Settlement and Philosophical Growth
Philosophical questions are almost never settled. The debate keeps on evolving. More refined arguments and counter-arguments come up.
However, unlike the problems themselves which evolve on, an individual studying a problem ultimately adopts one particular answer to it, which satisfies him, and moves on from the debate considering it settled. He may then continue to engage in the debate, but it will be as a person who is advancing a philosophical position and trying to refuting its opponent position. The debate will proceed to become external from internal. The few cases in which the internal debate continues on is when we begin to live with the philosophical questions that haunt and intrigue us.
For instance, an eager philosopher in his early youth explores the theistic-atheistic debate in philosophy, and soon he'll come to adopt one of the answers: he will feel that the debate is settled for him, and he'll move on, and once he has, he is not likely to revisit the issue, even though the debate would have progressed to greater depths. Same is true for many other problems.
Such a settlement in favour of this or that philosophical position is perhaps a psychological necessity, and is not without advantages in conserving our energies. It would be impossible for us to remain in continuous debate regarding all existing philosophical issues. One can only live with a few questions. However, I feel the ability to genuinely revisit a debate is a requirement for philosophical growth, and it is something we must seek to acquire.