What caused the corruption of the word "philosophy"?

[Jaded Sage]

“The love of learning is the same thing as philosophy.”
- Plato, Republic 2

“...now compare him with the man brought up in philosophy, in the life of a student.”
- Plato, Theaetetus

So originally, the philosopher was just a student, and a student was just a learning-lover. Today, the words "philosopher" and "philosophy" mean something different. Why?

[Risto]

What definitions of "philosophy" and "philosopher" do you use?

[Jaded Sage]

The ones I provided. "Student" & "Lover of Learning".

[Risto]

Yes, I meant what definitions you use for modern versions.

[Jaded Sage]

I'm not sure about a definition, but synonyms might be: scholar, intellectual, academic or analyst, I suppose.

[HexHammer]

What definitions of "philosophy" and "philosopher" do you use?

See this is a good example of why philosophy has become corrupt, clueless and needs very simple things explained and spelled out.

[Arising_uk]

See this is a good example of why philosophy has become corrupt, clueless and needs very simple things explained and spelled out.

Will you be doing so?

[Jaded Sage]

I just remembered a great criteria provided by Plato in Phaedo, I think it was: if practiced correctly, philosophy prepares you for death, such that you will be in good cheer when it is time to die.

I hardly think that is true of what university professors study, but I'd have to ask them. Maybe I will!

[Risto]

I don't think that the word is corrupted, but philosophy has changed a lot. While "student" and "lover of learning" may have sufficed previously, they are not satisfactory anymore, because sciences have grown out of philosophy. There are science students and they are not doing philosophy. It's more like the evolution of philosophy than corruption of the word. But a philosopher obviously also learns science as science gives good food for thought even for questions that belong to philosophy.

[Jaded Sage]

I disagree. I think a scientist definitely does philosophy. It's been narrowed down, not evolved. The only reason to think that, as far as I can tell, is to use the currect definition, and then use that to justify the currect definition. Ya know what that sounds like, right?

[EricW999]

When one objectivizes an action and/or form one reduces said action/form to an idea. Ideas are limited to there definitions, definitions are limited to the understanding of the individual defining there characteristics. Therefore philosophy itself, as a definition, is a very limited objectivization of a vastly inconceivable subjective expression.

Ultimately, philosophy as an object is subject to the distortions of the individuals defining it. It is not philosophy that is corrupt, but the discrepancies within the individuals definition of it.

Water is pure in and of itself, but if you pass it through impure environments it becomes tainted. Such is the same with philosophy.

[Jaded Sage]

I think I couldn't agree more. Just a whole lot of impure water.

[Risto]

I disagree. I think a scientist definitely does philosophy. It's been narrowed down, not evolved. The only reason to think that, as far as I can tell, is to use the currect definition, and then use that to justify the currect definition. Ya know what that sounds like, right?

From The Value of Public Philosophy to Philosophers in Essays in Philosophy:

Broadly speaking, philosophy is any critical, rational reflection and discourse on conceptual connections. In this broad sense, philosophy provides the bedrock upon which other fields of human endeavor are built, as is clear in the various “philosophies of” (e.g., science, mind, religion, art).

In the narrow sense, philosophy is the activity performed normally, if not exclusively, by professional philosophers: critical reflection and discourse on specific, fundamental questions of human interest that cannot be resolved empirically. These topics are generally unclaimed by other disciplines and include issues in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and the like; even where these topics may be claimed by other disciplines, they remain conceptual and not resolved by practice within those disciplines.

A scientist may do philosophy in the broad sense, but not necessarily. S/he can use already developed concepts and run experiments and not be critical of them at all. A scientist definitely doesn't do philosophy in the narrow sense unless s/he is interested in it.

[Jaded Sage]

I disagree. I think a scientist definitely does philosophy. It's been narrowed down, not evolved. The only reason to think that, as far as I can tell, is to use the currect definition, and then use that to justify the currect definition. Ya know what that sounds like, right?

From The Value of Public Philosophy to Philosophers in Essays in Philosophy:

Broadly speaking, philosophy is any critical, rational reflection and discourse on conceptual connections. In this broad sense, philosophy provides the bedrock upon which other fields of human endeavor are built, as is clear in the various “philosophies of” (e.g., science, mind, religion, art).

In the narrow sense, philosophy is the activity performed normally, if not exclusively, by professional philosophers: critical reflection and discourse on specific, fundamental questions of human interest that cannot be resolved empirically. These topics are generally unclaimed by other disciplines and include issues in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and the like; even where these topics may be claimed by other disciplines, they remain conceptual and not resolved by practice within those disciplines.

A scientist may do philosophy in the broad sense, but not necessarily. S/he can use already developed concepts and run experiments and not be critical of them at all. A scientist definitely doesn't do philosophy in the narrow sense unless s/he is interested in it.

Clearly we are talking about the broad sense. That's the only sense worth mentioning, as, in my opinion, it includes the narrow sense. Also, I think the version of the broad sense mentioned here is still too narrow. See the original post (or the second one—the one with Plato).

[Hobbes' Choice]

“The love of learning is the same thing as philosophy.”
- Plato, Republic 2

If the love of learning is the same as philosophy; that does not mean that philosophy is just the love of learning; and there are plenty of examples in Plato that demonstrate that fact.