that would make truth a sum of known facts (false things, that is). this might be plausible for an objective reality, for a logical system, from which you can extract "what is true", simply by putting aside "what is wrong".
assuming that there is in fact an objective reality you would still have to be capable of completely grasping this reality's logic. we're getting close to laplace's demon here.
i agree with TimBlack that dismissing philosophy as a hobby of those blessed with free time (or food) is quite risky.
what could be more important? eating? sleeping? earning money? going to the dojo?
all of these share one characteristic: they are all means to an end. which you don't know yet! you do all of these without even asking, why you do them? sure, one could be satisfied with doing things because they are fun to do.
what one should not forget, is that this attitude means restricting oneself to an animal's level of reflexion