I attempted a reply to part of the OP (about "love") a few days ago, and then thought better of it. As others have said, there is a lot here to take in and reply to all at once. But for that very reason, it seems a shame just to let it go. So I'll start again, this time from the beginning, and stop when I've said a mouthful.
When I say philosophy I should stipulate that I mostly mean essentialistic philosophy, or philosophy in the form of a quest to achieve wisdom or enlightenment -
This threw me, right at the outset. I had to look up "essentialism", and I couldn't relate what I found to what you were saying. So I'll have to pass on that.
the belief that there is wisdom and a philosophic answer to be had for the treasure-seeker philosopher.
OK, I'll take it that that is what "essentialism" means in the present context. In that case, I'll put myself down as an "essentialist" (even though I've always thought of myself as a kind of "existentialist" - see part of my problem?).
I believe such philosophy is a phenomenon that finds its roots in language and the impact language has on us both socially and psychologically -
This is a hugely important phenomenon, one which needs to be thought about long and hard. It's a quite visceral reality. It is also quite plausible to me that all philosophy is a response to it. You would disagree, I presume, but at least we can both see, and agree, that our disagreement derives entirely from my being what you call an "essentialist", and your not being an "essentialist": for, unless I'm mistaking your meaning (quite likely!), you are not saying that all
philosophy is rooted in a response to language and its socio-psychological impact on us, only that all "essentialist" philosophy is so rooted, therefore I, with my vision limited by my "essentialism", will almost inevitably make the mistake of seeing all
philosophy as being so rooted. Is that correct, so far?
as opposed to being rooted in some innate awareness that there are 'master-answers' in the universe that need to be discovered through the process of rigorous thinking and dialectic.
Here again I am confused and brought up short by what you are saying, or what you seem to be saying. I see no necessary opposition - no contradiction, no conflict - between, on the one hand, believing that all philosophy is rooted in the impact of language (may I put that as, all philosophy is a struggle with language?), and, on the other hand, believing that hard thinking can, with luck, deliver us some answers to philosophical questions (or, if "questions" presupposes language too uncritically, then "problems"), and perhaps even some wisdom, or even enlightenment. I don't know about "master-answers", though. What do you mean by that term? On the face of it, it would seem to imply a certain hubris, a certain arrogance about the capacities of the merely human mind, in a mysterious universe which may be forever beyond our ken.
I believe language can instill in us concepts and ideas that don't really exist outside of our heads. It can introduce ideals and arouse questions that don't really have meaning outside our heads as well. They are basically trick questions, but the questioner himself doesn't realize that.
I'm with you so far (with the reservations so far stated). This is part of the "impact" of language. It bewitches us (is that the way Wittgenstein put it?), hypnotises us, leads us into illusion, into self-deception, into bad faith. That in itself is a major topic to think about. Examples would be helpful, so I will propose a few: (1) mental illness; (2) perversion; (3) morality; (4) reality; (5) self; (6) science; (7) God; (8) gender. In each case, (1)-(8), I suspect that language plays tricks on us. Not the same kind of trick in each case. I'm sure everybody has pet examples of their own; I'm just listing a few of my own, to pin my airy generalisations down to Earth. I don't particularly feel like talking about any of these things now!
Things like "what is truth" and "what is our purpose" are examples of language and communication skewed because they were never meant to be taken out of the context that evaluates them. Such as "is what you say the truth?" The evaluation of the term is "what you say" which tells us that by using "truth" they're probably asking if the person is lying or not.
Funnily enough, I recently responded to Reconstructo's questions about truth and its uses in a way very like this. So again, I'm with you, at least in part. I also wish to dissent; but I think I'll leave my dissent for another post (if this conversation continues), because I've already said a mouthful, or two.