What constitutes being a philosopher?

Since I do not understand what it means to apply syllogistic rules to thinking, and don't think that what ever it means (if it means anything at all) that it has anything to do with naive realism, which, as I understand it is an epistemological view, I will not comment. But I will mention that when I read Berkeley, I did not notice that he deviated form ordinary logic, nor have any commentators that I have read mentioned any such thing about Berkeley. So, if you would please mention some of these deviations from ordinary logic that you detected I would be grateful. As for the remainder of what you say, you have so many words between quotes, which I am supposing you mean to signal that they are being used in some unusual sense (that is what quotes generally mean) and since I have no idea what those unusual senses are, I am afraid that since I do not understand what you are saying, I will not be able to comment either.

I did not say anything about "premises". I said to play "the syllogism game" you need to assume static set theory and objective properties which fix set membership. Berkeley's phenomenology rejects objective properties.

The syllogism, like all arguments require premises and a conclusion. The syllogism is defined as an argument which has exactly two premises. Berkeley argues that since there is no good distinction that can be made between primary properties (objective properties) and secondary properties (subjective properties) all properties are secondary properties. That argument, formalized is:

1. If no distinction can be made between primary properties and secondary properties, then all properties are secondary properties.
2. No distinction can be made between primary and secondary properties.

3. Therefore, all properties are secondary properties.

That argument is a syllogism since it has exactly two premises.

Actually, that argument is unsound. It is unsound because the first premise is clearly false. And the second premise is also false. The first premise is false because it is obvious that just because no distinction can be made between two things, it does not follow that there is no distinction between them, nor does it follow that even if there is no distinction between them, that one of them must be the other, but the other cannot be the first. The second premise is also false since we can distinguish between primary and secondary properties.

But the argument is, indeed valid, since if the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true.

So there is no reason to think that Berkeley was not using ordinary logic to try to prove that there were no primary properties. Only, of course, his argument was unsound since both his premises were false.

The first premise is self-evidently TRUE for phenomenologists/solipsists
My non-dualistic analysis of the word "properties" takes that concept a stage further and renders the syllogism irrelevant.

I find that what "constitutes" being a philosopher is quite different than what constitutes "being" a philosopher. Any suggestions to "the" contrary are supercilious AND laughable.

Very exorbiant pharses, but could you say it with more deeper argumentation?

SORRY EDIT THAT !

I've just noticed that you have mis-stated what you call the first premise:

It should read ...."No GOOD distinction can be made....."
Clearly "truth" is dependent on the interpretation of the word "good".
(The rest of the post is consistent with that).

Philosophy is the study of meaning. Put another way, the study of the logical consequences of actions, ideas, concepts, and evidence.

Philosophy is essentially the qualitative form of mathematics. Mathematics cannot (in general) be proven empirically. It must be worked out, and the result, while true, (in general) has no physical incarnation which can be tested.

Therefore, a philosopher is simply anyone who studies meaning.

An expert philosopher is someone who kicks ass at studying meaning. For example, they will focus on the untestable meanings that are relevant to their fellow humans, such as 'Does this mean I'm a bad person?' Or, 'Does this mean I'm a philosopher?'

But Berkeley makes that argument, and that is what is at issue. You said that B. does not use "syllogistic logic" *(whatever you think that is). But B. does, since that is the argument he presents in Principles of Philosophy. If you think not, then just state what you believe the argument is that he makes whose conclusion is that there are no primary properties.

What is the difference?

I suppose that it is possible to interpret any philosophical issue as "the study of meaning" since that phrase is so vague that it can be stretched or squeezed like an accordion so as to accommodate any possible example. So that the amount of content that phrase has is minimal.

Philosophy is thinking. But it's not that simple of course.
We all think, but there is another thing that separates philosophic thought from "ordianiry thought", and that is motive.
Normally we think of things in relation to a specific motive we have regarding that thing; our particular interest in that thing and what we want with it plays a vital part in how we think about it. That is not philosophy, but if you think about the same thing with no motive for personal gain, but rather just to examine the subject without thought of how any implications of your interpretatons may impact your personal life, you are doing philosophy.

There are many good definitions being offered. I like the proposition that philosophy is the study of meaning, but I am not sure that definition captures all aspects of philosophy. I am not sure my proposed definition above does it either, for that matter..

No.

I will accept that I've stated the idea vaguely, though. However, without a less vague assessment, I can't exactly repair it.

All the philosophers are dead.

What a ridiculous thing to say. A2K is infested with philosophers. The question here is a philosophical one. Thinking about philosophy is pure philosophy.

Please name some of the infestations?

There's you for a start. You must fancy yourself as a philosopher to have come on a thread like this. And you have just as much right to claim to be a philosopher as one of the parties in a homosexual union might claim to be a wife: a word with a shrill penetrating sound which rhymes with knife.

The first thing a philosopher needs is a beard. We might discuss other less important matters when you all get a beard; and one like billy- goats have. No subjective fannying around at the barber's shop. Preferably white.

One needs to be able to stroke a beard meditatively.

Your posts are full of nothings - and your mental capacity of a 10 year old.

Let me just remind you all that Gilbert Ryle (the Oxford philosopher who wrote, The Concept of Mind defined philosophy as, "talk about talk" which, it seems to me captures the idea better than any I other I know about. Scientists, and lay-people, talk about the world. They say things like "brake failure caused the accident" or, "I will have lunch on time today". But, philosophers talk about the term (idea, concept) of cause, or of time. One person may say of another, "Joe has a good mind". The philosopher will ask, "what is a mind?" and "what is it to say that some one has a good mind?" Talk about talk.

being a philosopher is about observation , thought , independence , knowledge , conformity , thinking outside the box at times , lack of knowledge , see things as they are , imagination , exploration , strength of mind , challenge , strength of vocabulary , strength and weakness , courage , wisdom , the ability to reason and understand then comes logic , depth and the danger to the self and Humanity because of depth of thought and over thinking , the ability to admit when your wrong , the ability of your thinking to grow > mature , to relise that there is a fundamental reality , ability to critize your own thinking

in the end , the understanding that complexity and simplicity go hand in hand and in NO particular order