Just two quick points.

First, I have spent significant time over the past three or four years thinking about "metaphilosophical" work and issues (first in ontology, and then more broadly).  So I was well aware that this was a major current in this thread.  I have more to say on this, but not until I have spent the requisite time and effort on formulating it.  It is not something I want to do in bits and pieces.

Second, beware of associating "pseudo-philosophers" with "loving wisdom" (as you do in "Welcomed and Unwelcomed Philosophies").  This is a significant distortion.  If you actually look at the historical record, you will see that Plato, in particular, attacks the sophists for being pseudo-philosophical precisely because they lose focus on wisdom while pretending to teach it.  Similarly for Isocrates ( a sophist himself), Xenophon, and Aristotle.  I'm afraid you have the history wrong here.  At the same time, when you look at the details of the criticisms of pseudo-philosophers (such as the sophists) offered by these philosophers, you will see that the phrase "regardless of how much scientific or poetic his or her work is" appears not be be compatible with their views.  In their criticisms of the sophists, for example, Plato, Isocrates, Xenophon, and Aristotle are explicit in basing these criticisms on very explicit standards.

Sorry, but you've really got this wrong -- at least in terms of the genuine history of philosophy.