` Academia does hijack terminology. It's kinda what it does. It routinizes an idea that hasn't been studied and makes it rigorous. The reason that I think it important that we stick to sourcing as our primary means of identification is because to do otherwise would be a free-for-all. Many people have studied philosophy and, arguably, anyone reading a page on Wikipedia that is remotely related to the subject is ``studying philosophy``. But to label someone a philosopher, we need to consider what reliable sources call them. McKenna was someone who speculated on various ideas. He was certainly a psychonaut. But philosophy is a subject that is seriously studied and requires confirmation. Not just anyone can be a philosopher. This isn't to say that it is impossible for amateurs to become philosophers. Only that we have to have sources which so acknowledge it. If sources qualify the term it seems to me that we'll just end up with meaningless commentary. Think about what best serves the readers: a casual reader would expect that a philosopher was somehow engaged in the act of studying philosophy which, for better or worse, these days takes place primarily in academia. The exceptions to that general rule should be well-sourced.   `