that philosophy dealt with such problems as ‘What is consciousness?’ ‘Is the mind distinct from the brain?’ ‘How can we know the things we claim to know if the only evidence we have is the evidence of our senses?’ ‘Should one always act in such a way that... Robert, don't feel trapped by McCreery's logistics (i.e. sophistics!). Of course we philosophers don't have to answer what philosophy _is_. We should at least answer what PHILOSOPHERS (or you _qua_ philosopher -- or _quack philosopher_, as Geary prefers) does! (sic). Personally, I think it's _personal_. I.e. educational. The student of philosophy usually had a course in philosophy in high school, and then, when about to decide what to study -- or _scholia_ which meant _leisure_ in Greek, for surely, if you don't have _leisure_ you cannot philosophize -- to engage in, is the only one that makes the _wise_ choice, and chooses philosophy. More utilitarian spirits prefer _medicine_ and dedicate the rest of their lives to save people's _bodies_ -- what a _waste_! So, philosophy was what Plato felt for. Not Socrates, who was Plato's invention. Aristotle spoiled it all, though, by making more scholastic than it should, and being the cause of Peters. I'm currently analysing _dictionaries of philosophy_ (Greek base) to see what entry is deemed philosophical enough. For Plato and the 'pre-socratics', everything went, and finely so; for surely philosophy should be the concern (if not the realm of the metaphysician, as R. Paul ironically puts it) not the specialist, but of the 'well-educated gentleman', as Peters puts it in his Foreword. I'm also reading Flew dictionary from z (zoon) to 'a' (adunatos). He has one entry for theosophy (the wisdom of God, cfr. philosophy -- the wisdom of Love?) Also, the notes under "Wisdom, John Terrence Dibben", philosopher, "not to be confused with his cousin, John Orwell Wisdom". I loved that! Cheers, JL