Missing a whole aspect or edifice in the understanding. I presume sensory simple mistakes are not the essence of the question.

Is there such a thing as thinking philosophically as opposed to thinking itself. Which in and of itself is a world orienting aspect of consciousness and a reaction to environment need by some resolve of willing. At what point can thinking be classified as having the attribute, philosophically?

Is there a point to this? Is there not elementary neuroscience and psychology first in modern philosophy?

Who said that there's such a thing as "direct realism"?

Philosophy is often a misused term. Particularly by folk who think speculative material science is in the discipline. Philosophy is a developmental science. You become more educated in it and maybe you get to use its tools in different settings and arenas.

Academic philosophy or literary philosophy is highly dialectical and should be understood as an acedemic discipline for its own ends.

Practical philosophy is when you're capable
to enter into the domain of the public and
social sphere as an agent of positive
change and a skilled worker at detection
of fundamental error or flawed reason.

A practice and evolving group of skill sets which
almost always needs retuning and continued
reinforcing from study and teaching.

I like this thread but have nothing substantive to add. The term 'the unmoved mover' itself
speaks to me relating to being for itself and agency of willing, that is the determinate thing
transcendent in pure action in its aim. That is willing moving to its ends.

It is peers that will determine your social reality.

Philosophical Tools for Thinking are necessary otherwise the garbage in / garbage out premise holds as the outcome.

Philosophy texts tend to be Map and territory inducting the reader into the realm of thought. To do the real work of philosophy is to have the tools to operate coherently within a scientific or substantially real social environment. Or privately to construct a creative discourse that develops self and the needs of reality.

A "black hole" is a crowd of thoughts and opinion on a subject where no light is shed on reality.

"Liberty is a buzzword"
- O.I.L Slick

Why in the aspect of ordering principles such as 'morality' do you need the strict dogmas and governance by formal religion over the social concerns of society. How can you accord uneducated opinions of those demanding ultimate freedom of the individual and hold a coherent argument that society will achieve its necessary ends through its own self ordering.