Philosophy as a Discipline versus a Lifestyle

One idea brought up on Friday which, for me, was extremely thought provoking was the conception of philosophy as a lifestyle versus a discipline. This question, especially when considered with the assertion that coherence is a criteria for truth, and therefore the truths one holds must be consistent to be recognized as true, seems to me to lend philosophy a role as strictly a discipline versus a lifestyle. How can one truly be consistent in their role as "philosopher" each and every minute of every day? To maintain one's role as philosopher one must be constantly concerned with presenting valid arguments based on sound premises (ie, never abusing an opponent, never simply contradicting, never simply stating a preference or a belief without appealing to facts or citing evidence.) This seems nearly impossible to perform on a day-to-day, minute-to-minute basis; the idea that one never sheds the skin of "philosopher" seems sort of absurd. If one considers oneself a true philospher, can one ever legitimately seperate from this role and appeal strictly to belief or opinion, etc? To me it seems that to truly practice philosophy, one must devote special attention to the action of this special type of thought. In my social psychology class I've learned that there are two types of cognition: automatic and effortful. I assert that thinking in a philosophical way falls under "effortful," and that it is impractical to believe one engages in effortful thinking every second of every day. In my mind, this seems to place philosophy is the "discipline" category versus the "lifestyle" category, because to me "lifestyle" implies the role of "philosopher" is never shed. I believe philosophical thought can be turned on and off, even by the practiced, trained, educated philosopher, and therefore philosophy is a discipline. It must be considered, though, that the assertion I am presenting is based strictly on my own construct of what "discipline" and "lifestyle" mean.