I suppose for me the point is that philosophy tends towards truth. Even if certain philosophers fall into error, philosophy as a whole is supposed to tend towards truth. The way that it tends towards truth lies entirely in the method involved. The early presocratics were big fans of (a primitive sort) of induction. Parmenides was a big fan of deduction. Socrates was all about the dialectic. You get the idea.
But if you still want to say "No, philosophy isn't about method," then I still pose this problem for you all:
What's the difference between Homer and Plato?
What's the difference between Jesus and Socrates?
What's the difference between Steven King and Nietzsche?
That said, I still fail to see why Confucius is important to us. Y'all have yet to explain this at any real length. The trademark of philosophy is the uncovering of universal truths. What's philosophically true is true for everyone, even if the truth is that the underlying truth is existentially dependent on each particular man.
So Marcus Aurelius isn't a "western" philosopher, insofar as he somehow philosophizes only for the west. He's a philosopher. Period.