Every agent of change has romantic instinct which becomes a pool of feelings called romantic sentiment. This manifests into romantic behaviours. Due to its strangeness in the society, it attracts criticism. At this stage the romantic agent reflects to find reasons to this non-conformity. This leads to romantic philosophy. He then tries to spread through a means (politics, literature, music, arts, speeches or dressing). This constitute a romantic group when they share this romantic philosophy. This can change the system through revolution based of popularity and acceptance or deforms into extremism ; or terrorism when violence is used to disseminate this romantic philosophy. (This is the latest findings from a doctoral research since 2011.)

Might be worth looking at Russel's History of Western Philosophy if you haven't already. Look at his work on Byron and how he teases a philosophy from his life and attitudes, and then see the expression in modern psychologtyof narcissism and psychopathic behaviour. that is one, reasonably unusual route, or Wittgenstein and how others turned his observations into philosophy and other forms of modern psychology.

Dear Tiamiyu Nuraeni Adewale,

Thank you for your interesting question. As I have been influenced by the East, I feel there could be another way of approaching your question. In the East anybody who really seeks do find answers to some aspect of our nature or the nature of Nature through inner contemplation, can be termed a philosopher. If the person is highly inspired, the answers that arise are normally novel, or a new way of expressing an old idea. If then he or she shares these inspirations with others, and they too are inspired by or through them recognising their depth and truth, the philosophy or thoughts starts to spread.

In the West, philosophy seems to be similar to science, in that a potential philosopher contemplates the thoughts of a previous philosopher and then makes slight additions, changes or even adds things that contradict the previous view.

Either way, the new thoughts can be recognised in the life of the philosopher, or after he or she is dead.

Warm regards Tina

When a philosopher have created own thought then it becomes a philosopher.

Ismet Sahin is almost close. The process of thought is very important as it has to meet the standards of his own criticism. But to question the birth of the thought we have ask if the thought process has been created by a priori knowledge or the person has attained by the cultural influence.

The person utters or writes philosophical things only when he seeks to define it or someone requires it. So this does not act as the first stage.

If the thought has happened and the person had cleared the barriers of criticism then the philosophical values would have created the impact on the self before becoming public.

But to question the place of birth of the thought -" a priori knowledge" the philosophical value would have born even before the act of questioning the concept.

Hence the philosophical value is born before the life of the person/philosopher.