Is Water Wet?

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

3 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

But that is a separate definition of saturated, my guy.

What definition are you using?

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

26 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

What definition are you using?

The implied definition of “filled with”

[Just_a_Fan he/him]

here's a better question: 

Is Lava wet?

[Mattel]

I just skimmed all of this nonsense and I cannot help but laugh . Y'all are a special kind of crazy. I guess I am as well.

 

Water is not wet. A definition of wetness that I think seems accurate is if water comes into contact with something. We always, like always, use the term wet to describe when something comes into contact with water, or something water based. Water alone is not wet, despite the many arguments that water makes itself wet through contact, I think that when a solid mixes with something liquid based, it is wet. So, no, water is not wet.

never in a million years did I think I would say such a dumb sentence. lol.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

51 minutes ago, Mattel said:

I just skimmed all of this nonsense and I cannot help but laugh . Y'all are a special kind of crazy. I guess I am as well.

 

Water is not wet. A definition of wetness that I think seems accurate is if water comes into contact with something. We always, like always, use the term wet to describe when something comes into contact with water, or something water based. Water alone is not wet, despite the many arguments that water makes itself wet through contact, I think that when a solid mixes with something liquid based, it is wet. So, no, water is not wet.

never in a million years did I think I would say such a dumb sentence. lol.

Traitor! Execution at DAWN!

[Mattel]

Oof I haven't been on here for like a month even and I have made an enemy 

 

Can I face you in a duel on top of Urithiru? Preferably in six days....? Do I at least get a say in how I die?!

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

20 minutes ago, Mattel said:

Oof I haven't been on here for like a month even and I have made an enemy 

 

Can I face you in a duel on top of Urithiru? Preferably in six days....? Do I at least get a say in how I die?!

*huff*

I have class. Ten days. Duel to death by billiard balls.

*visions of Beyonders*

[Mattel]

17 minutes ago, Ookla the Dragonslayer said:

*huff*

I have class. Ten days. Duel to death by billiard balls.

*visions of Beyonders*

How are your skills in that game called Ping Pong? You now have ten days to practice..... I on the other hand... Will learn how to whack nine balls with a stick in a straight line I guess. 

If you were to freeze water, you get ice. Ice is in a solid state, and so if it is well below freezing temperature (which to me is 32 degrees Fahrenheit and I hate that fact) then no liquid water would exist. So then this well ordered and structured ice cube is similar to a rock. Yet I would never call an ice cube wet; if you were to hold it in your palm it would probably start melting and then you would have water and now your hand would be wet. But if you held compressed, totally frozen water, in a room that is in the negative degrees, then you would essentially have a totally dry rock. 

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

8 minutes ago, Mattel said:

How are your skills in that game called Ping Pong? You now have ten days to practice..... I on the other hand... Will learn how to whack nine balls with a stick in a straight line I guess. 

If you were to freeze water, you get ice. Ice is in a solid state, and so if it is well below freezing temperature (which to me is 32 degrees Fahrenheit and I hate that fact) then no liquid water would exist. So then this well ordered and structured ice cube is similar to a rock. Yet I would never call an ice cube wet; if you were to hold it in your palm it would probably start melting and then you would have water and now your hand would be wet. But if you held compressed, totally frozen water, in a room that is in the negative degrees, then you would essentially have a totally dry rock. 

ICE, is not WATER.

different states, different circumstances. water is wet and DEATH TO THE TRAITOR

[Mattel]

You guys are making it wayyyyyy too tempting to say controversial things to get y'all riled up. Let's see if I can conjure up another one....... mwahahaha.

How is ice not water? If you look at it from a science point of view, it is all just H2O, simply the way they are structured is different. Any properties that Water has, such as wetness, must therefore carry over to ice.

Also I find it adorable that y'all call me a traitor, but that would mean I was originally on your side. Which as I read this thread, I was. But now I, like Pistachio Ice Cream, have turned.

[Bird Furious she/her/un/important]

55 minutes ago, Ookla the Dragonslayer said:

*huff*

I have class. Ten days. Duel to death by billiard balls.

*visions of Beyonders*

I LOVE BEYONDERS TOO DEATH. 

12 minutes ago, Mattel said:

You guys are making it wayyyyyy too tempting to say controversial things to get y'all riled up. Let's see if I can conjure up another one....... mwahahaha.

How is ice not water? If you look at it from a science point of view, it is all just H2O, simply the way they are structured is different. Any properties that Water has, such as wetness, must therefore carry over to ice.

Also I find it adorable that y'all call me a traitor, but that would mean I was originally on your side. Which as I read this thread, I was. But now I, like Pistachio Ice Cream, have turned.

guys… ice is literally water… that’s basically the entire point of it…..

*to death

[strmblsd he/him]

On 11/16/2024 at 1:04 PM, Just_a_Fan said:

here's a better question: 

Is Lava wet?

yes?

[Immortal Platypus]

6 hours ago, Mattel said:

I just skimmed all of this nonsense and I cannot help but laugh . Y'all are a special kind of crazy. I guess I am as well.

 

Water is not wet. A definition of wetness that I think seems accurate is if water comes into contact with something. We always, like always, use the term wet to describe when something comes into contact with water, or something water based. Water alone is not wet, despite the many arguments that water makes itself wet through contact, I think that when a solid mixes with something liquid based, it is wet. So, no, water is not wet.

never in a million years did I think I would say such a dumb sentence. lol.

That definition that I bolded when I quoted you is not correct. Saturated is part of the definition of "wet."

you missed the fact that according to all reliable and noteworthy sources, "saturated" is part of the definition of wet. It has been ceded that a single molecule of water is not covered in water, but it is saturated by itself. As per the definition of saturated by Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com water would be soaked with itself, making it meet the qualifications of the definition of "wet" (Treamayne made a good post with several definitions from reliable dictionaries a little bit back), therefore making water wet.

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

4 hours ago, oOklA thE shInyYyy said:

I LOVE BEYONDERS TOO DEATH. 

WHO'S DEATH-? oh you already corrected yourself.

dang.

Nevermind then!

*vanishes*

[Mattel]

15 hours ago, Ookla the Arbiter said:

That definition that I bolded when I quoted you is not correct. Saturated is part of the definition of "wet."

you missed the fact that according to all reliable and noteworthy sources, "saturated" is part of the definition of wet. It has been ceded that a single molecule of water is not covered in water, but it is saturated by itself. As per the definition of saturated by Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com water would be soaked with itself, making it meet the qualifications of the definition of "wet" (Treamayne made a good post with several definitions from reliable dictionaries a little bit back), therefore making water wet.

Oh. Okay. Cool water is wet!!!

lol I am as flighty as a windspren or Adolin surrounded by a bunch of things in skirts aren't I?

[Immortal Platypus]

25 minutes ago, Mattel said:

Oh. Okay. Cool water is wet!!!

lol I am as flighty as a windspren or Adolin surrounded by a bunch of things in skirts aren't I?

I don't know how much you read, but I did switch my position here, because of saturated being part of the definition  Before that, I was strongly against the water being wet position

[scientificmotif]

Time to throw my hat in the ring.

Summary of argument: A long complaint about how vague the statement is and applying linguistic philosophy to the question to try to solve the vagueness, and answering some possible meanings of the question.

WARNING
Inside the text box is a really, really, really, really long answer to such a simple question. It doesn't spoil any stories, but it does spoil your brain, or something, probably.

 

Spoiler

This entire discussion boils down to what the definition of "wet" is. There are multiple, and none of them are less "true" than others. So I pose a much more simplified version of the original question: What is the definition of wet? I'll try to determine the most common ones. Yes, I know, we Sharders aren't concerned with common uses. But think of it this way: I could define wet as "the property of possessing a bazooka". Does my definition mean water isn't wet, because it doesn't have a bazooka? I don't care what you define as "wet". I can't answer every possibility. (they are infinite) So if you think stars are wet (possibly for reasons I outline in what feels like ages ago as I polish up this post), you'll just have to deal with the opinions of the masses, or normies, or whatever you call them.

-The water in question is assumed to mean liquid water. I have yet to meet anyone that would claim that would claim that ice is wet, or that something touching ice is wet. Liquid water isn't simply H20 at sufficient temperatures and pressures: it's instead a mass of H20 molecules that exhibits the emergent behavior of "fluidity". If someone asked "Is lava wet" (Purely theoretically, nothing to do with any posts at all, wink) one wouldn't look at the molecules making up the lava and say that each molecule making up the lava is "lava", in the same way that each molecule of a table isn't a table on its own. The word "water" in the definition is confusing people because the word water can refer to either the molecule H20 or a fluid nearly entirely composed of H20.

- It is assumed be an amount of water noticeable on the human scale: Nobody would call, say, their shirt wet if they can't even notice it meets the definition of "wet". 

Now here's where I find a few definitions that I consider common enough to be a good answer to the question:

-A solid with a fluid that is "inside it": Water isn't a solid, and therefore can't be wet. I'll leave deciding what "inside" means as an exercise for the reader. For example, that could affect whether a water balloon is "wet", or whether a soda can is "wet".

Result: Not wet

-A solid with fluid "touching" it: I feel like some people would say that a waterproof tent with water on it isn't wet, and some would say it is. Or, say, a piece of gold. So I included these as separate definitions. What "touching" means is also left up to the viewer. Doesn't matter for this question, "water" as I've defined it for the purposes of answering the question definitely isn't the first part (Solid).

Seriously, if I had to define everything in the question, I would have to define words like "define" and "is", then define the words in all the definitions, and so on. At some point, you'd be able to trace a path of definitions between words where you'd be able to a path that goes back to the word you started on. 

Result: Not wet

-Possessing the ability to make things wet: This is a circular definition, so it would have to be a secondary definition. If someone asked what "wetness" means, and you were to answer them with that, they would be just as confused as they were before. So you'd have to be using multiple definitions of "wet".

And also if one uses such a definition one should probably rein in what "possessing the ability to make things wet" is one is using, or pretty much anything would be wet. For example, a star would be wet under the definition. (As an example of one of the innumerable ways it could "make something wet", it could produce {or already contain, or a combo of the two} oxygen atoms and the star could eject said oxygen atoms along with some hydrogen atoms from itself that could combine to make water molecules after losing some energy, become a liquid, and make something wet.) Again, I leave that as an exercise to the reader, for aforementioned reasons. What do you expect me to do, theoretical person complaining about me not giving a perfect definition so that it could apply to scenarios outside of this discussion? Write a novel to *attempt* to get rid of every nitpick, and then miss something?  Write an argument entirely out of fundamental logical statements, where you could then say the definitions aren't perfect because of Godel's incompleteness theorem? Why am I creating a post this long for a dumb question, anyways? 

Result: Wet, but only if you use it with another definition of "wet".

I feel like ending this post that explained how this question should be solved by linguistics, doing so, and then answering the question in various possibilities of what the question meant now because I put in too much effort already, and no argument, however good it is, is likely end the argument, and because I should go do something else. None of the answers I gave are more "true" than the others. They are all possible meanings of the question. Just three answers out of the infinite number of ways the question could be interpreted and answered, but the ones I felt were the most relevant. Three possible interpretations that are overanalyzed way, way, way, way, way,  way too much, and three that are the most useful and likely interpretations, but three out of the infinite number nonetheless.

Yes, I know I'm using run-on sentences. Yes, I know this is a waste of time. Yes, I know I'm inconsistent on where I place my periods after parentheses and quotation marks.  Yes, I know I'm lampshading a lot. (And lampshading my lampshading, and lampshading my lampshading my lampshading, etc., etc.) Yes, I know I'm being way too meta (and all that lampshading and infinite regression of lampshading again). Yes, I know there's supposed to be two dots over the "o" in "Godel".

(For those who don't know, "Linguistic philosophy is a philosophical approach that aims to solve or resolve philosophical problems through a closer attention to language and its usage." (Source: Wikipedia page on linguistic philosophy. Yes, I checked it against other sources. As long as this post is, it's still on an internet forum debating a question entirely based on semantics. Sue me.) Yes, I don't have a degree in language philosophy, or have even taken any classes on it, but I can still apply it. Doesn't mean I'm claiming to be an expert.)

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

On 11/29/2024 at 6:59 PM, Mattel said:

Oof I haven't been on here for like a month even and I have made an enemy 

 

Can I face you in a duel on top of Urithiru? Preferably in six days....? Do I at least get a say in how I die?!

3 days. Thou best not forget, or thou forfeits.

[Mattel]

On 12/6/2024 at 8:45 PM, Ookla the Dragonslayer said:

3 days. Thou best not forget, or thou forfeits.

*cough* definitely didn't just leave for like two weeks to avoid this...

[Manamo]

Nope

[ʟɪɢʜʈ]

And thus Water is wet

On 12/4/2024 at 10:20 PM, scientificmotif said:

Time to throw my hat in the ring.

Summary of argument: A long complaint about how vague the statement is and applying linguistic philosophy to the question to try to solve the vagueness, and answering some possible meanings of the question.

WARNING
Inside the text box is a really, really, really, really long answer to such a simple question. It doesn't spoil any stories, but it does spoil your brain, or something, probably.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

This entire discussion boils down to what the definition of "wet" is. There are multiple, and none of them are less "true" than others. So I pose a much more simplified version of the original question: What is the definition of wet? I'll try to determine the most common ones. Yes, I know, we Sharders aren't concerned with common uses. But think of it this way: I could define wet as "the property of possessing a bazooka". Does my definition mean water isn't wet, because it doesn't have a bazooka? I don't care what you define as "wet". I can't answer every possibility. (they are infinite) So if you think stars are wet (possibly for reasons I outline in what feels like ages ago as I polish up this post), you'll just have to deal with the opinions of the masses, or normies, or whatever you call them.

-The water in question is assumed to mean liquid water. I have yet to meet anyone that would claim that would claim that ice is wet, or that something touching ice is wet. Liquid water isn't simply H20 at sufficient temperatures and pressures: it's instead a mass of H20 molecules that exhibits the emergent behavior of "fluidity". If someone asked "Is lava wet" (Purely theoretically, nothing to do with any posts at all, wink) one wouldn't look at the molecules making up the lava and say that each molecule making up the lava is "lava", in the same way that each molecule of a table isn't a table on its own. The word "water" in the definition is confusing people because the word water can refer to either the molecule H20 or a fluid nearly entirely composed of H20.

- It is assumed be an amount of water noticeable on the human scale: Nobody would call, say, their shirt wet if they can't even notice it meets the definition of "wet". 

Now here's where I find a few definitions that I consider common enough to be a good answer to the question:

-A solid with a fluid that is "inside it": Water isn't a solid, and therefore can't be wet. I'll leave deciding what "inside" means as an exercise for the reader. For example, that could affect whether a water balloon is "wet", or whether a soda can is "wet".

Result: Not wet

-A solid with fluid "touching" it: I feel like some people would say that a waterproof tent with water on it isn't wet, and some would say it is. Or, say, a piece of gold. So I included these as separate definitions. What "touching" means is also left up to the viewer. Doesn't matter for this question, "water" as I've defined it for the purposes of answering the question definitely isn't the first part (Solid).

Seriously, if I had to define everything in the question, I would have to define words like "define" and "is", then define the words in all the definitions, and so on. At some point, you'd be able to trace a path of definitions between words where you'd be able to a path that goes back to the word you started on. 

Result: Not wet

-Possessing the ability to make things wet: This is a circular definition, so it would have to be a secondary definition. If someone asked what "wetness" means, and you were to answer them with that, they would be just as confused as they were before. So you'd have to be using multiple definitions of "wet".

And also if one uses such a definition one should probably rein in what "possessing the ability to make things wet" is one is using, or pretty much anything would be wet. For example, a star would be wet under the definition. (As an example of one of the innumerable ways it could "make something wet", it could produce {or already contain, or a combo of the two} oxygen atoms and the star could eject said oxygen atoms along with some hydrogen atoms from itself that could combine to make water molecules after losing some energy, become a liquid, and make something wet.) Again, I leave that as an exercise to the reader, for aforementioned reasons. What do you expect me to do, theoretical person complaining about me not giving a perfect definition so that it could apply to scenarios outside of this discussion? Write a novel to *attempt* to get rid of every nitpick, and then miss something?  Write an argument entirely out of fundamental logical statements, where you could then say the definitions aren't perfect because of Godel's incompleteness theorem? Why am I creating a post this long for a dumb question, anyways? 

Result: Wet, but only if you use it with another definition of "wet".

I feel like ending this post that explained how this question should be solved by linguistics, doing so, and then answering the question in various possibilities of what the question meant now because I put in too much effort already, and no argument, however good it is, is likely end the argument, and because I should go do something else. None of the answers I gave are more "true" than the others. They are all possible meanings of the question. Just three answers out of the infinite number of ways the question could be interpreted and answered, but the ones I felt were the most relevant. Three possible interpretations that are overanalyzed way, way, way, way, way,  way too much, and three that are the most useful and likely interpretations, but three out of the infinite number nonetheless.

Yes, I know I'm using run-on sentences. Yes, I know this is a waste of time. Yes, I know I'm inconsistent on where I place my periods after parentheses and quotation marks.  Yes, I know I'm lampshading a lot. (And lampshading my lampshading, and lampshading my lampshading my lampshading, etc., etc.) Yes, I know I'm being way too meta (and all that lampshading and infinite regression of lampshading again). Yes, I know there's supposed to be two dots over the "o" in "Godel".

(For those who don't know, "Linguistic philosophy is a philosophical approach that aims to solve or resolve philosophical problems through a closer attention to language and its usage." (Source: Wikipedia page on linguistic philosophy. Yes, I checked it against other sources. As long as this post is, it's still on an internet forum debating a question entirely based on semantics. Sue me.) Yes, I don't have a degree in language philosophy, or have even taken any classes on it, but I can still apply it. Doesn't mean I'm claiming to be an expert.)

Have you heard how all philosophy is, is only arguments about grammar?

[Immortal Platypus]

On 12/4/2024 at 10:20 PM, scientificmotif said:

Time to throw my hat in the ring.

Summary of argument: A long complaint about how vague the statement is and applying linguistic philosophy to the question to try to solve the vagueness, and answering some possible meanings of the question.

WARNING
Inside the text box is a really, really, really, really long answer to such a simple question. It doesn't spoil any stories, but it does spoil your brain, or something, probably.

 

  Hide contents

This entire discussion boils down to what the definition of "wet" is. There are multiple, and none of them are less "true" than others. So I pose a much more simplified version of the original question: What is the definition of wet? I'll try to determine the most common ones. Yes, I know, we Sharders aren't concerned with common uses. But think of it this way: I could define wet as "the property of possessing a bazooka". Does my definition mean water isn't wet, because it doesn't have a bazooka? I don't care what you define as "wet". I can't answer every possibility. (they are infinite) So if you think stars are wet (possibly for reasons I outline in what feels like ages ago as I polish up this post), you'll just have to deal with the opinions of the masses, or normies, or whatever you call them.

-The water in question is assumed to mean liquid water. I have yet to meet anyone that would claim that would claim that ice is wet, or that something touching ice is wet. Liquid water isn't simply H20 at sufficient temperatures and pressures: it's instead a mass of H20 molecules that exhibits the emergent behavior of "fluidity". If someone asked "Is lava wet" (Purely theoretically, nothing to do with any posts at all, wink) one wouldn't look at the molecules making up the lava and say that each molecule making up the lava is "lava", in the same way that each molecule of a table isn't a table on its own. The word "water" in the definition is confusing people because the word water can refer to either the molecule H20 or a fluid nearly entirely composed of H20.

- It is assumed be an amount of water noticeable on the human scale: Nobody would call, say, their shirt wet if they can't even notice it meets the definition of "wet". 

Now here's where I find a few definitions that I consider common enough to be a good answer to the question:

-A solid with a fluid that is "inside it": Water isn't a solid, and therefore can't be wet. I'll leave deciding what "inside" means as an exercise for the reader. For example, that could affect whether a water balloon is "wet", or whether a soda can is "wet".

Result: Not wet

-A solid with fluid "touching" it: I feel like some people would say that a waterproof tent with water on it isn't wet, and some would say it is. Or, say, a piece of gold. So I included these as separate definitions. What "touching" means is also left up to the viewer. Doesn't matter for this question, "water" as I've defined it for the purposes of answering the question definitely isn't the first part (Solid).

Seriously, if I had to define everything in the question, I would have to define words like "define" and "is", then define the words in all the definitions, and so on. At some point, you'd be able to trace a path of definitions between words where you'd be able to a path that goes back to the word you started on. 

Result: Not wet

-Possessing the ability to make things wet: This is a circular definition, so it would have to be a secondary definition. If someone asked what "wetness" means, and you were to answer them with that, they would be just as confused as they were before. So you'd have to be using multiple definitions of "wet".

And also if one uses such a definition one should probably rein in what "possessing the ability to make things wet" is one is using, or pretty much anything would be wet. For example, a star would be wet under the definition. (As an example of one of the innumerable ways it could "make something wet", it could produce {or already contain, or a combo of the two} oxygen atoms and the star could eject said oxygen atoms along with some hydrogen atoms from itself that could combine to make water molecules after losing some energy, become a liquid, and make something wet.) Again, I leave that as an exercise to the reader, for aforementioned reasons. What do you expect me to do, theoretical person complaining about me not giving a perfect definition so that it could apply to scenarios outside of this discussion? Write a novel to *attempt* to get rid of every nitpick, and then miss something?  Write an argument entirely out of fundamental logical statements, where you could then say the definitions aren't perfect because of Godel's incompleteness theorem? Why am I creating a post this long for a dumb question, anyways? 

Result: Wet, but only if you use it with another definition of "wet".

I feel like ending this post that explained how this question should be solved by linguistics, doing so, and then answering the question in various possibilities of what the question meant now because I put in too much effort already, and no argument, however good it is, is likely end the argument, and because I should go do something else. None of the answers I gave are more "true" than the others. They are all possible meanings of the question. Just three answers out of the infinite number of ways the question could be interpreted and answered, but the ones I felt were the most relevant. Three possible interpretations that are overanalyzed way, way, way, way, way,  way too much, and three that are the most useful and likely interpretations, but three out of the infinite number nonetheless.

Yes, I know I'm using run-on sentences. Yes, I know this is a waste of time. Yes, I know I'm inconsistent on where I place my periods after parentheses and quotation marks.  Yes, I know I'm lampshading a lot. (And lampshading my lampshading, and lampshading my lampshading my lampshading, etc., etc.) Yes, I know I'm being way too meta (and all that lampshading and infinite regression of lampshading again). Yes, I know there's supposed to be two dots over the "o" in "Godel".

(For those who don't know, "Linguistic philosophy is a philosophical approach that aims to solve or resolve philosophical problems through a closer attention to language and its usage." (Source: Wikipedia page on linguistic philosophy. Yes, I checked it against other sources. As long as this post is, it's still on an internet forum debating a question entirely based on semantics. Sue me.) Yes, I don't have a degree in language philosophy, or have even taken any classes on it, but I can still apply it. Doesn't mean I'm claiming to be an expert.)

I agree with much of your analysis, but disagree on parts. We have typically been using standardized definitions (or as close as you can to them) from sources such as Merriam-Webster or Oxford English Dictionary. I hesitate to ask, but did you read the rest of the thread? If you did, you'll note that in your analysis, you neglected to mention the main point the the "water is wet" side is making: that under most definitions, there is a "consisting of" or "containing" some sort of liquid. With this definition in mind (most credible sources have this in there, in fact, I have yet to see one that doesn't), water must be wet. You could argue the definition, but I don't think you could make a good argument against the conclusion, while the definition stands.

On 1/23/2025 at 4:52 PM, ɴɪɢʜʈ said:

And thus Water is wet

Have you heard how all philosophy is, is only arguments about grammar?

And yet, it is not, as the argument you cite fails to address one of the major points of the opposing argument. 

[Mattel]

On 1/23/2025 at 4:52 PM, ɴɪɢʜʈ said:

Have you heard how all philosophy is, is only arguments about grammar?

Gahhh how could you say such a thing!? That's like saying Hobbits just eat food! But they also are known for the smoking of pipe-weed, the brewing of ales, and tending to growing things! 

Philosophy is the study of truth, my poor friend. 

[TwinStorm He/Him]

2 minutes ago, Mattel said:

Gahhh how could you say such a thing!? That's like saying Hobbits just eat food! But they also are known for the smoking of pipe-weed, the brewing of ales, and tending to growing things! 

Philosophy is the study of truth, my poor friend. 

I disagree

philosophy is the study of human thought

Edited January 25, 2025 by TwinStorm

[Mattel]

7 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

philosophy is the study of human thought

But that would just be psychology? 

Ahh, I just looked it up, and the study of human thought is "cognitive psychology."