That’s what’s great about philosophy – you just get to pick and choose whatever fits your preconceived notions anyway! For pretty much every point of view, the diametrically opposite is espoused just as fervently by someone or some school of thought, so you’re hardly ever at a loss for alternatives. Afterwards, you just assemble the whole hodgepodge and claim (and perhaps even believe) to have arrived at a reasoned picture of the world, that just happens to look a lot like your original one dressed up in nicer arguments. 
(I’m half-kidding here: while I think it’s only right for every stance to be given its due consideration, this multiplicity – perhaps even homogeneity – surely does a lot to make the field appear both impenetrable and somewhat arbitrary from the outside.)
I think you’ve been whooshed.
Half Man Half Wit: Much like scientists, philosophers use previous theories and postulates to test current ones. Unfortunately this does sometimes lead to the homogeneity you spoke of. In order to disprove those theories however it is necessary to understand them. As a result a broad knowledge base is necessary. This does not necessarily lead to a view “that just happens to look a lot like your original one dressed up in nicer arguments,” as like everyone else, the philosopher is changed by being exposed to different ideas. As a result what may have been a dichotomy when the philosopher originally espouses a theory ends up being a more gentle divergence after understanding of the various data.
- Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, First Meditation