I'd say no. But then when I think "philosophy", I think of a specific intellectual discipline, one that embraces two distinct modes of thought and exploration. But first, some history.
Once upon a time, the 3 pillars of philosophy were metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Starting with Kant and ending sometime in the late 19th or early 20th C, with the work of philosopher-mathematicians, if you will (Godel, Russell, etc.), metaphysics went by the wayside. While philosophy was once about exploring how the world might be and what might be beyond the material, prudent philosophers realized that science was now the realm of knowing the world and anything based not on science was basically religion, and not subject to knowability, sharability, falsifiability, etc.
Ethics was next: Lacking metaphysics, lacking a baseline of truth, what was the point in postulating ethics? It does sneak back in, though, more in a moment.
That leaves epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge and knowability.
Modern philosophers of science work rigorously with mathematicians and physicists, among others, to explore epistemological questions, especially those that arise from Godel's incomplete theorem, from various interpretations of quantum mechanics, and from computational complexity.
That's the first of modern philosophy's two areas of expertise: Embracing what is happening in other fields and exploring what those fields have to say about what we can usefully say about what is and is not knowable.
The second area is taking well founded ideas and exploring them fully. My favourite example is Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", which takes the basic notion of reproduction with variation to its logical and sometimes illogical extremes.
What about people who style themselves or are styled as philosophers and who write about art or sociology or religion? And explore those things in ways similar to what I describe above?
If they are doing philosophy, it is pre-20thC, maybe even pre-19thC philosophy, but I see it as critique, essayism, but not as philosophy, not in the modern sense. Occasionally, you'll encounter someone who writes with the same clarity and discipline as those modern philosophers who continue to work the hard problem (epistemology), but those writers are rare.
One of the last great ethics writers was one such: Mackey's Ethics explored the question of how to be ethical, what that meant, taken to its intellectual and living extreme, but he did not explore of the question of why: One's reason for being ethical is personal, metaphysical, subjective. Mackey provides tools and techniques for acting on a decision to live ethically, for exploring that decision.
(You could say that I fall in the old "analytic" camp, and I'd accept that. The "synthetic" camp, IMHO, was mostly emptied in the early 20th C and is now populated with people in love with their own words, with opacity and obscurity, and who have yet to admit that they really wish their science fiction and fantasy writing was taken more seriously or more popularly, or both.)