I tend not to put much stock in philosophers, seeing as how I'm intelligent and overly-analytical enough to figure most things out on my own. What's more, when you mention you agree with a certain philosopher, you have to specify to what extent you do, because otherwise the implication is that you completely agree with them. It's more expedient in most cases to eschew philosophers entirely and cut straight to the individual ideas you support.
Anyway, there are a few individuals whose philosophy I agree with to some extent, and here they are:
Ayn Rand: Being completely self-centered, I kind of like Ayn Rand, because she says much the same things that I think with regards to an individual's entitlement to self-interest, but she can sell it. When Ayn Rand is talking about it, she doesn't sound like a psychopath.
Darth Bane, Dark Lord of the Sith: Though a fictional character, Darth Bane embodies much of what I like about the Sith. Sith are also motivated purely by self-interest, and like me they view all other lives as inferior and expendable for their personal gain. Sith tradition is also pretty brutally meritocratic, and as Darth Bane once said "Equality is a lie invented by the weak."
Christopher Hitchens: I became an atheist long before I even knew about Christopher Hitchens, but he was my favorite atheist commentator. Aside from being further educated as to "how religion poisons everything" ('cause I've read that book, and it's excellent), he really hammered home the idea that not all cultures are created equal, nor are they all worthy of respect or tolerance.
Those are probably the three individuals who have the most impact on my philosophy.
As do I. I particularly like to watch his debates, where he calmly and cooly logically destroys somebody. He knowledge, intelligence, reason, and wit were nothing short of awe-inspiring. Though of course, like all philosophers, I didn't always agree with him. He was clearly a "secular humanist," a person who believes that the happiness and wellbeing of human beings is the greatest possible good, and it is a conclusion they reach independantly of religion. That is contrary to my philosophy, as I am only interested in own wellbeing, and care nothing for the wellbeing of others. I think he was also a bit of a socialist, at least when he was younger, and that's definitely no good.
Another thing he made a big deal about was male circumcision. He saw it as a grave injustice on par with female circumcision, but I never saw the big deal. Male circumcision helps prevent infections, and speaking from firsthand experience, it does not appreciably diminish the functionality of the genitalia. Female circumcision, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to reduce their capacity to enjoy sexual intercourse, and from what I've heard I suspect it is more efficacious than the male variety.
That's what I meant about philosophers. I find it impossible to completely agree with anyone, and to cite philosophers rather than the ideas themselves is potentially misleading.
By your rationale, then I should consider myself a teacher, since I teach people things, despite not having a job in which I hold that title.
Since joining this site I have learned that not everyone who takes a picture qualifies as a photographer. I do not think having a philosophy, in and of itself, is the only necessary criteria to call oneself a philosopher.
Nonsense. Grammar is highly complex and allows for much flexibility in linguistics. If it did not, language as we know it would neither exist nor be in a perpetual state of evolution.
"This is how we separate reality from fiction."
You mean like the reality that the word "teacher" is not mutually inclusive of a degree? Even inanimate objects (books, articles, documentaries) and abstract concepts (experience, life, etc.) can constitute as a "teacher", and such usage of the word would be orthodox.
Face it, your prior comment reeks of pigeonholing. There is no shame in admitting that you made an error.
"A person who teaches, esp. in a school." -Google and others (Do note that "especially" implies a lack of mutual inclusion, similarly to how the conjunction "or" would.) "a personified abstraction that teaches; 'books were his teachers'; 'experience is a demanding teacher'" -Princeton "someone who helps others learn new things." -YourDictionary
"And you're also welcome to keep it to yourself."
And you are welcome to refrain from posting in public forums on a website owned privately by people who are not you if you lack the mental/emotional capacity to handle others responding to your public posts.