Doesn't matter. You might actually have an insight into something important. I think you should develop that idea.

Ok. I understand.

But what you are writing is not philosophy or even about philosophy.

You say "something doesn't feel right" and it "just seems like the science of" something on which you can't put your finger. But it seems like something Russell said about the difference between science and philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't get us anywhere. It's the sort of thing one hears from college freshmen in a course of Introduction to Philosophy.

I, sort of, understand what you are aiming at. It is your responsibility to make it clear and argue for its correctness -- i.e., defend it.

That is western philosophy, probably since Thales, certainly since Socrates.

Quite right. Very good point.

Are you suggesting that the contributions of Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and so forth are all just science of philosophy? Do you intend, further, that there is otherwise nothing new in philosophy since Aristotle?

Could an argument be made? Yes, you can make an argument for almost anything.

Could a good argument be made? I doubt it.

I would be interested in the argument if you can make it. You might start with explaining what you mean by "science of philosophy." To me that is a very vague phrase.