It is customary to begin a philosophical essay by citing the traditional authorities. The purpose of these citations is to signal to the reader that the author has the authority to speak on the subject, and that the reader should respect this authority.
This is, however, the antithesis of what philosophical thinking is about. Philosophy does not accept authority as a ground of knowledge. That Plato or Aristotle said such-and-such does not add anything to the truth of a claim. Now of course if one were to study the history of philosophy, one must give the highest reverence and respect to all past philosophers, where "reverence and respect" mean a maximally detailed and careful interpretation of the texts and an empathetic reading which is both charitable and critical at the same time. After all, Plato cared about the truth, and caring about the truth implies doubting the truth of one's thoughts every step of the way. The historian of philosophy participates in this process of doubt and re-lives the struggle of these past thinkers.
(Still, there is the question of whether a "canon" of philosophical works is possible. Traditionally, one always began with Plato and Aristotle. However, in the modern age, every educated person has access to the tools of writing. An unknown writer's unpublished works may express the truth in a much more clarifying and piercing manner than Plato's or Aristotle's works, or even than Kant's. The discovery of such works is part of the mission of the historian of philosophy.)
With pure philosophical thinking, the idea of history itself must first be arrived at. No doubt many of the conclusions - especially the earlier conclusions - will be very similar or even identical to what the past thinkers have established themselves. This would be because the earlier thoughts tend to be simpler and hence less ambiguous. Obscurantism, esotericism, and mysticism are not what philosophical thinking accepts. Clarity of thought should be reflected in the clarity of its expression.
The subject-matter of philosophy, nonetheless, is something which is at once extremely familiar and extremely obscure for us: thought itself. We do not need a precise language to grasp the true nature of thought in order to get by our daily lives. We eat, drink, defecate, move, talk, sleep, and wake up. Our bodies grow and our minds wander. In all this, there is absolutely no natural necessity to grasp the nature of thought, anymore than there is a need to grasp intellectually the nature of digestion before digesting food. But philosophy is of such a kind that grasping the nature of thought and thinking well means the same thing.
In order to grasp the nature of thought, it is only one's own thoughts, or the thoughts of the individual thinker, that supply the material for the inquiry. But thought is of such a kind that in its very essence it is at once individual and universal: one's thoughts can be pure thoughts. This is why maintaining anonymity in philosophy is very important, for it helps to focus one's attention on the merit of the thoughts considered by themselves.
