All right, I’ll phrase the question differently:
I’m looking for academic study that would serve as a continuation of my Torah study in yeshiva.
Is there a particular degree that fits those definitions—one that is not Torah in the object, but Torah in the person?

I continue to insist on avoiding an answer.
I don’t think it’s possible to set a universal rule. Each person according to what builds him. In my view, the humanities and psychology are mostly nonsense, but in the eyes of others they aren’t. I also don’t think the criterion of what counts as Torah study is the right criterion. Study what matters to you and what seems beneficial to you.

Continuing the discussion:
It still hasn’t been clarified for me what the definition of "Torah in the person" is.
If studying philosophy leads me to greater depth in Torah study (it builds foundational assumptions for me, on the basis of which I can understand the essence of religion and Torah—for example, what Maimonides did with Aristotle, explaining the Torah according to his philosophical approach), is that what is meant by "Torah in the person," or is that only "preparation for the commandment" of Torah study?

If by means of them you can understand Torah better, then it is only preparation for a commandment. If those understandings are understandings with value in and of themselves, that is Torah in the person.

Just to be precise, the question is what are "understandings that have value in themselves"?
If, for example, I study Leibowitz’s "Body and Soul," where he explains the psychophysical problem, does that have the value of Torah because it explains to me that "we are not only physics"?
And likewise, if I study René Descartes’ arguments about the soul ("Meditations on First Philosophy"), about how it is more certain than the body and so on—is that Torah? Or Kant and the like?
It’s still not clear to me what an "argument with value" is…
After all, logic also has value, and it still isn’t considered "Torah."
Sorry for being so nitpicky; it’s just not sinking in for me…

Continuation of the previous comment:
Maybe the criterion can be based on what Maimonides wrote:
"A person loves the Holy One, blessed be He, only through the knowledge by which he knows Him, and according to the knowledge will be the love—if little, little; and if much, much. Therefore a person must devote himself to understanding and gaining wisdom in the sciences and insights that make his Creator known to him, according to the capacity that a person has to understand and attain, as we explained in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah."
That is: something that brings one to knowledge of God (which leads to love of Him) is Torah.
Because if we say that "understandings that bring one to love of God" are not Torah—then how can Maimonides say that a person must devote himself to this discipline? Seemingly a person should devote himself to Torah.

Everything you wrote is correct. Those are insights with intrinsic value. By contrast, logic does not have intrinsic value, since it is merely a tool. Though if you were to engage in meta-logic (what it means, etc.), then perhaps you would touch on insights with intrinsic value. By way of analogy: if you study logic as a tool, that is preparatory; but if you study it as a way of understanding our mode of thinking, that is intrinsic value.
But I feel that we are grinding away at an unimportant topic. As stated, all these studies have value, whether as a tool or as an actual commandment. The practical difference is whether to recite the blessing over Torah study, or whether to study even when it doesn’t speak to me. That doesn’t seem to me to be what is bothering you. I think we’ve exhausted it.