I think σοφία, sophia, works better as "wisdom." And your interpretation of the suffix "sophy" as knowledge is exactly wrong:
"Definition of cosmosophy
: a body of belief or theory about the cosmos
Definition of theosophy
: teaching about God and the world based on mystical insight.
anthrosophy”
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

That is, not knowledge at all. And if love is a kind of seeking, then philosophy easily becomes "seeking wisdom." You can proceed from there....

A body of belief or theory about love.

A teaching about love.

Better?

PS:

Anthrosophy:

(archaic, as used before Rudolf Steiner) Knowledge or understanding of human nature.

Whatever you like. But philosophers were/are seekers, and seeking both knowledge - to be sure - but also a kind of closure that comes with knowing called wisdom that I am sure they understood was ultimately unattainable, but "worth the candle" to pursue. Not, then, a touchy-feely or pious or even sham-pious notion, but instead a calling to a rigorous and difficult pursuit along a difficult path.

I don't see how anything I've put forward so far conflicts with that.

Whatever you like. — tim wood

This isn't about what I like. It's about the fact that, linguistically, philosophy (or φιλοσοφία) does not translate into 'lover of wisdom', but into 'wisdom of love'. To be more exact, 'love' in the sense of 'brotherly love' (φιλία), rather than erotic love (ἔρως) (also weird, considering modern usage).

Both had a profound meaning in Greek wisdom literature (which is where the word 'φιλοσοφία' originates, as far as we know), for example in Plato. 'Brotherly love' or 'compassion' also plays a central role in Buddhism. Ancient Greek philosophy and Buddhism both originate roughly from the same time period, the 6th century BC. This seems significant somehow.

At any rate, I'm not familiar with the English linguistical terms, but it seems the 'subject' and the 'adjective' have been swapped around for no apparent reason.

"Aristotle calls the science of metaphysics by no less than three names. Sometimes he calls it First Science, πρώτη φιλοσοφία [proto philosophia], φιλοσοφία being his regular name for science.... Sometimes he calls it Wisdom, σοφία, with the implication that this is the thing for which φιλοσοφία, science, is the search." (An Essay on Metaphysics, p. 5.)

but it seems the 'subject' and the 'adjective' have been swapped around for no apparent reason. — Tzeentch

Just so! Word order in Greek, it being an inflected language, can be arbitrary.

The denotive and connotative fields of Greek and English words - as with any two languages - are not the same. You get, then, a degree of freedom in translation. But best to stay within the bounds of the shared parts of the fields, lest exegesis turn to eisegesis.

No argument here. You can make any point you like, but a mistaken reliance on a mistranslation means the point is yours alone nor supported as you might think.

Just so! Word order in Greek, it being an inflected language, can be arbitrary. — tim wood

This is the important point.

Consider also “philanthropy”, which is “love of man”, not “man(liness?) of love”.

Or “philately”, which is “love of stamps”*, not “stamps of love”.

* “atelos” is not literally the Greek word for “stamp” but is apparently the closest idiomatic translation.

"Aristotle calls the science of metaphysics by no less than three names. Sometimes he calls it First Science, πρώτη φιλοσοφία [proto philosophia], φιλοσοφία being his regular name for science.... Sometimes he calls it Wisdom, σοφία, with the implication that this is the thing for which φιλοσοφία, science, is the search." (An Essay on Metaphysics, p. 5.) — tim wood

Honestly, considering Aristotle never seemed to truly 'get' the concepts of his teacher Plato, I'm not sure if he's the one to refer to in this context. I've heard it argued (though the source eludes me) that while western philosophy often claims Greek philosophy as its forebear, it would be more accurate to label Aristotle as such (western philosophy being essentially Aristotelean, rather than Greek), and western philosophy never seemed to quite 'get' Plato either.

Just so! Word order in Greek, it being an inflected language, can be arbitrary.

The denotive and connotative fields of Greek and English words - as with any two languages - are not the same. You get, then, a degree of freedom in translation. But best to stay within the bounds of the shared parts of the fields, lest exegesis turn to eisegesis. — tim wood

Fair.

No argument here. You can make any point you like, but a mistaken reliance on a mistranslation means the point is yours alone nor supported as you might think. — tim wood

Fair also. Though I'd say that ascribing the apparent disconnect between the wording and the meaning of the word 'philosophy' to randomness is also not very convincing.

I recommend the book referenced above. Not too long, relatively easy to read, not too expensive (pdfs online), and a bargain in terms of contents.

Or “philately”, which is “love of stamps”*, not “stamps of love”.

* “atelos” is not literally the Greek word for “stamp” but is apparently the closest idiomatic translation. — Pfhorrest

This word is of modern origin, thus of little use.

Consider also “philanthropy”, which is “love of man”, not “man(liness?) of love”. — Pfhorrest

A fair example, but I am not convinced.

If you can share a word that ends with -sophy, that would be translated in a way akin to "x of knowledge" rather than "knowledge of x", I will seriously reconsider my position.

but I am not convinced. — Tzeentch

What are you not convinced of?

If you can share a word that ends with -sophy, that would be translated in a way akin to "x of knowledge" rather than "knowledge of x", I will seriously reconsider my position. — Tzeentch

Misosophy and phobosophy, though both are probably coined by analogy with philosophy.

Possibly sciosophy, which seems to mean "shadow knowledge", not "knowledge of shadows".

But look also at the other side of the equation, other words beginning with "philo-" that mean "love of..." something, not something "...of love":

Philodemic, people-loving.

Philography, love of writing.

Philogyny, love of women.

Philomuse, a lover of the muses.

Philomusical, music-loving.

Philolexian, discourse-loving.

Philomathy, love of learning.

Philopolemic, war-loving.

Philoprogenitive, offspring-loving.

Philoxeny, love of strangers.

Philozoic, animal-loving.

But look also at the other side of the equation, other words beginning with "philo-" that mean "love of..." something, not something "...of love":

Philodemic, people-loving.

Philography, love of writing.

Philogyny, love of women.

Philomuse, a lover of the muses.

Philomusical, music-loving.

Philolexian, discourse-loving.

Philomathy, love of learning.

Philopolemic, war-loving.

Philoprogenitive, offspring-loving.

Philoxeny, love of strangers.

Philozoic, animal-loving. — Pfhorrest

I had not considered this, and it is compelling.

I can rest easy now!

You can understand philosophy to be, rather than love of wisdom, a state of love~wisdom.

In the ancient world, Wisdom, Sophia, was personified as a beautiful maiden. Of course, once Christianity came along, then Sophia couldn't be referred to as a 'goddess', but that's pretty well what she was. There are still beautiful sculptures of Sophia as 'wisdom incarnate', not to forget the Hagia Sophia of Istanbul, which is said to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.

Sophia has to be 'seduced' as it were, rather than taken by force - elusive, gentle, never obvious, often unstated.

Interestingly, Sophia has an almost exact counterpart in Eastern iconography, namely, the Goddess Prajñāpāramitā, who is depicted in some of the most beautiful statuary of the Buddhist tradition:



Scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze, wrote a paper on the convergences of Sophia and Prajñāpāramitā.