On what topic?

My thought as well.
I don't really believe there are many folks who simply have a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy for every occasion.

My bad! Perhaps, philosophies that most consistently influence you in your everyday life and thought process.

philosophies that most consistently influence you in your everyday life and thought process. — Dina

So what philosophies most often influence basically everything that could happen to you?

Well... I guess it can't get 'more specific' than that? ;)

That’s one reading. I do like the broadness of the question though.
But, if you must have a more specific question, let me ask you this: Which philosophical subject has your interest? And with which philosophies, do you tend to think about it?

Which philosophical subject has your interest? — Dina

It's not a singular topic ever. It's always quite a few of them.

And with which philosophies, do you tend to think about it? — Dina

As many as address the topic(s) that I can find and have time to look into.

I can't really be more specific than the question is specific.

EDIT:

Could you simply find an answer to this broad question by reading through the treads and posts of others here in the Philosophy Forums? Essentially if they are responding to a topic, it's probably of their interest and what they write and whom they reference might give a tell as to the possible philosophies they think about and sort of endorse or reject.

One thing I can say is that one cannot realistically expect a specific answer to a generalized question. Vagueness will simply lead to more vagueness.

Fair enough! :)

I will be more specific in my future posts. One learns everyday!

I ascribe to reason; I philosophize in accordance with my reason conditioned by a particular philosophy.

I did a similar thread to this a while back with a bunch of more specific questions:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7036/whats-your-philosophy

Thanks! I will check it out!

As aforesaid, I will be more specific in my future posts. You’re entitled to your opinion regarding vagueness and the rest. That said, I might have been curious about what people would come up with. I guess there isn’t much room for lightheartedness and curiosity here.

Thanks for your reply! And how would you define what you call “reason” in your reply?

I guess there isn’t much room for lightheartedness and curiosity here. — Dina

Why on earth would you reach such a conclusion?

Reason: the innate capacity of the human cognitive system to generate inferences by means of conceptions.

I suppose one gets to choose his own.

Just sheer curiosity. — Dina

Positive-Egoism.

Egoism is the nature of humanity and we should accept it.

Stoicism.

Because we are a social species endowed with the capacity of reason.

My bad! Perhaps, philosophies that most consistently influence you in your everyday life and thought process. — Dina

:chin: Mostly, I suspect ...

• absurdism [P.W. Zapffe, C. Rosset, (A. Murray) ...]
• anarchism [P. Kropotkin, A. Camus, H. Arendt, N. Chomsky ...]
• immanentism [Epicurus, (Hillel the Elder), B. Spinoza, P. Foot ...]

Which philosophical subject has your interest? — Dina

Agency (re: how to optimize it - like how e.g. yoga, tai chi, aikido, rock climbing, orienteering, caretaking, (deep) ecology, etc optimizes - maintains - 'fitness').

And with which philosophies, do you tend to think about it?

(See above.)

Meliorism

Moral anti-realism

Yes. I suppose you could call it 'non-dualism'. I endorse this because it appears to be true and because it solves all philosophical problems. .

Traditionalism. But I can relate to any anti-materialistic/consumerist ideology that focuses on a higher meaning.

I am new on this forum. Same here, it's Stoicism for me.

Welcome, my brotha!

I think that ascribing to any particular philosophy is problematic because it means you have ready made answers before the question.

Generally, through the process of henosis, I have a particular approach to understanding founded on the unity of opposites that results from a realization of monad. This causes me to recognize that if conflict is arising I am at least partially wrong if not completely wrong, else it couldn't arise. This wrongness includes clarity of expression, so my immediate response is usually to understand their view and respond from there. This is made easier from a foundation of ataraxia or apatheia, whereas if I'm having difficulty accepting the other there is some hubris in me.

I think this general openness to engage is a function of sophrosyne, and a genuine pursuit of the truest truth results in eudemonia...

These are all general philosophical notions that apply to any genuine philosophical school, though, I think that determining the details based on a particular system is problematic exactly because it enters into a realm of abstraction and ceases to be necessarily practical.

Yet, I am not strictly practical, because I analyze my own behavior if I venture away from these things.

I consider philosophy a method of Reasoning
a set of rules that do not change
different philosophies suggest different realities
unless you can agree on concrete facts discussion is futile

The interest that prompts one to follow certain lines of thinking is an "ascribing" of a kind. It is not necessarily something adopted as some kind of last word.
We are drawn to many points of view that don't agree with each other and can even indicate an outright conflict regarding outcomes and ideas about obligations.
So a practice called for from someone like Kierkegaard is mixed up with something required in Zhuangzi. If it doesn't shape your choices, the words are pixels on a page.