Philosophy, originally a ‘love of knowledge’, has downsized into a section of scholarship that ranks and regulates the rationalisation of human thinking. How we comprehend natural knowledge, reality and existence – it says on Wikipedia. And while seeming to embrace an infinite mass of impossibly obscure, subjective disciplines Philosophy can be simply understood by addressing three basic questions:
• How do we absorb information about ourselves and our environment?
• How do we process that information?
• How do we act upon decisions reached?
  The collecting of data is sometimes called ‘phenomenology’ after Hegel. It concerns sensual signals; observed and observable facts and events.
  The analytical process as ‘epistemology’ after Fichte. It concerns the sorting and interpreting of those sensual signals: Is it an a priori or a posteriori cognitive procedure – before or after – nature or nurture – pure or practical?
  The application of the syntheses reached is known as ‘Ethics’ probably after Aristotle. Ethics provides specific forms; lists of instructions for civilised behaviour; golden means; laws; COMMANDMENTS.

  According to my loutish layman’s understanding modern philosophers have been acutely consumed by two major issues since those Seventeenth Century proto-practitioners opened the applecart:
• How to neutralise the catholic influence of the Roman Church with its absolute control of social mores, education, advances in technology and most especially its monopolising the acquisition and discreet dispersal of useful information. The nonconformist cause was afforded and advanced by zealously politicised Protestant crusaders embracing the rampant exploitation of America’s suddenly abundant resources abetted by keening capitalist ethics, the invention of printing and globalisation of steam locomotion.
• How to classify and taxonomically define the mechanics of perception. To establish a forensic Scientific Method that would formally legitimise abstract reasoning – officially, academically; as Newton had for Physics, as Bacon had for Law. An egoistic arching urge to be taken seriously – at last.

  A likely legend regarding the works of Aristotle; that the word ‘metaphysics’ originally had no relation to studies of matters ‘above’ or ‘beyond’ the natural – it was merely a description for random works found ‘after’ his physics had been translated. ‘Put it in metaphysics for now. We’ll sort it later.’ Went on to become the mega-monster – an entire branch of Western science defined by some lazy rankled researcher’s waspish whim?

  My favourite epistemological dilemma details the differentiation of ‘induction’ and ‘deduction’. Induction involves the integration of auxiliary data to help one attain a Grand Idea – a version of dialectic; deduction describes the deconstruction of a Grand Idea in order for one to perceive its parts – as analysis or diagnosis. Induction goes towards the Imperative; deduction comes away from the Imperative, yet they have the same aim – of comprehending some great BIG THING. When performing an inductive task one must suppose the coming climax; when deducing after contemplation one obviously knows the stepping off point – so, chicken and egg are received and given. These two broad terms, here oversimply described, are crucial for our understanding… of anything we’ll ever need to know.
  And while each of these actions is vigorously employed by opposing factions; head or heart; Apollonian v Dionysian – in praxis they always overlap as essential elements of the other’s truth; the separation is merely there for rhetorical or educative purpose; to explain the basics – from whence we depart – as the fun begins.
  Sir Freddy Ayers, logical positivist, had the coolest quote regarding schools of thought and their delineations; “There’s no such thing as philosophy, there’s only GRAMMAR.”