What is the result from what has been said for our attempt in a discussion to treat the question, "What is philosophy?" First of all this one thing: we must not adhere only to Aristotle's definition. From this we deduce the second point: we must realize the earlier and later definitions of philosophy. And then? Then, through a comparative abstraction, we shall reduce them to the common denominator of all the definitions. And then? Then we shall arrive at an empty formula which fits every kind of philosophy. And then? Then we shall be as far removed as possible from an answer to our question. Why does it come to this? Because in proceeding thus we are only collecting by historical methodology the definitions at hand and resolving them into a general formula. All of this can, indeed, be carried out with great erudition and the help of correct verifications. In so doing we do not in the least have to enter into philosophy in such a manner as to contemplate the nature of philosophy. In such a manner we acquire manifold, thorough, and even useful knowledge about how philosophy has been presented in the course of history. But on this path we never reach a genuine, that is, a legitimate answer to the question "What is philosophy?" The answer can only be a philosophizing answer which, as a response, philosiphizes in itself. But how can we understand this statement? In which way can an answer, and particularly in so far as it is a response, philosophize? I shall now try provisionally to clarify this by a few suggestions. What is meant will disturb our discussion again and again. It will even be the touchstone to determine whether our discussion may become truly philosophical. This is by no means within our power.
