How does philosophy advance despite irreconcilable background assumptions ("positions") on every topic?

Question

In philosophy there are always, and on almost everything, many "positions", many different possibilities to choose from, and there isn't mainly some decisive conclusion between positions as to what's "true" or what's "right" to choose between all those positions.

I have many questions regarding this fact, but mainly I'd like to ask, especially those of you here that are familiar with the academia, how do professional philosophers work that way? How can a discussion happen between two philosophers with conflicting positions, on a topic that relates to their different opinions?

And more than a discussion - how can a logical enquiry be made in a certain field where there are so many different positions to choose from to make the enquiry? Such enquiry will be relevant only to the philosophers who maintain the same position as the researcher - so how can a healthy (and I might say "scientific") discussion be made in the field?

And if I'm going to a more concrete direction, how can philosophy "progress" (loaded term, but I'm not sure how else to express this) with everyone coming with different premises to the topics it needs to attack? In so many discussions I had and have heard the endpoint of the arguments always reaches the most basic premise the debaters have about the subject where they disagree. And that's simply a common issue with day-to-day argumentation, in philosophy there are pillars of premises where the two debaters disagree. How can a discussion be made?

Answer 1

In an ordinary debate, the goal is (theoretically) functional --to reach a single, objective, best conclusion, proceeding from shared premises, via the route of eliminating falsehoods, confusions, and logical errors.

A philosophical debate may appear superficially similar, but its actual goal is to illuminate and elaborate the shape and the implications of the incompatible premises of the debaters. (Philosophers being exactly the people who are not inclined to accept standard premises.) It may not be clear which type of argument is being engaged in until you observe whether the argument is called off or not after it becomes clear that the premises are incompatible.

This perhaps explains why philosophical debate is so frustrating for non-philosophers (and why it never concludes).

Answer 2

Don't say 'scientific'. That is a terrible model, because objective verifiable experiences are the arbiter, rather than internal ones.

Philosophy clusters, around key problems. What is consciousness? How do we create a just and stable society? What is the relationship between minds and ideas, and the world? People pick their areas of interest and research, and read up.

It is a mistake to think philosophy is, or is aimed at, a set of truths - just the same as it would be to view science like that. What is important is the practice, the culture, the tools you yourself can take up and go to work with. Science never 'concludes' either. But you get really good models, that account for a lot of things, are powerful and flexible without being clunky and intractable - but tentative, based on caveats, subject always to review. That's just like philosophy.

The idea of philosophical practice as just unfolding premises, like imagining maths is like that, mistakes a pedagogical device and a systemising mode that generally comes late in an subjects development, for the creative practice. Wittgenstein started with premises. But the work he his really respected for and are lastingly influential, is the Philosophical Investigations where he employs a clearly ad hoc evolving method of direct enquiry, only later systemised by others into for instan e what we now call the Private Language argument. Nietzsche too used such an approach, frequently contradicting himself, seeming to go in circles, or go on tangents - and stumbling on his best ideas.

Yes define terms, yes find common ground. But, atheists didn't and are never going to win Christians over - they just got on with having more interesting discussions that more people wanted to hear, and now the theological debates once at the core of philosophy are almost forgotten. If someone says they won the argument because of their premises, but they have nothing interesting to say - who cares about them? It is the joint endeavour to collectively understand thaf creates great debates and philosophy, not some ridiculous notion of 'winning'. We all win, in so far as we become better able to understand our lives and the world.

Answer 3

The question is fair but it may be confused about the purpose of arguing about theories and the premises on which they are founded.

It is important that we knock-down our premises at every opportunity. Over time we discover that certain premises cannot be knocked-down and then we know we are making progress. Lack of progress is usually the result of a reluctance to abandon premises that can be knocked-down and a preference for a form of philosophy that is tolerant of bad ideas and non-threatening to our belief system, whatever it happens to be.

The first purpose of our theories is to test the plausibility of our premises. We need to know the theory does not reduce the premises to absurdity. In philosophy our theories nearly always render our premises absurd since most premises are wrong, but every time we reduce a premise to absurdity this is progress.

Regrettably progress usually ends where our favourite premises come under threat. Thus whole traditions of philosophy can be seen to make no progress.