The chief lesson I have drawn is that reaching consensus is not an important criterion for progress in philosophy. This is true in several areas of my own professional life, including in my discussions with colleagues, in my own study of philosophical texts, and in my own philosophical research.

First, there is much be learned by exploring diverse perspectives to complex philosophical issues. My best discussions with colleagues are ones where we understand and explore the differences between our philosophical views; when this occurs, I rarely end up agreeing with others but I frequently gain new insight nonetheless.

Second, this lack of agreement among philosophers—which occurs at so many levels--is itself a fascinating intellectual phenomenon. As an historian of philosophy, I am often enthralled by the ways that philosophers' thoughts about a single issue or idea have changed over time.

Finally that philosophical questions and issues are not amenable to simple answers is exciting to me as a scholar: the same intellectual characteristics that lead to a lack of consensus mean that I and other philosophers have a wealth of opportunities to contribute to the discipline in diverse, creative ways.