It's obviously both. What do you think the science degree phd stands for? hence when it comes to the branch of philosophy we address as science, it's highly institutionalized. Yet there are various other branches of philosophy that are not institutionalized.

Everyone seriously attempting to answer existential questions is moving within the realm of philosophy.

Do you believe that doing philosophy is, whether privately and/or professionally, indispensible for 'eudaimonia'? or that something more, some other endeavor, is needed to facilitate 'well-being'? Are there more 'paths of ascent' than (at least in part) living philosophically?

As a non-academic I'm partial to Hadot's prescription of philosophy as a way of life (via "spiritual exercises" - or in these terms - via aporetics; hermeneutics-genealogics; dialectics; critiques-problematiques; apophatics) and not in any significant, or profound sense, a professional - professorial - career.

It's like politics; necessarily everyone does it, but most of you are entirely wrong.

:up:

Do you believe that doing philosophy is, whether privately and/or professionally, indispensible for 'eudaimonia'? or that something more, some other endeavor, is needed to facilitate 'well-being'? — 180 Proof

These seem like different questions, one asking if it’s necessary, the other asking if it’s sufficient. I think it’s necessary but not sufficient: you need to do philosophy to attain eudaimonia, but just doing philosophy isn’t enough.

It's like politics; necessarily everyone does it, but most of you are entirely wrong. — unenlightened

I do really like the political analogy, and I would enjoy suggestions for how philosophy can be made more participatory in the sense of participatory democracy. I support a political regime where there is not a clear divide between the rulers and the ruled, but not one where there are no well-trained people in leadership positions and just a lowest-common-denominator rabble calling the shots. There need to be professionals, but they need to be in constant dialogue with non-professionals, and there has to be a way to rise gradually from non-professional to professional, or to one’s optimal place in the continuous spectrum between them, through excelling in that dialogue.

I think that is currently lacking both in the political sphere and more generally in the philosophical sphere. I myself feel rather awkward in that regard in the philosophical sphere. I have some professional education, but not enough that I would feel comfortable trying to engage in the professional dialogue of journals etc. (At least, not inserting myself into there; if someone else thought I was worthy and invited me, I’d be comfortable with that.) But the kind of dialogue I want to be engaging in, like in my writing, seems too professionally focused to be of much interest to most laypeople.

There is a spectrum enough downward, where I can talk to laypeople about their philosophical interests and bring in my philosophical education to the discussion and in doing so bring them up closer to my level. But there doesn’t seem to be any upward spectrum: there doesn’t seem to be a way to engage less-than-fully-professionally with the true professionals, and in doing so become more professionally adept myself, without just fully committing to becoming a full-fledged professional philosopher myself. There’s a discontinuity in the philosophical dialogue there.

I think there is an entire spectrum activities that are incumbent on the human race collectively and individually also. So perhaps not every person in every field aspires to being philosophical. But ideally, "philosophizing" should be conducted by a wide variety of people in a wide variety of fields. Resulting in a wide variety of outputs.

Such is my take.

Anyone with a problem they don't know how to learn to solve.

But there doesn’t seem to be any upward spectrum: there doesn’t seem to be a way to engage less-than-fully-professionally with the true professionals, and in doing so become more professionally adept myself, without just fully committing to becoming a full-fledged professional philosopher myself. There’s a discontinuity in the philosophical dialogue there. — Pfhorrest

Social philosophy is, ab initio, aware that by being professional it, in an important sense, artificially disconnects itself from its true subject matter. To the point where some investigations are pursued both scientifically and also, in parallel, with a conscious disregard for the professional viewpoint, i.e. naively or naturally. (read that in Habermas a few months back). I'd say the same applies to philosophy in general.

edit: Doesn't it really all boil down to vocabulary? If we share a vocabulary then to that extent we are conscious of participating in a relevant discourse. If you extrapolate a concept and our vocabularies continue to overlap then that is a mutually reinforcing dialogue....