retain at least the shadow of ancient modes so that it might seem to the people that order has not changed—though, in fact, the new orders are completely alien to those of the past. For the universality of men feed as much on appearance as on reality: indeed, in many cases, they are moved more by the things which seem than by those which are….And this much should be observed by all who wish to eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero): one ought, since new things alter the minds of men, to see to it that these alterations retain as much as the ancient as possible; and if the magistrates change from those of old in number, authority, and term of office, they ought at least retain the name.”"
Machiavelli says right there that he wants to “eliminate” the Old Order; keep the work but alter the meaning of the word.
Do you think I am naive? You think I don’t know that this is going on today?
Do you think I know nothing of Jacques Derida and his pet project of “Deconstructionism”. Gene Veith, author of Modern Fascism, Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, condenses the teaching Jacques Derida and fascist writers that also are along on this program:
# “The act of writing, the simple assertion of meaning, becomes not only a “power play”, but an act of “arbitrary power”. pp 135-139
# “Deconstruction encourages this kind of moral detachment. It also tends to minimize the past. In a discussion of Nietzsche, De Man wrote that “the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or revolutions.” Just as literary texts have no determinate meaining in themselves and are ultimately unknowable, the same must be true of texts such as wars and revolutions.” pg 140
Words have no meaning. We can make it up as we go along.
And then, I come to Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist theorist, and his dictum that Culture defines politics–change the culture and one changes the politics. But in order to bring about the desired change of politics–the language must be also changed to suit Socialist plans.
Outrageously weak argument about the Oxford Press? I know what is going on in Academia my friend. I have experienced persecution in college because of my traditional and Christian outlook. I had to leave. Persecution in Academia against conservatives is widespread. I have tons of weight behind my argument against Oxford.
Ever hear of Media Bias Mr. Matthews? You don’t think that there is Academic Bias Mr. Matthews? Ever read Ayn Rand? One of the most major themes of Any Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, the philosopher, is the media bias and in her more non-fiction writing such as her “Comprachicos” is the Academic Bias.
You think I am blind and dumb to what is happening on college campuses? I have personally experienced it and have read countless articles. If you are not “politically correct”, you don’t get tenure—and in most cases—you don’t even get hired!
Who are you fooling? You mean to tell me that there is NO politicization of educational departments and colleges? That whole academic fields are politicized? You don’t think I know that?
I know exactly what is going on—Revolution within the form. You keep the shell “philosophy” but change the meaning–that is why you present the ‘etymological fallacy’.
I trust NO academic. Sorry. Machiavelli is alive and well.
Ok, I think that’s enough. These posts have now devolved into paranoid ranting and a persecution complex. You’re hardly even pretending to address the central issue, apart from your garbled melange of references to Derrida, Machiavelli, Gramsci and fascism. As such, there’s no reason to continue this discussion (and I fear that you will simply continue indefinitely), and I will no longer respond to your posts and will not allow any more rants through the filters. Sorry, but you’ve had ample chance to make your case, and I’m not obliged to provide you a platform to air your personal grievances.
“The systematic use of rational enquiry and critical reflection, guided/supported/characterised by logical argument.”
This definition seems to fit nicely with Anglo-American philosophy, but doesn’t it leave out Continental Philosophy to some degrees? Specifically, Non systematic philosophy seem to be left out in the cold. And this definition could even presumably leave out Plato and the Pre-Socratics. I understand that you are seeking a definition that applies to modern academic philosophy, but shouldn’t a definition also explain for what has gone before?
Well, the point of this post is to show that philosophy is not limited to how the Greeks (specifically Plato) defined it, and to offer some tentative definition to philosophy as it is practiced by contemporary philosophers. But in doing so it acknowledges philosophy as “the tradition of critical discussion that originated with the ancient Greeks,” so I don’t see it as excluding them at all.
And how is Continental philosophy excluded? Someone might think that Foucault or Derrida argue badly, but that’s not to deny they’re engaging in a very similar process, i.e. some form of critical reflection involving philosophical issues and the advancement of arguments etc.
What about someone like Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, who make heavy use of literary techniques, irony and general misdirection? The arguments that are generally assigned to them are often products of specific (mis)readings of text. Is the Eternal Reoccurrence literal, metaphorical, some weird version of the Categorical Imperative? The text is not clear. Your definition seems to presuppose that writers have specific intents and arguments that are advanced and can be understood. It doesn’t seem to allow for ambiguous or contradictory arguments. It doesn’t have room, as I see it, for philosophical writings as reflection.
Can I refer you back to the original post:
“As for the famously difficult task of offering a definition of philosophy, it is usually given as something like the systematic use of rational enquiry and critical reflection, guided/supported/characterised by logical argument.” [emphasis added]
As the above qualifications show, I’m not trying to offer the big end-all definition of philosophy, because I’m all too aware how difficult it would be to accommodate all the different figures we generally acknowledge as ‘philosophers’ (particularly idiosyncratic or literary styles like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus, Cioran etc.). I’m merely putting forward a general outline of how it is most commonly practiced today, which is about the best we can do.
Also consider the context: this post is arguing against a specific position (carried over from comments in earlier posts) that posits a very limited definition of philosophy which basically excludes everyone except Platonists.
Ah, I was not familiar with the existing context of the post. And I do agree with you on your underlying point that it is annoying as hell when people pull the Philosophy as love of wisdom card.
It seems to me that your post retains some harmony with the original meaning of philosophy. What is “love” and how do we express it? What is wisdom and how does it come to be? It can be argued that the definition of philosophy has not truly changed, but that many contemporary philosophers have simply expressed a desire for specificity.
The Author of this paper must understand that these people who first used the words “love of Wisdom” only had one name and their primarly language was latin, they did take origins literaly.
Dear “Socrates of our DaY”, I think you’ll find the ancient GREEKS spoke GREEK, not Latin….