There is no one "true conception of philosophy", which is part of the problem. Introductory philosophy covers a lot of material that isn't, frankly, very important. It gives the impression that philosophers spend their lives asking the same questions over and over for thousands of years, without making any progress on any of it.
None of that is what philosophers actually do for a living. It's comparable to reading an introductory math textbook and coming away with the impression that academic mathematics is about learning to multiply and divide really, really, really well. (And I've seen people who do indeed get that impression.)
It's difficult to describe what philosophy "truly is" because any sufficiently well-defined area of philosophy ceases to be called philosophy. What we call science was originally "natural philosophy", which is why we grant experts in the field Doctorates of Philosophy. The same is true for law, linguistics, and many other areas. What remains is a mishmash of topics unified only by the fact that they do not yet have rigorous boundaries.
I can say, however, that if you go to an academic philosophical conference, it will not sound anything like what most people expect. They are not re-re-re-debating the meaning of the Ship of Theseus, nor are they counting angels on pinheads. Much of it will sound tedious and irrelevant, but the same goes for any specialized field.
I apologize that my above comment sounds dismissive. I was speaking to somebody who I think has experience in the field, and so my statement took a lot of things for granted.