This question is prompted by recent questions: A short, understandable definition of philosophy and Do you need to know what philosophy is to study it?
Sciences are usually well defined, and the task mainly falls to that particular philosophy-of-science. Similarly almost all human activities are defined or functionally described by some meta activity that is closely related to 'philosophy proper'.
But who should define Philosophy, and from what context? What is the correct context from which to look at Philosophy, and has anybody ever been sufficiently qualified to speak for the entire philosophic endeavor?
My impression is that you can no more describe Philosophy without recourse to extra-philosophic means, than you can describe a language without a meta language. But what could be "extra-philosophical"? So:
Question: Is Philosophy undefinable in practice or in principle?
EDIT: I must confess the part about meta language is residual thinking from a previous post. As noted in the comments: "...we reasonably describe English in English," which would suggest that no 'meta philosophy' is needed. But also noted in the comments, there are technical reasons for the existence of meta languages, being the avoidance of self reference. So what I'm suggesting is that we do not have tools to define, or even describe Philosophy, to the same degree of adequacy as for instance sciences. As @jobermark answer shows there is no precise boundary between sciences... Yet defining 'chemistry' does not arise nearly as often as do defining 'philosophy'. And if we did need to define 'physics', wouldn't most agree it would be far less daunting than Philosophy?