DISTINGUISHING 'OLOGY' FROM 'OSOPHY' IN KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH

I've often thought that philosophy is a hyped term which is generally used to describe a love of truth when, in point of fact, it is only a love of knowledge, which is something of a (physical) shortfall from the metaphysical nature (sic) of truth. Besides, if philosophy is a love of knowledge then surely philology would be a more suitable term for the pursuit of knowledge, something analogous to theology having to do with the pursuit of truth and not the love of truth, which I should imagine would be theosophical in character, using that term, like the aforementioned one, in a wholly novel and more metaphysically pertinent way than is usually the case. Thus theology would stand to theosophy as philology to philosophy - as an egoistic alternative to anything psychoistic, and therefore having more to do with truth than joy, not to mention, where philology and philosophy are concerned, with knowledge than pleasure. Yet even the expression 'love of' is problematic in this context, love being irrelevant to both metaphysics and physics. Rather could it be said that there is pleasure in knowledge and joy in truth; though knowledge can also lead to pleasure and truth to joy, which, if experienced for their own sake, would transcend both a 'love of knowledge' and a 'love of truth', being arguably more than either philosophical or theosophical. For ego and soul are both aspects of psyche, the difference between the two (male) contexts normally being that soul tends to revolve around ego in the case of physics and ego around soul in the case of metaphysics, where theology should lead beyond theosophy, or a 'love of ' truth and, hence, God, to something approximating a heavenly redemption of ego in pure soul, which would truly be the joyful transcendence of both theology and theosophy.