@LittleAlien: No, we chew on the substance by referring to names, because under certain names there are these subtle differences between different takes on the substance. The name of the author is more some kind of a label of a certain understanding of the substance (=exactly what Chris said). And one thing you should learn is that there is no possible way of a holistic and absolute understanding of philosophical 'substance'. That is why they still are philosophical.
I have often thought that the greater part of philosophy undertakes the task of a certain clarification; a bringing into light, reining with boundaries, giving meaning to; pressing forward the frontier of what is well-defined. Philosophy mothers fields into maturity, and releases them only when they are able to speak for themselves.
It follows, as Philip said, that it is precisely the unintelligible which makes a question philosophical.