One reason for the near-universal uninterest-in/ hostility-towards metaphysics (i.e. the philosophy of our primary assumptions about reality) is that people assume that there is nothing to say about them.
Person 1 claims to assume ABC, while Person 2 asserts BCD, while 3 asserts E and F... and where can we go from there? Each person argues from somewhat, or totally, different premises - and no real discussion seems possible; merely each party asserting his own (possibly unique) point of view...
In practice, however, there is work to be done before any such negative conclusion is possible.
Firstly, most people deny they have any (un-proven/ un-proveable/ un-evidenced/ not-derived-from-logic) primary and foundational assumptions - they would need to come to a point where they acknowledged that they did simply-assume some things as valid (even though unaware of them).
Others might claim assumptions, but closer examination reveals that their self-knowledge was in error: either their true assumptions are significantly/ altogether different than supposed; or else the people have not sufficiently and correctly articulated their own assumptions - and when these assumptions are better stated, perhaps they will no longer be accepted as valid?
One way in which such errors come to light is by identifying assumptions and following them to their implications - to make sure we endorse the implications. Another 'check' is that all the assumptions are compatible, and do not contradict or clash.
So, there is usually a fair bit of work to be done before engagement.
Perfect coherence is not necessary; because all linguistic or mathematical statements of assumptions are secondary and indirect 'models' of reality; simplified hence ultimately wrong; being necessarily selective and biased models of the fullness of reality.
Once assumptions are acknowledged and indentified and found to be sufficiently coherent; then their origins can be looked-into. From whence did these assumptions arise, and what kinds of check have been applied to them?
Are they perhaps spontaneous and intuitive, or were they arrived at from external experts, or from logical analysis; or are they scientific hypotheses - and if so, what is the foundation of the validity of testing them?
What is regareed (assumed to be) the best origin for assumptons - and why?
When one has oneself done metaphysical work, one becomes able to identify others who have done (or are doing) this. Even when/ if that other person settles upon different assumptions, or reaches different conclusions from them; then it is often interesting and helpful to see how they proceed.
I personally am well-disposed towards any well-motivated writer who is making an honest and sustained metaphysical effort - and will usually feel I am learning something worth learning.
In a world where unconscious, unexamined, denied and incoherent metaphysics is not just the norm - but increasingly mandatory and the necessary rationalisation for strategic evil - I feel among friends when I read any real metaphysics, from anyone.
