Over the years i have had philosophical discussions with all sort of people and it baffles me that a philosophical argument appeals to one person but not to another. There is, however, one thing that i have noticed; a Litmus test, of sorts. The ability to philosophize depends on how much a person is troubled by the inconsistencies in his life. An average, normal person has a very well-developed ability to tolerate or simply ignore glaring contradictions in life: between different beliefs he has, between the beliefs and actions, between different actions. A normal person is not troubled by these discrepancies, but a philosopher is. That seems to me to be one of the basic differences.