Philosophical problems are not solved. They are, rather, appreciated.
What is a philosophical problem? It is some phenomenon that requires explanation. What is a solution to a philosophical problem? In the best case, it is an explanation of the target phenomenon.
But in what sense do explanations solve anything? I posit that the philosopher is not so interested in the solution---the explanation---per se, but in the way of getting to that thought, the way of obtaining a given explanation on one's own. That is why philosophy prizes argumentation to such a strong degree that many professional philosophers actually believe that philosophy just is the study of argumentation. An argument is like a set of instructions for obtaining an insight, namely, the conclusion of the argument; in a similar way as a computer code is a set of instructions for the computer to run a certain program.
The difficulty of obtaining insights in this manner, and of generating and writing arguments that successfully bring others to the insight one wishes to bring them to, just is the difficulty of philosophy. In short, the activity of philosophy is the activity of coming to appreciate philosophical problems and their utter difficulty. Explanations do not solve the problem, because in the case of philosophical problems each individual will encounter at least some of those problems as related to that individual's particular life. For most, finding an adequate explanation is enough. On the contrary, for the philosopher, a solution to the problem is not enough; the philosopher wants to teach others how to come to explanations themselves by learning how to properly appreciate the problems and the kinds of things we can do to generate new insights regarding those problems.