In what follows, a philosopher's Declaration of Independence is propounded. It is a philosophical method put in a sequence of principles. Anyone who wishes to subject these principles to the fiercest struggle for survival through the method of doubt is encouraged, for this shall conduce to rational discussion. However, if your counterarguments are to have any plausibility they must be accompanied with reasonings and data. Discuss.
(1) All philosophers are human, but not all humans are philosophers. For philosophy requires a certain mastery of reason, independence of thought, and the ability to string together thousands of arguments without getting into contradictions, which is by definition lacking or absent in non-philosophers.
(2) Since all philosophers have a philosophical and human dimension, each competes for mental resources to exist. Inevitably, the existence of the two are not 'compossible' at the same time, since to philosophize is to forego the moment, while indulging the human side requires foregoing contemplation. Hence, also, it follows that the logico-philosopher must necessarily have the winning record of the two.
(3) In the struggle for the existence of philosophical possibles, the disposition of the independent philosopher must be tantamount to a sort of hyperanalytical mode, where he may find himself stuck in fits of abstraction such that he no longer sees or hears things. Instead, resources are mobilized from the senses to the intellect. Should one call the philosopher's name, one may get no response. For the purest form of philosophical independence is the condition under which one is invariant with respect to all external stimulus.
(4) Now, should it happen that someone is able to break the sound barrier and get the philosopher to ground out, likely due to his own lack of concentration, he shall resume to his human state and unleash his sensing and intuiting tentacles so as to enable new possibilities to fly at him at fast and furious speeds, which will supply the material for future thought.
(5) These future possibles must be contemplated by pure reason rather than emotion. For Einstein has discerningly argued elsewhere that time is relative, which means that time is not objectively real. Hence, also, it follows that all emotion with regard to future or past events are contrary to reason. Therefore, if the human has an interest in expressing emotion for some past or future possibility, the philosopher has an interest in being dispassionate on them; for, were the philosopher that is rational by definition to become emotional for some past or future event, that would entail that he is being rational and irrational at the same time, which is a contradiction. However, since in (1) a philosopher is defined as one that does not get in contradictions, it follows that were this to happen the one in question cannot be properly called a philosopher.
(6) From this follows two propositions: (a) The cardinal virtue of a philosopher is consistency and hence also his chief tool is logic. Logic, indeed, is to philosopher as telescope is to astronomer--namely, an instrument of discovery. (b) The philosopher will strive to discover and invent as opposed to immitate. For mindlessly copying the items circulating in hearsay is not only dubious in principle, but should one demand that the item of thought be backed up with reason and evidence, one shall lack the intellectual reserves to back up the currency of hearsay because one did not test it by independent thinking and rational criticism.
(C) If these conditions are met, then the philosopher will reach the highest level attainable of independence. From independence follows the mental space for discovering new laws, patterns, cosmological and ontological systems designs and so forth, which can restore a dignity to philosophy that the post-modernist tea party has attempted to bastardize.