The question of this OP is, what, for you, are your anchors in your thinking-about-thinking, which is what I take philosophy to be? Or another way, when you're done, how do you know you've done anything other, or more, than merely entertain yourself? — tim wood

So, this is a great question. To me, philosophy is essential, as Plato described to shine the light into the cave and reach a higher understanding of the world, and perhaps more importantly, ones-self. I see this manifest in elucidating the workings of how we learn to use and operate language, a la Wittgenstein.

I know you like Kant, and so do I. I think his work really was a Copernican revolution in philosophy. What are your thoughts about what Kant did and how it relates to Wittgenstein?

No hijacking, especially in the second post! Try answering. If Wittgenstein is your answer (god alone knows how!) then make your case.

Try answering. If Wittgenstein is your answer (god alone knows how!) then make your case. — tim wood

I shall try. So, taking a methodological approach to the concerns of philosophy, which can only take place in the form of language and communication, then the forefront runner in trying to tackle the issue of how philosophy ought to be done is best discovered through Wittgenstein. Circular you might say.

Wittgenstein provided us with the tools as to how to analyze language and its use. The fly trapped in the glass bottle is elucidating because we tend to use language in all sorts of befuddled ways. I'm no authority on Wittgenstein; but, if philosophy is meant to be therapeutic, which philosophy is essentially existential or originates from existential questions like "Why?", then I don't see how else to describe it than pointing someone towards what Wittgenstein had to say about our bewitchment with language. Still, circular you might say...

It is a peculiarity of philosophical activity that the investigation of the nature, tasks, and methods of philosophy constitutes a most important part of the whole enterprise. Every 'revolution' in philosophy involves essentially a radical change in the conception of philosophy itself. Therefore, I am apprehensive to assert that philosophy progresses in a linear and dialectical manner. The most recent "event" in philosophy is undoubtedly Wittgenstein and what he had to say about language. So, contextually speaking, if we seek to understand what the heck is going on in philosophy, then we must acquaint ourselves with how philosophy was reinterpreted by past great thinkers that introduced a paradigm shift.

If traditional philosophy is characterized as different attempts at answering various philosophical questions then Wittgenstein's philosophy may be characterized as a systematic questioning of the questions themselves. Wittgenstein was reported to have said that he didn't solve philosophical problems, but rather dissolved them. And, if the sake of resolution is clarity, then the complete dissolvement of these questions is what is sought after, which has been elaborated by Wittgenstein himself to such great lengths.

“what, for you, are your anchors in your thinking-about-thinking“

For me, explore various theoretical/speculative philosophies concerning knowledge, find one that fits into my personal set of cognitive prejudices, analyze it to a fare-thee-well, and if it still fits......treat it as my own.

I must say, though, that when I write something along a philosophical bent, come back to it some time later and don’t hate it, I have entertained myself.

I must say, though, that when I write something along a philosophical bent, come back to it some time later and don’t hate it, I have entertained myself. — Mww

Well, me too!

So, taking a methodological approach to the concerns of philosophy, — Wallows

It's a very nice post, Wallow, but why not pick at it? In taking a "methodological approach," you're already presupposing a set of concerns and an entire argument about them.

which can only take place in the form of language and communication, — Wallows

Um, well, what does Wittgenstein say, if anything, about logic and symbolic logic including maths? I'm asking, not arguing. If you're defining a region; i.e., that which falls within Wittgenstein's bailiwick, then so far you've indicated a region of concerns, but not ground or anchors.

if philosophy is meant to be therapeutic, which philosophy is essentially existential or originates from existential questions like "Why?", then I don't see how else to describe it than pointing someone towards what Wittgenstein had to say about our bewitchment with language. Still, circular you might say... — Wallows

Bewitchment? Ok, but how does Wittgenstein break the spell - or does he?

if we seek to understand what the heck is going on in philosophy, then we must acquaint ourselves with how philosophy was reinterpreted by past great thinkers that introduced a paradigm shift. — Wallows

I've heard it said that the history of philosophy just is philosophy. I've read enough to encounter for myself the encounter of ideas, enough to know that many so-called insights are in substance reactions to something, borrowing strength, as it were, from that which they oppose, and in particular lacking strength to stand independently. I take Descartes and scholastic realism to be a thinker and a thinking, each of which had their day, but that now belong to the history rather than the current concerns of philosophy.

If traditional philosophy is characterized as different attempts at answering various philosophical questions then Wittgenstein's philosophy may be characterized as a systematic questioning of the questions themselves. Wittgenstein was reported to have said that he didn't solve philosophical problems, but rather dissolved them. And, if the sake of resolution is clarity, then the complete dissolvement of these questions is what is sought after, which has been elaborated by Wittgenstein himself to such great lengths. — Wallows

In my opinion, it would be worthy instruction if you could lay out one example of such a question or problem, and its dissolution, it it has been "dissolved."

It's a very nice post, Wallow, but why not pick at it? — tim wood

That is my only hope. That people pick at my posts. :)

In taking a "methodological approach," you're already presupposing a set of concerns and an entire argument about them. — tim wood

That's true. But, if you want to take a Buddhist slant, all that's left is pure awareness, when every prejudice, opinion, and rationalization is dissolved away.

Um, well, what does Wittgenstein say, if anything, about logic and symbolic logic including maths? I'm asking, not arguing. — tim wood

This piece of Wittgenstein's wisdom was instilled in his Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus. I had a reading group on it and realized that I need to study logic with more rigor. Logic is the foundation of every rational inquiry. So, to end this paragraph with a soft tone, then I suppose if you were to really care about philosophy, then critical thinking and sharpening of it are pertinent.

If you're defining a region; i.e., that which falls within Wittgenstein's bailiwick, then so far you've indicated a region of concerns, but not ground or anchors. — tim wood

Can you expand on how you define what you mean by ground and anchors? I feel as though you're talking about certainty or ground-rock beliefs? Is that correct?

Bewitchment? Ok, but how does Wittgenstein break the spell - or does he? — tim wood

It's hard to systematize very personal reasons and inclinations into some clear and concise paragraph or two. I suppose one can say that Wittgenstein shows the way for the fly to get out of the bottle. The reasons why the fly is unhappy in the bottle can differ substantially for each person. Again, according to Wittgenstein, philosophy is therapeutic. And, boy did that guy have deep issues that he grappled with. Multiple suicides in a family, war trauma (undoubtedly), feelings of intense pressure to perform. Perfectionist tendencies, that didn't help at all also.

I've heard it said that the history of philosophy just is philosophy. — tim wood

Well, this seems to be a de dicto assertion. The interesting stuff starts when we engage in philosophy, de re.

I've read enough to encounter for myself the encounter of ideas, enough to know that many so-called insights are in substance reactions to something, borrowing strength, as it were, from that which they oppose, and in particular lacking strength to stand independently. I take Descartes and scholastic realism to be a thinker and a thinking, each of which had their day, but that now belong to the history rather than the current concerns of philosophy. — tim wood

Yeah, some ideas persist over time just because they are so profound. Like the cogito or Kant's conception of reason and it's a critique.

In my opinion, it would be worthy instruction if you could lay out one example of such a question or problem, and its dissolution, it it has been "dissolved." — tim wood

Wittgenstein argued that he had dissolved all the problems of philosophy through his Tractatus and Investigations. All, not any in particular. Pragmatism is (in my opinion) a specialized extention of what Wittgenstein had to say, so you might want to consider their linguistic analysis.