When does a question becomes a philosophical question?

Can you give me a short answer to what is meant by "philosophy of action"?

Is it possible that a person of modest intelligence could learn the whole history of philosophy, in terms of knowing every notable philosopher (from Thales to, say, Rorty), having read a few of their books or at least knowing and being able to expand upon their positions ... or is it simply outside the scope of a person, any less than a genius to have the time to gain such knowledge? It seems to me that there is not more than a couple of hundred such philosophers, and as such could be accomplished, at least superficially. Or is it more efficient to decide outright to miss some philosophers out?

I have recently seen references to a "branch" of philosophy (or perhaps a discipline unto itself) called "metaphilosophy." Apparently, metaphilosophy is the examination of the nature of philosophy itself (e.g. what questions it addresses, how it answers questions, etc). The existence of such a branch or discipline is surprising to me, though. I had always thought philosophy was open to every possible question in some way, and so how could anyone justify such a new discipline? Isn't philosophy itself "metaphilosophy"? And, of course, what happens if someone wants to ask what question should be addressed in metaphilosophy? Do we then need a "meta-meta-philosophy"? Is "metaphilosophy" taken seriously in professional academic circles, or is it just a budding internet fad? Is such a branch of study really necessary?

Are there any good critical discussions, if not refutations, of communism, especially its philosophical concepts, e.g. theory of knowledge, communist materialism, dialectics etc.?

Hi, I just started grad school in philosophy, and I've found that nothing I've done in undergrad has truly prepared me for this; specifically, I had a lot of guidance when writing my papers. I was given specific questions that helped me to give the Prof. what he wanted. My philosophy 101 class was taught by a grad student (in the midst of defending his own dissertation) who gave us more material than we could reasonably digest while in our early 20s. When left largely to my own devices, I focused more on the application of the philosophy in politics rather than the semantics, and for the most part, I did well and was happy about it. Now I'm trying to write a paper with the instructions that I discuss the concept of being for 25 pages from Plato's Sophist. I'm not allowed to use outside sources or reference outside of the context of the text or the class. Everyone else in my program seems to know what they're doing. I've talked to my professor and some of my peers at some length (though I was too...

What is it that seems constantly to put philosophers in a position where they are compelled to justify their work? Even if we accept such asinine criticisms as that philosophy is impractical, say, why aren't people similarly critical of literature or other fields in the humanities? What is it about philosophy in particular that seems to get under peoples' skin?

Do grades during high school and university show the ability of a person to think? Can someone who does not have immaculate grades still be an excellent philosopher? Or is the success of a student in school directly related to their ability to think in a critical way that is required by philosophers?

It has been long believed that the more you study philosophy, the greater the probability that you would see things more clearly and reasonably. However, the problem is sometimes, philosophical problems caught us too much that we would lose the insight of the present moment. Philosophy in other words has the tendency to get us lost in thoughts so much that we lose grip of reality. In my case, I would want to be a full-pledged philosopher but I also don't want to be a man always lost in thoughts. As professional philosophers, do you ever experience this? If so, how do you cope with it?

Good morning everybody. My question is about philosophical skills, that may develop during philosopical inquiry. I ask myself if there is a kind of genuine philosophical skill, a genuine philosophical expertise. If there is one, what are the differences between this special philosophical skill and the the expertise of a theologian, a politician or a logician?