The points of arguments in this article are relative clear. The author explains a historical background and origin about an illusion of scientism in contemparory philosophy, and she argues that one obvious stream of the origin is logical positivists influenced from Wittgenstein. They have changed mystification of science and philosophical movement of extreme scientism into an illusion of scientific philosophy. The author claims powerfully a reinterpretation of Wittgenstein or a return to the genuine philosophy of Wittgenstein in oder to reform a position of philosophy and to set up an identity of philosophy. I question again whether a history of philosophy was a history of misinterpretation. Does a misinterpretation of philosophical texts bring about a creation, or a misunderstanding and distortion? We can see lots of examples about it, and especially we find an example about Hegel's interpretation of Spinoza and Deleuze's interpretation of Hegel which give us exciting arguments. Possibly arbitrary misinterpretation of predecessor philosophers can be varied into a creative interpretation and, the history of philosophy may progress toward a new philosophy. We still confront a fundamental question, i.e. "what is philosophy, today?", in the tensional relationship between such a misinterpretation and interpretation.