This text critically examines the ambiguity surrounding the term “convention,” which has yet to achieve a stable or universally accepted definition within the realms of philosophy and science. The author observes that there is no fundamental convention regarding the meaning of “convention” itself, necessitating a preliminary demarcation of the conceptual field for any serious discourse. This study deliberately sets aside linguistic, social, and psychological dimensions, as well as the internal mechanics of conventions within established logical systems. Instead, it focuses on the essential difference between how conventions condition the very establishment of a philosophy compared to a specialized science. A central premise is that philosophy is inherently distinct from science; should it ever adopt the character of a specialized discipline, it would necessarily cease to be philosophy. Thus, the work concentrates on the unique role of conventions in the constitution and historical reconstitution of these two different intellectual paths.