In response to Terence Blake’s citing of “Philo-fiction”, here.
Terence, I wrote a little comment on this “Philo-fiction” word. But, due to technical issues (HD issues, wasn’t backed up), it’s not accessible.
The gist of the comment is etymological.
Philosophy, is philo, love; & sophos, wisdom.
Thus, “Philo-fiction” would be Love-Fiction, or Love-Making (fictiō – fashioning, forming, formation; fiction)
Instantly predictable, the knee-jerk responses of the plodding habitués of institutionalised academia; reluctant to abandon the unthinking easy innovations characteristic of those with no linguistic flair, habituated to a mindset of marketing banality; would declare that there is no greater ‘wisdom’ than ‘love’, instantly tapping into common sentiment.
But this base level, metonymy of ‘wisdom’, & alliteration of ‘Philosophy’, is blatantly for the ‘coffee table’ set who wish to be seen as thinking; even “filofax” was a better, more apt, nom de nouvelle, as it were.
‘Sophiction’, at least would be etymologically accurate.
‘Sophiaction’ – Wisdom in action?
a ‘phiact’, is better than a fact!
A fiat, lol.