I might define philosophy as the study of what drives human decision making which is knowledge plus the system of values adopted by an individual.
Knowledge comes to us from a variety of sources, education, experience, perception, deduction, generalization, etc.
Values also come from a variety of sources: innate conscience, experience, social mores, etc.
It seems to me that the most valuable aspect of philosophy is not in the study of knowledge but of values for upon an individual's value base is their character developed. Both however are important, since the best value applied to faulty knowledge can lead to disaster.
And really, who wouldn't rather be in the company of less than average intelligent men of good character, than in the company of evil geniuses even though the latter might seem at times to be more interesting?
This seems to indicate a dichotomy between "knowledge" and a "system of values." Do you imply that a "system of values," is other than objective knowledge that must be non-contradictorily integrated with all other knowledge?
(I'm asking because I may have misinterpreted what you intended.)
Also, I do not believe there is such a thing as, "innate conscience," and that what is normally called "conscience" is one's emotional reaction to the values they already hold. For example, there was a tribe in New Guinea that believed they ought to lie whenever speaking to a member of other tribes, and would suffer a "guilty conscience," if they told the truth to an enemy. (These were cannibals who suffered the same pangs of conscience if they failed to eat their enemies after defeating them in war.)
Hank