I am wary of criticizing the discipline of philosophy simply on the grounds that not everyone in it agrees with me.
Wrong meta-level. It’s not disagreement with you, it’s a long list of specific reasons that move you to a long list of specific conclusions that are different from those of many other philosophers.
That depends what the conclusion is supposed to be. If it is just that philosophers X, Y and Z are wrong, then you are right—he can simply bring forward arguments a, b and c to show this.
However, his claim is stronger than that. He is claiming that these philosophers (or at least many of them) are not in the truth business. His philosophical arguments may show that the other philosophers are wrong, but it won’t follow that they are not sincere in trying to find answers and solve problems. For that he needs something like: they can’t really be trying to find the truth, otherwise they would agree with me (at least on these “simple” matters).
Wrong meta-level. It’s not disagreement with you, it’s a long list of specific reasons that move you to a long list of specific conclusions that are different from those of many other philosophers.
That depends what the conclusion is supposed to be. If it is just that philosophers X, Y and Z are wrong, then you are right—he can simply bring forward arguments a, b and c to show this.
However, his claim is stronger than that. He is claiming that these philosophers (or at least many of them) are not in the truth business. His philosophical arguments may show that the other philosophers are wrong, but it won’t follow that they are not sincere in trying to find answers and solve problems. For that he needs something like: they can’t really be trying to find the truth, otherwise they would agree with me (at least on these “simple” matters).