Margaret asked:

I have just begun an exciting journey in the study of philosophy and the philosophy of religion (God
and the person).

I have been doing an extensive amount of reading, and I often find my self confused with the total
definition of philosophy.

What makes one's words philosophical and what make the one who speaks these words a
philosopher?

Margaret also asked:

Are the following philosophical questions and if so how can they be approached for answers.

1) Do humans have a soul?

2) Is religion the answer to ones need for answer, or is it an excuse or a self-con, so that there is no
need to continue asking?

3) Is intuition a topic that can be discussed and researched philosophically?

============

Well, I'm just not going to answer this the way it seems you want. But I just want to correct what seem
to be some misapprehensions on your part. Yes, philosophy is exciting... it certainly is to me, anyway,
and that puts both of us in the minority, doesn't it. But there isno "total" or, what you really mean, I
think, "general" or "most abstract" definition of philosophy. I don't even know if anyone bothers to
define it at this point... and I can't imagine why they should. Philosophy is so wide in scope, so old,
that defining it is really pointless. What makes one's words "philosophical"? I don't have the slightest
idea, and I don't care. If you read stuff, and it's written by "philosophers", then you're reading
philosophy. I guess maybe you could say that philosophy deals with entities that are a level of
abstraction beyond "data", but, hey, I'd even hesitate at that one. Interest in "ultimate" questions?
Um... what's an ultimate question? So just go do what you like, ok? And don't worry what it's called.

To your next set of questions: First: yes and no. Second: with difficulty, if at all; carefully. 1) No one
knows. What's a "soul", anyway? Come up with a clear answer to that and maybe the question can
be answered, maybe not, depending on your answer. 2) Not clearly put. The way you've put it, the
answer is: "yes and no". Do some more reading. 3) What's "intuition"? From my point of view, the
answer is "no, go look at psychology". Other people might answer "yes", and refer you to some of the
Continental philosophers. Of course, in the most general sense of "discussed" the answer is "yes".

One characteristic of philosophy I cantell you, is that philosophers are trained in three general things:
thinking clearly, questioning everything, and arguing with each other. The first involves verbal and
conceptual analysis, to start. You need to get better at that. The second involves notstarting with
assumptions about gods, souls, religions, or for that matter about philosophy. The third follows from
the first two, and has been, in my opinion, overdone. Philosophers need to collaborate more... but
they're trained to find weaknesses and problems in arguments, so they do. I mean, really and literally
trained that way. You sit in a graduate philosophy seminar, and everyone's hammering away at each
other, very politely, of course, and the teachers are the worst, doing their damnedest to destroy
everyone's arguments right and left. Or the best, depending on your point of view. It does train one to
be clear and careful, both essential in this field. And at least that stops them, the good ones, from
relying too much on memorized answers, but it also creates a field full of testy individualists. Now, of
course, there is no one, really, who, first, "thinks clearly", nor who, second, "questions everything"...
these are things you just have to keep working at. And the third becomes too easy and too habitual,
as I say. So concentrate more on clarity, for now, and less on finding ultimate truths... just postpone
that latter for a while; you have plenty of time to get back to it.

Steven Ravett Brown