RM,
thanks for the response.
i do not understand what you mean by stating that a question can be negated. The negation of a question is simply
not a question. In other words, I don't understand how different manifestations of curiosity negates my
question, "What type of curiosity is philosophical?"  If this can't be determined than my question is meaningless, but
it doesn't negate the question.

I think you are correct in stating that any and all forms of the feeling of curiosity could be instrumental to the development of philosophical
thought (though I don't know how one might demonstrate this methodologically); however, it seems obvious that, at least on the surface,
certain forms of curiosity are more philosophical (if we define philosophy according to what RECOGNIZED philosphers have written or said). For example, if while walking down the street at night I hear a rumble in the bushes and I become afraid, is this a philosophical reflection? It is a form of curiosity because I would wonder what the rumble was but certainly it is not very philosophical, right? However, if I ask myself "Is a certain state-of-affairs more ethical than another state of affairs?" we seem to have a different type of question and a different form of curiosity--a form that seems to be more philosophical than my curiousity about the bushes. So what differentiates these two types
of reflection, these two types of curiosity?

Your last point is interesting. Though, I don't know what you mean by the term 'self-defeating,' could you clarify please?  What exactly is being defeated? In the Theatetus, Plato wrote that Socrates said "philosophy begins in wonder," but it is obvious, I think, that Socrates didn't mean wondering about what is rumbling in the bushes. Also, what is the relationship between wonder and curiosity in a philosophical sense, or are these two words expressing the same feeling?

I am interested in hearing YOUR continuing thoughts, :)
MF