For example: take Free Will. Philosopher A argues Human Free Will is so and so, and Philosopher B argues that Human Free Will is something else. Happens a lot, right?

The general consensus is that each philosopher is referring to the "same" free will but their intepretations differ. But, you know, why do we have to assume they're writing about the "same" concept? It's not like there's some mysterious Ideal of Free Will floating above each of our heads. After all, my Will is different from yours. From the written evidence, I can just as easily argue that each philosopher is writing about a DIFFERENT Free Will, which is why they can't seem to agree. They're not interpreting the SAME concept differently. They're writing about different concepts but calling it by the same name.

And this problem is not just about "Free Will." Let's say internet user Bob says "The West is good," and internet user Harry says "no, the West is evil." Are they even talking about the "same" West? Perhas the reason they disagree is because Bob and Harry are each thinking of a different West. Just because two people call their concepts by the same name doesn't mean they're thinking about the same concept.