So let me restart my semi-vague thread on 'philosophy' from last night.

I think there is still a rather unresolved question of what constitutes 'philosophy' in history [of 'philosophy']… And maybe that's the nature of the game. [THREAD]

So to start, John Marenbon in his 'From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxere' (and other works) defines 'philosophy' as 'the analysis and elaboration by reasoning of abstract concepts explicative of sensibly or intellectually perceptible reality' (p. 4). 1/n

Marenbon uses this to show how 'philosophy' proper wasn't existent in Irish intellectual thought before Alcuin (8th cent.): instead we have theology and logic (latter only to do w/ correcting arguments). It's in A's. circle that the convergence of these 2 give rise to phil. 2/n

However, as an old colleague, Daniel Watson, has argued ( https://www.academia.edu/38304595/A_Law_Beyond_Grace_in_The_Prologue_to_Senchas_Már), one does find an arguable sense of 'philosophy' in pre-Alcuin Irish thought: e.g. the 7th cent. law text, the Senchas Már/Great Tradition.

(Hint: heck of a lot of Neoplatonism to be found.) 3/n

So in this regard, w/ discussions on 'nature' apart from revelatory sources (as in 'theology'), maybe there's more beyond Marenbon's def. of 'philosophy'.

Indeed, when Patristic figures like John Damascus or Leontius Byz. discuss ousia/hupostasis, is this not 'phil.'? 4/n

(Even when, granting, all of it is in a specific theological context? Contrast this to the Platonist dispute over soul's ousia changes or not, between Plotinus and Iamblichus/Damascius. The former case is in ref. to revelation—Incarnation/Trinity/etc.; latter, just 'soul'.) 5/n

Now contrast Marenbon with L. Sturlese: in a 2007 paper, 'Universality of Reason and Plurality of Philosophies in the Middle Ages', S. attacks this kind of static def. of phil., and advocates for a 'geographical point of view' in defining the term—hence, many 'philosophies'. 6/n

Among many insights, Sturlese argues that—despite those like Flasch who object that 'many things' historically were called 'phil.' (plumbers, grammatics, etc)—one still needs to account for the historical discussions of the notion, in every sense. 7/n

Elaborating that thesis, for Sturlese that means thoroughly reading the texts, manuscripts and all, emphasizing historicity, not just abstracting a common definition: one might say pay more attn. to [Aristotelian] 'matter' vs. 'form', if we're to get the form's def. right. 8/n

And one key significance with MS traditions is judging audience/who read a text—hence better defining 'philosophy' from this vantage point. Thus as a corollary (main pt. for S.), studying manuscript traditions is essential to constituting these def's. of 'philosophy'. 9/n

Another corollary from this: this is why 'perennial philosophy' quickly fails if we take this as the sole definition in all hist. of phil.

We may have OUR perennial phil., but this might be developed or radically changed from earlier/other phil. traditions. 10/n

Overall I think this is much closer to the right direction. Yet at the same time, just like Aristotle in correlating the categories of being to one cause, it SEEMS one can, maybe should, organize some kind of common taxonomy for 'philosophy', even if we have many def's… 11/n

Another consideration: we see certain early Christian authors (e.g. Clement) attack 'philosophy', defined as outside revelation—self-styled philosophers contradict each other, hence 'phil.' fails. But then these authors use the same strategies from 'philosophers'. 12/n

In this sense, not only should one account for how these varying authors historically defined 'philosophy': like w/ al-Ghazali and others, one has to account for counter-def's. of 'philosophy' in juxtaposition w/ their defined notion of 'philosophy' that they attack. 13/n

All to say: Sturlese's critique of 'Eurocentric'/static def's. of 'philosophy' in these texts is necessary to clear the deck. However it seems insufficient in settling an aporia like the above: 'philosophy' implicitly used against the authors' OWN definition of 'philosophy'. 14/n

So all to say, I do still there some kind of classificatory scheme is called for to address cases like the above, yet a scheme that is flexible to address the indefinite plurality of possible definitions and engagement in 'philosophy' in previous intellectual history. 15/n

And one part of this scheme to address is: where does 'philosophy' end and [revealed] 'theology' begin? E.g. just b/c I discuss ousia/hupostasis a lot, is that 'philosophy', even if discussed solely in a Christian Trinitarian/Incarnation context? Can one abstract from this? 16/n

Something clearer might come from this. For now I lay out the aporiai and some possible discussions for further discussion.

*FIN*

Would be interested to hear what others think of this thread, like @nescio13 @HistPhilosophy etc.

Also any further suggested reading on defining 'philosophy' in hist. of phil. would be *greatly* appreciated.