So far, rather than add anything of value to this conversation (of which is apparently below your skill level) or leave it, you have added your definition of philosophy and how this low-level false philosophy is an affront to the 'real' philosophy students.

There has been no argument put forward as to why the position presented is false. Just an ambiguous statement.

What I have often found is those that argue the points learned from others rarely have independent thoughts themselves. In the case of any 'Great conversation', they can merely spectate. Personally, I prefer to play in the lower leagues rather than sit in the stands. Perhaps I'll work my way up the ranks, perhaps not. But having skin in the game makes life more interesting.

I am not well read though. Just a dude that thinks a lot. Maybe all of my thoughts have been thought before and there is not a unique perspective among them. But at least for me, most of them are mine. I am always happy for input from others including criticism but very little time for the dogma of academics or fulfilling the expectations of others.

...And there is no such thing as a 'fine whiskey' to gin drinker. ;)