What does it mean to say philosophy is not the love, but the *ardor* of wisdom?

So I'm reading the first chapter of *A History of Western Philosophy* and Bertrand Russell goes from this:<br><br>> From the earliest times until the latest, the fundamental elements of the view that we are calling philosophical have recurred and reappeared, one by one, or in groups, now separately and in varying combinations and associations. To classify them, to show their historical growth and development, to present them to the eye of the mind, not as a strange and institutionalized deposit, but as so many manners and modes of thinking, - this is the task which we are undertaking. Philosophy is not a quest of prosaic information, of objective content and practical definitions. In so far as it is an acquisition of insight and knowledge, it must ever be remembered that philosophy is not merely the love of wisdom, but very emphatically the love of the wisdom of philosophy. In my view it is not so much a purely scientific method as a point of view, from which every conceivable matter may be impartially treated, and rationally grasped as a part of that vaster and unique whole in which man and the universe are indissolubly joined to find their common destiny.<br><br>Then to this:<br><br>> **"Philosophy is not merely the love of wisdom, but the wisdom of the love of philosophy."**<br><br>He then goes into the development of philosophy as it chronologically unfolded in history. But I gotta ask... why make this distinction?