I have a few moments. So I want to ask the basic question: What is philosophy? Instead of answering the question, though, it might be useful to reflect on how the question might be answered.

在我看来，我们有两个基本的选择，要么是由于语言的限制，要么是由于认知能力的限制，或者两者兼而有之。我们可以说哲学就是哲学(也就是哲学，这并不能让我们走得太远)，或者我们可以用其他的东西来定义它(例如，对智慧的热爱，对X、Y和Z的批判性思考，等等)。这两种可能性代表了同一性关系和差异性关系。它们也许是最好的分析策略，而不一定是获得事物真相的方法。同一性关系以同一性之间的差异为前提，差异关系以不同的同一性为前提。当我问，什么是哲学?仅仅通过使用这个词，我就带来了一个或多或少(到目前为止)未经询问的含义。

例如，如果将智慧等同于神圣，而哲学是对智慧的爱，那么哲学也是对上帝的爱——这就提出了哲学与神学和/或宗教是否如此不同的问题。如果批判性思维被认为是一个准备质疑每一个可能的假设的人，那么哲学就与批判、怀疑或对知识主张的怀疑立场联系在一起——这就提出了哲学是否与宗教和神学的教条有任何共同之处的问题。我不想支持这两种定义。我确实想观察定义与其他定义之间的相互关系。

Now, I have a Masters in Philosophy. However, I was warned, in a round about way, by my supervisor not to pursue a Ph.D. in the discipline. The result was that I ended up in Religious Studies, where I am quite happy teaching and thinking about subjects related to religion and its history. The reason given was that my thinking was much too theological in cast to succeed in a philosophy program. That's probably more or less true, though I ended up in a Religious Studies Faculty, not a Theology department, which was my preference.

You see, it seemed to me, for the same reason I wasn't prepared to do a Ph.D in Philosophy, I also wasn't prepared to do a Ph.D in Theology. Everyone was talking (that is, from my naive, undergrad and Masters degree perspectives) about philosophy and theology as if they were objectively describable things to be studied. With regards to theology, that made a small amount of sense, since theologians claim to be talking about something real, something 'out there', which has been mediated by scriptural sources and a long textual tradition of reflection on those scriptural sources. In the case of theology, there is something out there to objectify, something I can point you towards, something we can consider together and talk about.

What about philosophy? There appears to be a textual tradition going back to Plato and Aristotle that can be studied. Though I suspect philosophers prize at least the idea of freedom of inquiry too much to be explicitly tied down to any specific set of texts. One hears it suggested that philosophy is not limited to the study of a certain body of literature, but is a way of thinking about things imparted from teachers to students (much like Socrates was supposed to have imparted his wisdom). That may be the case. Such a definition only distracts from the omnipresent place the study of texts plays in philosophy departments or philosophical armchairs (whereupon the armchair philosopher sits).

At this point, in order to wrap up a blog post that is already much longer than I anticipated, I want to show my cards. I have soured towards the idea that separate academic disciplines (philosophy, theology, history, political theory, English literature, etc.) are as distinct from each other as many of our teachers have supposed. It seems to me that common too each of the so-called separate disciplines is the thinking human being, reflecting on some body of evidence. There is no thought without some object, as David Hume reminded his Cartesian interlocutors at least none that I am ever aware. The theologian thinks, the historian thinks, the philosopher thinks, etc. They think differently, however, according to their different objects of inquiry.

And it seems to me, if philosophy is anything, it is reflecting on (or thinking about) how we think about things. Full stop. The definition of philosophy needs to be made with reference to the human being who thinks about things, and not some set of abstract definitions. Not, say, the love of wisdom apart from the person who loves wisdom. Not critical inquiry apart from the person who inquiries critically. Not a definition considered at an abstracted remove from the person considering the definition. Rather a person who can say to themselves, I am thinking about things, and that's what I normally do; and when I philosophize, I think about what it is to think about things.