Wittgenstein did portray most philosophy as a kind of mental illness related to the misuse of language and logic applied to concepts in a way that stripped them of context and therefore meaning. In a sense, Heidegger recognized this fundamental problem when it came to understanding basic existence, and likewise, he eventually failed to overcome it even with all his invented existential terms though I think he discovered some very clear insights into the nature of human experience.

For philosophers like Wittgenstein or Nietzsche or Stirner, the problem starts with things like Socrates asking "what is 'justice.'" It implies that justice has a solid reality like any real world object, but for Wittgenstein, it was just a word to describe a whole class of things that were similar but did not share one single definable element. It is like going up to a game of chess and asking what is a "knight." A sensible answer for that only exists in the context of the game. In a game of chess, a knight "means" something, but if you take the knight off of the board and then ask what it is devoid of the context of the game, any answer will be meaningless nonsense.

Same for all these "ideal" concepts that Plato said existed in some separate metaphysical realm. They only have meaning applied to some actual situation or context in the real world, but philosophy spent the next few thousand years in metaphysics until philosophers like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein started asserting the actual world in which we exist over the ideal metaphysical spaces of Plato, DesCartes, Leibniz and Husserl.

However, around the same time a kind of new metaphysics arose in studies of the unconscious like Freud, Jung and Lacan that treated psychological spaces as a kind of real space. We'll always have a pull between imagination and reality as basic human nature often tends to treat what is actually imaginary as being more real than reality.

I defined philosophy as: thinking about knowledge. — Varde

I agree that thinking about knowledge seems rather pointless. I would define philosophy as ‘thinking in the context of a desire for wisdom’.

Wisdom is not just knowledge as a quantitative measure of intelligence, nor a capacity to act, but a qualitative relation to reality of useful understanding or accuracy.

We'll always have a pull between imagination and reality as basic human nature often tends to treat what is actually imaginary as being more real than reality. — ASmallTalentForWar

That’s because human nature abides in between, and is at least vaguely aware of more to reality than what is real.

It should be everyone's priority to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom, though their concepts are similar, if not knowing the difference, one can only be lead to bad thinking.

Try wisdom as 'my words on a subject' and knowledge as 'a subject'.

Try wisdom as 'my words on a subject' and knowledge as 'a subject'. — Varde

This is a reduction, and can lead to inaccurate thinking if not understood as such. Wisdom is more than words, and knowledge is more than a subject. The difference, therefore, is qualitatively more complex than illustrated.

well, yes, a wiser interpretation.

Wittgenstein did portray most philosophy as a kind of mental illness — ASmallTalentForWar

:snicker:

More like being under a witch's spell:

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary. 2 When the people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” (They had brick instead of stone and tar instead of mortar.) 4 Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building. 6 And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. 7 Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other."

8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why its name was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

— Genesis 11:1–9 NET — Wikipedia (Migdal Bavel)

I defined philosophy as: thinking about knowledge. — Varde

For me, personally, philosophy is the practice of becoming more aware of how my mind works. How I think, feel, act, know. Self-awareness is the destination of every path. I acknowledge that's a non-standard definition, but, in practice, I don't think it is so different from more standard ones.

You can define a word however you like.

Doesn't mean that that definition maps onto what people who are interested in philosophy and those who engage it do.

It's a field of enquiry encompassing several fields: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, morality and logics, among much else.

Philosophy: subjective wit of substance, or wisdom, to certain fields of expertise.

We're discussing definition of philosophy, and whether the fact it is a field should be neglected - and not what is conducted in the ongoing field of philosophy.

Perhaps all philosophy that is not merely academic(the silliest kind) is the work of a poet manque'.

thinking about knowledge. — Varde

That's just one facet of philosophy (epistemology). What about logic, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, and other branches of the subject?

Nevertheless, wisdom is, at some level, knowledge + a something else, but not necessarily so.

I consider these subjects part of other fields.

Logic. Math.
Ethics. Politics.
Metaphysics. Science.
Aesthetics. Humanities.
Etc.

If were merely discussing the subjects, surely my point still stands(thinking about knowledge).

Logic. Math.
Ethics. Politics.
Metaphysics. Science.
Aesthetics. Humanities. — Varde

Math and logic are not the same thing.
Ethics is not politics; politics is about nations.
Aesthetics is the philosophy of art; there is no discipline called humanities.

that's surely wrong by a large margin.

that's surely wrong by a large margin. — Varde

What exactly is wrong?

@Varde

To each his own. Truth is philosophers were after wisdom; what that is, nobody knows. Like quality in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it (wisdom) is/remains undefined. Rest assured it has a lot to do with knowledge.

Meno's paradox:

If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is pointless.

If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible.

Ergo, Meno claims,

Inquiry is either pointless or impossible.

Logic belongs with math...
What are Nations?
Humanities is a reference to fields such as Literature, Art, etc.

Applied linguistics.

:up:

Humanities is a reference to fields such as Literature, Art, etc. — Varde

...philosophy.

Logic belongs with math... — Varde

I have no idea what that means.

What are Nations? — Varde

Really, you don't know what a nation is?

then it is settled; no need to express your confusion so boldly, it's destructive. I believe that's antisocial. I feel insulted by your response, it's a sugar coat on what you're actually thinking at that time. It is throwing toys out of pram babyish, plus, no need to spam respond to a simple text.

then it is settled; no need to express your confusion so boldly, it's destructive. I believe that's antisocial. I feel insulted by your response, it's a sugar coat on what you're actually thinking at that time. It is throwing toys out of pram babyish, plus, no need to spam respond to a simple text. — Varde

You asked what "nation" means.

then answer the question using proper prose and not wrathful tapping of keys.

"I can't...I...I.. I CAN'T"...

then answer the question using proper prose and not wrathful tapping of keys. — Varde

Last time. You really don't know what "nation" means?

*draws a katana and takes a few steps forward, impales his stomach and falls to his knees*

"It can't be done!"

Aristotle initiated the study of logic. Aristotle was not a mathematician.

There is no reason why we can't do mathematics and create philosophies; technically, because Aristotle said to do it, doesn't mean you do.

We study logic both mathematically and philosophically to become subservient of logic.

What separates us from robots is our, per se, 'sixth sense' metaphorically; we don't just calculate we assimilate...

In a way I agree with you but more aptly I don't.