Well, a couple of quick responses ...  You write

"So I would ask you: why me to seek the approval of any community, with all my respect toward it, if I am myself a professional philosopher, I have passed all the stages needed for that, and however I have other views on what a true Philosophy should be?"

If I were to look at this as a referee, the first thing I would be struck by is the grammar and sentence structure -- which makes it very difficult to interpret.  If this is the quality of work you are submitting, it may be quite understandable that a journal editor would choose not to send it on to a referee for serious analysis.   Indeed, I cannot extract a coherent question from what you have apparently asked here.  What exactly is the question?  The "why me to seek" construction is quite confusing.  I think that what you're asking is why you should seek the approval of the professional community.  I was not suggesting that you should seek the approval of any community.  But, by submitting manuscripts to journals, this is precisely what you are doing.  You cannot then be surprised if that community imposes on you the same requirements and standards that it imposes on others.  If you are not seeking its approval, then why are you submitting your work to it?  If you are suggesting that you have "other views" that somehow do not conform to those requirements, then it is best to seek other outlets for expressing them.

It is regrettable that a journal may respond with a simple statement that they have chosen not to publish your paper.  But journals receive so many submissions now that it is often impossible for them to respond in any detail to all of them.  I have, myself, in the past year received a similar response.  In my case (because I had other feedback on the paper) I was convinced that it was because the journal felt that the submission was not a good "fit" for them.  So send it somewhere else.  Get comments on it from colleagues.  If you send it several places and get the same response (which is, basically, no response at all), then it is likely that several distinct editors have viewed it as insufficiently well done to merit review.  Live with it and try to improve your work.

Let's consider another example from a work you have recently posted to this venue:

"The aim of this work is to show that the reality is not only the world of being, it is equally the world of non-being. Such an approach, as I think, is not nihilism, on the contrary - it helps to resolve many problems and contradictions confusing the philosophical mind. The reader will not find any citations or references in this work because I tried to bring it closer to Philosophy as it used to be in its early stages."

Again, the grammar and style makes this almost unreadable, and it is not difficult to understand an editor's reluctance to pass it on to a referee.  Without making any judgement on the content, we can also see that you have decided to omit any citations or references that would place your work in some broader context or indicate it's potential relevance or importance to issues recognized by other philosophers.  Okay, but then again it is understandable that an editor would be reluctant to consider such a submission unless the quality of it appeared to be truly stunning.  You seem to take the view that you want to do Philosophy in a way that is different from the way in which it currently is being done by the community of professional philosophers (although it is highly unclear what you mean by this).  But then you should not be surprised if that community is unreceptive to such an approach.  If in fact you have training in philosophy -- are, as you claim, a professional philosopher -- then you must understand these things and understand how publishing and peer review works.  Again, I don't know what you mean by saying that you have "passed all stages needed for that", but getting a degree does not mean that your subsequent work is publishable.  Additionally, you seem to feel that there are no reasonable standards for good philosophical writing and that therefore basically "anything goes" and editors should be happy to publish whatever you send them.  Such a view deserves no further comment.