So basically you've got:

- 1. The fideistic archetype

- 2. The nihilistic archetype

- 3. The scientistic/libertarian "silicon valley brogrammer" archetype, who is like a tempered version of 1 about descriptive matters and like a tempered version of 2 about prescriptive matters

- 4. The constructivist/Marxist "social justice warrior" archetype, who is like a tempered version of 2 about descriptive matters and like a tempered version of 1 about prescriptive matters

- Someone like 3 about descriptive matters and like 4 about prescriptive matters

- Someone like 4 about descriptive matters and like 3 about prescriptive matters — Pfhorrest

Philosophers also work with true statements, so it's not a belief system — xyzmix

how about starting with what it means to think philosophically? and what one's mind is actually trying to do when thinking philosophically? The answer to these would also show the way to answer your questions. — Bilge

I strongly suspect that such chains of inference at least tacitly underlie many philosophical views: those who see the rejection of fideism for criticism leading (so they think) to cynicism and thus nihilism, and to the rejection of transcendentalism for phenomenalism and thus (so they think) to nihilism again, rightly reject nihilism and thus (as they think necessary) phenomenalism with it, along with cynicism and thus (as they think necessary) criticism along with it, embracing transcendentalism and the fideism that it entails as their only hope (so they think) against nihilism. Conversely, those who see the rejection of nihilism for objectivism leading (so they think) to transcendentalism and thus fideism, and to the rejection of cynicism for liberalism and thus (so they think) to fideism again, rightly reject fideism and thus (as they think necessary) liberalism along with it, along with transcendentalism and thus (as they think necessary) objectivism along with it, embracing cynicism and the nihilism that it entails as their only hope (so they think) against fideism. This confusion of liberalism with fideism, or equivalently of criticism with cynicism, and likewise of phenomenalism with nihilism, or equivalently of objectivism with transcendentalism, leads many people, I suspect, to see the only available options as a transcendent fideistic view, or else a cynical nihilistic view. The differentiation of those superficial similarities and so the opening up of possibilities besides those two extremes is the key insight at the core of my entire general philosophy, embracing objectivism without transcendentalism, criticism without cynicism, liberalism without fideism, and phenomenalism without nihilism. — The Codex Quaerentis: Commensurablism

... the pursuit of wisdom, not the possession or exercise thereof. Wisdom, in turn, does not merely mean some set of correct opinions, but rather is the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — The Codex Quaerentis: Metaphilosophy

I arrange the forum into a few tendencies.

There's the Wittgenstein monster.
There's the libertarian keyboard warriors.
There's the leftist keyboard warriors.
There's the mystics.
There's the denizens of the shoutbox/Lounge.
There's the weirdo continental metaphysics people.
There's outright bongclouds.
There's the "learn math better" machine.
There's the first fumblings in philosophy group, who are mostly new posters.
A related group to the above, the Personal Theory of Everything group.
There's the Pierce advocacy group.

We're missing a few we had at the old place. At least they're not represented much any more.

There was the jaded academic tendency.
There were the logic bots.
There was the Heidegger/destruction of metaphysics fanboy club.

And there are the ever present lurkers.

Edit: I forgot the "Interminable discussion of god therapy group" — fdrake