All philosophies are examples of thinking — Janus

That is, all philosophies arise from the same source. Thus, it seems good philosophy to investigate the influence of that source given that this influence, whatever it might be, would be universal. Put another way, it seems a more powerful analysis to look at what all philosophies have in common, as compared to looking at how they differ. That's what I mean by "reaching for the bottom line".

All human beings think (I hope) but from that it does not follow that all human beings are "made of thought" — Janus

All human beings are made of thought psychologically. That is, this thing we call "me" is made of thought, and thus will be subject to whatever the properties of thought might be determined to be. Given that such properties would have an effect on all human beings, they seem to merit investigation.

but from that it does not follow that all human beings are "made of thought"; I don't even know what that could mean — Janus

Perhaps that might be because you are working too hard at sophistication? It means only that all the ideas we have in our heads which we reference under the label "me" are made of an electro-chemical information medium called thought. My opinions, my memories, my emotions, my hopes, dreams and plans etc. All made of thought.

beyond a claim that the nature of human beings is mediated by the nature of their thinking. — Janus

By the nature of thought itself, how it operates.

If by "their thinking" you mean their particular opinions and philosophies etc, all that is just a symptom of the underlying mechanism, thought itself.

As example, our bodies being flexible is just a symptom of the fact that our bodies are roughly 50% water. On the surface there is a great deal of variety between bodies, but underneath that surface variety are the universal properties of water.

On the surface there is a great deal of philosophical variety, but underneath that surface variety thought works the same way in all human beings. Thus, to the degree we understand how thought works we understand something fundamental about all human beings. This is more interesting to me than, for example, trying to understand how one ideology differs from another.

How can we (presuppositionlessly) investigate the nature of thought when we must necessarily use thought (which must start from some presupposition or other) to attempt to do so? — Janus

Great question! While not claiming to have a perfect answer, here are some theories we might chew on.

First, thanks to the inherently divisive nature of thought our minds are "multi-threaded". That is, there is the thinker, and the thoughts. The thinker can observe the thoughts, and learn something from that observation.

Second, we aren't limited to using thought only. To some degree we can observe thought from a distance through techniques like mediation, or any process which quiets the mind.

But your point is taken, any investigation which exists in thought will be influenced by the properties of thought, a built-in form of bias which won't be easy to step out of. We are humans, not gods, we muddle along as best we can.

All philosophies are examples of thinking — Janus


That is, all philosophies arise from the same source. — Jake

But they don't arise form the same source; just as all examples of thinking don't. Plato is not the same source as Aristotle, and Parmenides is not the same source as Aquinas. To say that they do would be like saying that all rivers arise from the same source.

All human beings are made of thought psychologically. That is, this thing we call "me" is made of thought, and thus will be subject to whatever the properties of thought might be determined to be. — Jake

But human psychology incorporates not merely thought, but emotion, volition, perception and instinct.

It means only that all the ideas we have in our heads which we reference under the label "me" are made of an electro-chemical information medium called thought. My opinions, my memories, my emotions, my hopes, dreams and plans etc. All made of thought. — Jake

The "electro-chemical information medium' by which I take you mean neural processes are not themselves thoughts, but are correlates of thoughts. And even to claim that thoughts just are neural processes is to follow a line of positivist thinking basing itself on neuroscience; which in turn is based on empirical observations. The problem for this view is that thoughts have semantic content whereas neural processes do not.

I understand your confusion and I do apologize, what I ment by original form is that we spent most of the time of the universe not being here, we were technically "not being", in the same way that it is impossible for a being to remember the moments before they were born we will not 'remeber' the time as dead, because it is simply not a experience — Filipe

I suppose what I am confused by is in what sense can "we" be "not being." The very word "we" implies being. It implies a group of things that exist.

But they don't arise form the same source; just as all examples of thinking don't. Plato is not the same source as Aristotle, and Parmenides is not the same source as Aquinas. — Janus

The writings of all these guys arises from the same source, the human mind, thought. Thought isn't a blank sheet of paper, it's a part of nature and thus has properties which will influence anything made of thought.

But human psychology incorporates not merely thought, but emotion, volition, perception and instinct. — Janus

Emotion, volition, perception and instinct, all made of thought. The philosopher and his philosophies, any philosopher, any philosophy, all made of thought.