I sense a lot of admirable idealism behind your question. Yes, there is a conceptual difference between being an 'actual philosopher' and a 'philosophy professor', but fortunately there is still a lot of overlap between the two concepts. It is definitely possible to teach philosophy without being serious about advancing philosophical thought or living out a coherent thoughtful philosophy. More often, I think those whom you don't view as 'actual philosophers' started off more idealistically, but were discouraged either by the challenges of the 'philosophy profession' or by the skepticism they embraced as they developed philosophically. Not all philosophy departments are like your own. Some are populated with many professors that have successfully navigated the demands of the profession while maintaining a seriousness about philosophy and about service to their students. You should visit some other departments before embracing complete cynicism about the profession. And your final point is correct......

The academic job market in philosophy has been challenging for a long time. With the recent downturn in the economy, some people are describing it as the worst market in decades. Even before the downturn, you would have been very unlikely to land any long term job in philosophy with an M.A. In the current market, virtually no one will be getting a CC philosophy professorship without a Ph.D. In theory, the market should almost certainly improve by the time you would finish your Ph.D. But, even the 'normal' market is quite challenging. It is not unusual for even 'less desirable' jobs to receive 100-200 applications. And many gifted graduate students with impressive credentials have a difficult time getting jobs. There is a blog entitled the 'Philosophy Smoker' run by some anonymous graduate students who are on the philosophy job market. If you read it, you will get a glimpse at the incredibly difficult time many students have on the job market. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Whether we realize it or not, philosophy is something that is 'important, but never urgent'. Everyone lives by a philosophy, which is a set of assumptions concerning the ultimate nature of reality, ethics, knowledge, and what is important in life. However, not everyone has reflected upon these issues very deeply. Even if someone is not 'good' at philosophy, these issues are still of immense importance to his or her life. And the kind of life one lives is largely shaped by his or her philosophical assumptions. So, I would say that philosophy might be low on the priority list, but it is never low in importance. I'd also point out that virtually everyone finds time to do many things that are unimportant such as watching television. Also, I don't know if everyone NEEDS a college philosophical education to understand philosophical books, but philosophy is much easier to understand if you have such an education.

I don’t think there’s any necessary connection between doing philosophy and being ‘depressed and sensitive’. However, philosophy constantly puts one in a position where our society’s most cherished beliefs and assumptions are questioned. This can be quite depressing if you let this lead you to the edge of nihilism. I don’t think philosophers are generally dark and depressed, but I do think there are enough instances that confirm this stereotype of the philosopher to many people. Of course, there are also ‘happy philosophers’ who think they’ve figured out something very encouraging about the nature of the world. Similary, I don’t know if the intricacy of philosophy requires a level of ‘quiet reserve and conscientiousness’ that is greater than other academic disciplines in the humanities. One of the hard parts of the job for many philosophers is the enormous amount of alone time needed for writing and research. But, I think that would be true of any research oriented job that required a lot of reading...

There is a long theistic tradition in philosophy that agrees that being ‘omnipotent’ and ‘being able to do absolutely anything’ are two very different concepts. Calling God ‘omnipotent’ only means that God has an infinite amount of power… however, they may be things God can’t do for reasons other than a lack of power. For example, Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential theists in history lists a large number of things that ‘God can’t do’. [In my philosophy of religion course I call this lecture ’20 things you can do that God himself couldn’t do’]. For example, Aquinas thinks God can’t change because he is already perfect… therefore he can’t become more perfect and he wouldn’t choose to become less perfect. God can’t forget or become tired. God can’t be sorry (because he never does anything wrong to be sorry for). God can’t do wrong… etc. [you can read about this in Summa Contra Gentiles I by Aquinas] Now your interest seems to focus on the question ‘can God break the rules of logic?’...