The reason why I am thinking about this question is that discussion of philosophy is taking part on a forum, which is about sharing ideas. Others may read and think about it alone. As a lone pursuit it may be about a quest for meaning as well as an exploration of the history of ideas.

I am not saying that this is not part of shared group philosophy as well, but within shared discourse the matters take on a different role, in how ideas are ranked socially. This is partly about shared perspectives and partly about popularity of ideas. If a person is thinking about philosophical questions alone it is different to if they are measured against the ideas of others. To some extent, shared philosophy enables dialogue rather than mere searching alone, and even if one asks philosophy questions privately, it is likely that the issues have been discussed with others, or that others' ideas have been read for consideration. However, within philosophy dialogue and debate, there are issues of consensus, and social aspects in which ideas and opinions may be seen as credible, and a person may viewed as successful or a failure for the ideas and arguments which they propose because it is a social pursuit.

The tension which I am pointing to is philosophy as a means of making sense of the world and philosophy as a credible form of knowledge or art. I am not saying that they are completely opposed, but two different aspects and I am asking how the two may be distinguished and juggled? I am asking this partly with the question does it matter what others think of our ideas because, at the end of the day, philosophy may be a way of making sense of life. Does it matter if one is viewed as a successful or not within philosophy?