Reading something Hegelian. Russian, but old Russian, of the right kind of Hegel. To do this kind of thinking is an uphill battle -- and most of the work coming out of he universities is of very little help -- a few prominent exceptions, and thankfully a lot of their stuff is available.
The universities sometimes take useful thought in odd directions. Consider Peirce, polymath philosopher, one of the most brilliant American minds, and in profound dialogue with the central philosophical force of the last century in James/Dewey pragmatism -- and the majority of work on his stuff focuses on very thin slice of semiotics, obsessed over as a superficial framework for a heavily left-leaning critique.
So I trust my own lights, of necessity. Sive necessitatis. And the transcendental focus that's essential for my thinking is grounded in the sacramental character of the Catholic faith. Some might say this risks falling between two schools, but the reality is different. While Socrates might have had some reservations about the cult of Asclepius, the philosophy of the Enlightenment was largely written by folks well-steeped in Christian concerns, and with the seed of faith, certain purposes were being fulfilled.
And coming to the schools with a sacramental faith provides a purposiveness, something far more productive than simply using the professors as mimetic models, and taking on their concerns unreservedly. Wittgenstein didn't knock on Russell's door as an acolyte -- they spent the evening arguing, and BR wasn't able to prepare for the lecture he was to give later that evening.
You must have your own purposes. The sacramental character of life can ground you in the life you seek to examine.