LOVE OF WISDOM

By the same token as philosophy cannot exist in isolation from the concept of God, no intelligent activity of man can exist outside the domain of philosophy, as soon as we realize that philosophy is not some esoteric, impossibly incomprehensible, and mind-twisting discipline monopolized by professional philosophers, but, when understood plainly as “love of wisdom,” it is what distinguishes humans from lower animals.

There are obviously rules, conventions, and regulations that define the narrow interpretation of philosophy, such as, say, in the second definition of this term in my Webster’s Dictionary:

“Philosophy. 2. A study of the processes governing thought and conduct; theory or investigation of the principles or laws that regulate the universe and underlie all knowledge and reality; included in the study are aesthetics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, etc.”

To Webster’s credit, it gives the following broad definition of philosophy as its number one:

“Philosophy. 1. Originally, love of wisdom or knowledge.”

Guided by this last broad definition, we may logically argue that every science is a branch of philosophy, in the sense that all pursuit of knowledge is a manifestation of man’s love of wisdom and (yes, “and,” rather than Webster’s “or”) knowledge.

There is a deeper connection between philosophy and knowledge, however, than identifying a science with philosophy on the strength of the latter’s “original” meaning. In fact, philosophy, in its more restrictive sense as a set of rules to study the laws that underlie all knowledge, produces such distinctive disciplines as, say, philosophy of science, philosophy of art, and even philosophy of sports…

And finally, on numerous occasions already I have used the word “philosophizing” to refer to philosophy as practiced by non-professional philosophers. Lest this particular manifestation of our love of wisdom is misinterpreted as some kind of inferior activity, compared to what professional philosophers are doing, I object to such an assumption. Ironically, we are prone to a higher regard for professional gobbledygook than for a far more accessible form of comprehensible expression that we may better understand than the other sort. I do not share this slavish regard for the incomprehensible, since most often the difference lies in the quality of the writing: good writing versus bad writing. Nietzsche stands among a handful of the greatest thinkers of all time, but being an excellent writer, and philologist by his original profession, he is comprehensible in a far greater measure than a legion of other philosophers, great and small, who do not count a good writing skill among their fortes.

Generally speaking, love of wisdom has little to do with the difficulty of professional expression leading to an accompanying difficulty in the reader’s understanding of what has been written. It is about the depth of discernment, as well as the strength of the stimulating effect of any given philosopher on our own thinking process. Here is where philosophy reveals its greatest value to humanity.