so not only do you dog on normal people you are also equate them simpliciter with people that pretend they can't be refuted.
Cod philosophy
- Thread starter User 301X/5.1
- Start date
you get the idea cod and fake philosophy don't seem to be the same. IT HAS DIFFERENT ENTRIES IN MY ENCYCLOPEDIA FFS. I am a returning poster please ban me so i don't have to talk to these morons tho i await patiently for an appeal wrt my original account. thanks.
Is what WHAT???????? is in reference to.
Firstly, the commonly accepted definition of cod philosophy is not the one that the thread opener posted up. It is not to do with 'folk' or 'naive' philosophy, it is to do with talking crap and pretending that you are engaged in some meaningful dialogue/arguement/whatever.
Secondly, if you had looked at the endless threads filled with sub-nihilist bollocks that inspired the calling of cod philosophy in the first place, you would know how many of the people involved deal with efforts to refute their arguements/position. Falsifiable it ain't. Popper eat your heart out.
Thirdly, seeing you seem intent on questioning peoples credentials as a means of presumably ad hominem attack, I graduated from Manchester University with a first class BA(hons) in Philosophy. Not that that in any way qualifies me more than anybody else, and not that I use it in any constructive way on a day to day basis, but just FYI.
i don't know how you thought i was questioning any credentials wtf was that all about 'confusion'.
anyway yeah my isp is going to nail me i have an excuse for everything
anyway yeah my isp is going to nail me i have an excuse for everything
please sir can we take away your one contact with the outside world tsk never going to happen anyway i'm not trolling sorry i just had a point to make originally i forget what.
and how can a refutation never be an objectiove fact 
eta: my definitions are much better i mean there's more than 1 type of bad philosophy... this is schiz-philosophy btw :lol:
as i said via pm [misconstrued as a threat!] was that the only evidence so far for that definition of cod is a misanthropic intuition. i don't see that being particularly fool proof
eta: my definitions are much better i mean there's more than 1 type of bad philosophy... this is schiz-philosophy btw :lol:
as i said via pm [misconstrued as a threat!] was that the only evidence so far for that definition of cod is a misanthropic intuition. i don't see that being particularly fool proof
know your place! wow that's applicable to both my enemies.
eta: also don't see how 'refutation' is psychologistic i mean what word do you use to say that you've proven someone wrong regardless of whether they accept that... refute surely. yeah maybe you're right and it's 'pwn' or something. i'm sure that plenty of philosophers use the term refute instead of pwn tho i mean if a philosopher defends an idea [like the meaning of refute] it tends to be rationally defensible to an extent - IME you won't get marks for thinking like that but it's certainly better way to learn a subject critically surely
eta: also don't see how 'refutation' is psychologistic i mean what word do you use to say that you've proven someone wrong regardless of whether they accept that... refute surely. yeah maybe you're right and it's 'pwn' or something. i'm sure that plenty of philosophers use the term refute instead of pwn tho i mean if a philosopher defends an idea [like the meaning of refute] it tends to be rationally defensible to an extent - IME you won't get marks for thinking like that but it's certainly better way to learn a subject critically surely
