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'll 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?

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?

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'll 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?

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'll 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?