Has Philosophy over stepped it's boundaries?

[Endo]

It's all in the word. The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom.

A somewhat circular definition.

So? That's not an argument. Also, I disagree with that statement. If the "central purpose" of philosophy is "the love of wisdom", then it follows that some side-purposes would be things like "the application of wisdom to the world", "the spreading of wisdom" and so on and so forth. It's not saying that the love of wisdom creates more philosophy, but it certainly could cycle in that manner. Either way, cyclic processes aren't equatable to circular logic or reasoning. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning... is different from "The central purpose of philosophy is the love of wisdom which drives a person to study and read more philosophy."

Also, what's this drivel about "Intellectual party games"? Philosophy doesn't have to fit into your cute little box of "brutally practical thoughts" in order to be valid. If a person wants to spin a theoretical situation to test the bounds of their reasoning, then so be it. If a system of morals or ethics or philosophizing is able to deal with all the odd and weird theoretical situations, then it should have passed any sorts of test a person would wish to place upon that system. It shows that the system is complete, and fleshed out, instead of just being some overtly practical system cobbled together in someone's mental equivalent of a backyard shed.