system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is it that some philosophies translated into religions whereas others did not?

I’m a bit concerned about what makes a philosophy a religion and at what point does it become a religion.

For example, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism are philosophies but to many they are also religions, and atleast one of them is a world religion. How did it get this way and at one point does something stop becoming just a philosophy and become a religion as well? and more importantly why haven’t other philosophies (even in a relative time period) did not catch on?

As a frame of reference, why didn’t stoicism, or any Greek philosophy, have a similar outcome?
gpt
Since philosophy is such a broad term, what we today ultimately call "philosophy" might not be what people in earlier periods or of different traditions call "philosophy". For instance, the Western philosophical tradition during the middle ages seems to be inseparable from theology. But there were many elements of scholastic philosophy that were not solely concerned with religion. Additionally, in Plato and in Aristotle we see religion pop up in their texts, though it is clearly not as dominant a topic compared to scholasticism.  

&#x200B;

I think it is important to think about this problem historically/sociologically. What were the dominant forces in the society that contributed to a higher degree of "religious" influence or sentiment within that society's philosophy? 

&#x200B;

If you are not interested in the historical analytic approach, then also consider the idea that all of us at some point have to reckon with faith in something beyond ourselves. Some philosophers take that idea much more seriously than others, which might mean that their philosophy is of a distinctively religious flavour.