Can there be a clear answer to a specific philosophical question that most people who understand the question can agree on without diverging into many competing -isms or schools of thought? Maybe instead of looking for THE right answer one could look for very useful and relevant answers.
This was the attitude adopted by the American pragmatists. John Dewey, in Experience and Nature, called this expectation of a singular answer to philosophical questions, and the subsequent search for a grand unifying theory of everything The Philosophical Fallacy.
If one embraces this as a genuine problem, it does not mean that one should reject all the different schools and their -isms. One can simply be a pluralist and say that each speaks to some truth, and perhaps each -ism can speak to some truths that other -isms might not be able to. Dewey speaks about Romanticism in this regard and says that it says (true) things that other philosophies cannot, even though it is otherwise quite objectionable (he is actually quite harsh about it).
So, looking for useful answers does not necessarily mean rejecting -isms, but regarding them as valuable but limited.
Yes, it appears so, assuming that one specific philosophical question will suffice.
I very recently came across Chisholm's Paradox:
Of course, it then goes on: