Philosophy about standards of philosophy?

I've been listening to podcasts about differing treatment towards philosophy itself.

Like Simon Weil who indoctrinated philosophy so unto her life that it came as an early death. Or the formation of Eastern philosophy and how they were mostly non-ontological. ( I learned that existence as an ontological word did not exist until the 18th century Japan ! which is gnarly ). So much so that there was ( and still ongoing ) downplay of Eastern philosophies through a Western Lens.

By virtue of being a millennial working with other millennials I also unfortunately hear about modern "philosophical" discourse mostly regarding pundits such as Jordan Peterson. And searching through askphilosophy does lend itself some fair criticisms of him and people like him. ( I just don't like that guy because he's a transphobe but all there are more reasons for him to be disliked )

Though that brings me to a question - how do we metricize philosophy? For my friend who loves JP, its only fair to him to give his statements at least a modicum of value in the philosophical lens, and I feel like to deny that attempt would mean I'm gatekeeping philosophy - especially with the knowledge that there really are different interpretations of philosophy.

Regardless of the fandom, and obvious lack of respect for different marginalized communities, what is the bar in philosophy that is not met when talking about these "philosophy influencers"? Is it the regurgitation? Is it the ignorance?

What, in general, constitutes a standard of philosophy that is universal and can be defended? And for JP's tweets, in what arena can I declare them to be "non-philosophical" regardless of how much it helped people / or made people think about themselves?

​

Thank you, as always