Perhaps there is a difference between knowing philosophy, and actually doing it, just as there is a difference between knowing a lot about poetry and actually writing beautiful stanzas.

There is a part of philosophy that can be taught, whether as history of ideas or as logic; an intellect can manipulate these concepts much as in any other academic field. There is another part of philosophy, in which calling, care and concern for the articulation of truth are vital, that cannot be taught in the same way, if it can be taught at all.

A carpenter may have the best of tools in his toolbox with some skill in using them, he may acquired the best and straightest lumber out of which to fashion objects, but still produce only dead copies of Other's tables, chairs, and cupboards.

How come do they have brilliant marks in exams?

Everyone is a philosopher, but some express themselves more fluently.

. Argument is central to philosophy, or at least western philosophy. That is why, for instance, Descartes and Socrates are central to the tradition, and Nietzsche and others of his ilk are not. Descartes and Socrates (or Quine, or Wittgenstein) can hardly be accused of producing dead copies of anything. (Whatever those are). But continual interpretation of the text of some selected philosophers, is as near as producing dead copies as I care to get.

To say that Nietzsche does not argue philosophical positions, criticize other philosophers' thinking, or participate in the perennial philosophical debate seems an odd position given his influences in modern philosophy. It is his critique of earlier positions (granted in an unique manner) found in his writings that places him squarely in the philosophical continuum.

That philosophers return to the great texts of the tradition and offer new interpretations, or are "awakened from their dogmatic slumber" by a prior position as Hume did for Kant (presumably these two fit the real philosophical tradition while Nietzsche does not), seems far from the reproducing dead copies by philosophical workers writing MA theses, little old ladies presenting a paper to their reading group (naturally, to be followed by cake and coffee), or a student underlying catch phrases in his blue book to get an A.

Everyone is a philosopher, but some express themselves more fluently.

I guess on the Continent.

That philosophers return to the great texts of the tradition and offer new interpretations, or are "awakened from their dogmatic slumber" by a prior position as Hume did for Kant (presumably these two fit the real philosophical tradition while Nietzsche does not), seems far from the reproducing dead copies by philosophical workers writing MA theses, little old ladies presenting a paper to their reading group (naturally, to be followed by cake and coffee), or a student underlying catch phrases in his blue book to get an A.

I agree. A person might object that the term loses its power when applied to everyone, but then I read your statement as a metaphor.

As to my agreement: it seems impossible not to have what can be loosely called metaphysical assumptions with which to interpret experience.

But not everyone is a good, or even a competent, philosopher. (Even it it were true that everyone is a philosopher). Do you think that everyone who can hum (off-tune) is a musician?

Well, yes...The mind is where music is made and appreciated, and the voice and ear are often flawed, so yes I do believe that music is our common possession, just as philosophy is our common profession...Few people are good at it, and few devote themselves to the knowledge of it...If you ask, people have a set of rules that guide their behavior, and these are learned as taught, of figured out on the way, but everyone has some sort of philosophy whether it is the subject of much thought, or the avoidence of thought...

It seems that you're using the word "philosophy" very broadly here to mean "a way of life" or "personal outlook". But when we say someone is a philosopher, we are not merely acknowledging that they have a unique set of beliefs or outlook on life. We are saying that they study the academic discipline that is philosophy, or at the least, critically analyze or rationally investigate the world. And no, not everyone does this.

Would you consider everyone a mathematician or engineer, simply because most people have the capacity to add and subtract simple numbers?

One of those many cases in philosophy when a view is trivially true when vague, but clearly false when specific. Vague, but trivially true, or specific but obviously false? Fido's choice.

I don't see how it is true at all. The word "philosopher" is not used to mean someone that simply has a philosophy (a general outlook). Suppose my philosophy as a manager of my business is to, "Provide great service to my customers and offer the lowest prices in the industry!". Am I now a philosopher? When we say someone is a philosopher, we are clearly using philosophy in a different sense.

Well, not if someone insists that to be a philosopher is simply to present a general way of thinking about things as does the manager. By saying it is not true, and by making the kind of distinction you make, you are, of course, making "philosopher" more specific, and thus excluding the kind of thing the manager says. But if the manager insists on using the term "philosopher" in that way, all you can say is that he has simply trivialized the term, so that nearly everyone is a philosopher in his sense. And it just becomes a kind of honorific term with not much content. People sometimes do that with all kinds of terms of praise. Like "stateman" when some people simply call any politician a "statesman". It trivializes the term "statesman", but they don't care much, even if they understand what is really going on. (It is a little like calling Heidegger a "thinker", if you see what I mean).

It seems that you're using the word "philosophy" very broadly here to mean "a way of life" or "personal outlook". But when we say someone is a philosopher, we are not merely acknowledging that they have a unique set of beliefs or outlook on life. We are saying that they study the academic discipline that is philosophy, or at the least, critically analyze or rationally investigate the world. And no, not everyone does this.

Would you consider everyone a mathematician or engineer, simply because most people have the capacity to add and subtract simple numbers?