I do not mean that there are philosophical positions on the theory of mind (as there most certainly are), but that philosophising must be part of the theory of mind, with a natural 'osmotic' unwilled component (which would have a genealogical willed process), and a willed component.
How far one takes that willed component distinguishes what we would then ordinarily call philosophers to those that aren't. The relationship I'm hinting at is that of the concious mind to that of the unconcious. But not the same.
One of the reasons I'm asking this is that I believe that all men/women are philosophers, but I want to distinguish this from the activities of professional philosophers, academic or otherwise. So I'm proposing a notion of a natural unwilled philosophical activity.
Edit
What do I mean by unwilled philosophy? That it's not under conscious will, but that it's unconsciously willed. (I do not make the claim that all his philosophising is unwilled, only that a part is).
But if this unwilled philosophising is in his unconscious then we cannot get 'thinking about'. This can only mean that his unwilled philosophising can happen in the conscious mind. I'm not positing a constant force of will here, but in fits and starts, strengthening & weakening, in this direction or that direction. Our consciously willed philosophising must also occur in the concious mind. Ergo, they can interact.
I'm holding that for most people that both willed & unwilled philosophising weakens and dies, but in professional philosophers & students of philosophy the willed philosophising carries on for longer
What do I mean by a genealogical willed process?
I'm also considering, in part, is how a mind develops over an evolutionary period of time. It's clear we have minds, it is not unreasonable to posit that say a fox doesn't; over my evolutionary (genealogical) history at some point I'm related to something like a fox. I'm trying, in part, to understand how that can happen. I want to relate the naive conception of will referred to above to that of Schopenhauers. But maybe thats best saved for a different question.