That's why I gave her a -10-

Yes but you don't prefer reality over the pretense of class, do you? That's why you're using mouth-plums like "shocked you with dismay" and "calling attention to this abysmal outcome" and "urging your use of strong language". Those are hardly inelegant Americanisms. They aren't Americanisms at all. Here are some Americanisms: Good job! Howdy! Y'all! None of those are mouth-plums. Your mouth-plums look far more like an attempt to sound posh than anything I've temerariously deigned to inscribe.

Please do. But until you find out, I'd like to think that the colour of hope is love. What do you think?

You may have shocked me with dismay, but I shocked you with even more dismay in calling attention to the abysmal outcome of so many of you're poemes, urging you're use of mouth-plum language. I don't apogolize.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Whether or not the poeme is a philosophical enquiry is not the point. Please recall your original guffhampton:

"I believe this poem relates to philosophy in the sense that it puts forward premises which it uses to make conclusions."

You claim this poeme puts forward premises which it uses to make conclusions. I claim it doesn't, and have been explaining why. Your latest dumpling has strayed from the point, and we won't get anywhere until you screw your head back on and address the point.

Furthermore, you are *especially* especially thick for not understanding the difference between:

A: Snow is green
B: I, -=Dark_Angel=-, said the words "Snow is green".

A is false. B is true: I said it just now. Please reread the previous post until you understand it.

You are very thick. Logic *isn't* part of philosophy. It's a class of symbol manipulation systems only some of which are sometimes used in philosophy. There are many logics that are used solely in non-philosophical subjects. In other words, 'doing logic' does not mean you are 'doing philosophy'. Not only did you not understand what I said, you still don't know what logic is. That's why I deleted that comment, because I anticipated this colossal gush of idiocy.

You also utterly don't understand what premises and conclusions are, probably because you can't read. Where has Dovina 'put forward' the premise "I love you"? SHE HASN'T. SHE HAS ONLY SAID THAT SHE SAID "I LOVE YOU."

Since you're thick, you won't understand. So here's an example. Compare these two.

1. Snow is green.
2. I said "Snow is green."

The first is false, the second is true. That's because in the first I am putting forward the premise that snow is green, but in the second I am simply reporting that I said that snow is green.

Dovina is simply reporting that she said and realised a series of things. She is not putting those things forward. Please think about this until you understand it, because otherwise you will post more wrong things.

Are you mental?

You're thick, and you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Q: What premises are 'put forward' in this poeme, and what are the conclusions made? A: There aren't any. The entire thing is a report of the author's experience, which at best comprises a single premise. That this poeme is stuffed full of pseudo-philosophical quackisms doesn't somehow mean deduction is involved.

I predict you will argue "But the author has reached a conclusion (that her dictionary is a history, etc.)" However, *reporting* on one's reaching a conclusion (as is done here), without arguing for it, is not at all the same as putting forward premises and using rules to transform the premises into a conclusion. And it's only in the latter sense that philosophy could be said to be involved.

Also, I would like to know what it means for a poeme to be "philosophical in the strict sense."

No, look. I'm not saying that's what you insisted about words. I'm saying it's what philosophers in general insist about words. I don't consider you a philosopher, so you aren't included in that generalisation. Now that your panties have become dislodged from your crotch, maybe you could answer the question:

How does this poem relate philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life?

P.S. Concerning zodiac's misuse of 'your'. He does it because it's funny to say things like 'your gay', 'your dim', 'your a clod'. Not because he doesn't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. Your such an oaf.

"But I agree that the poem presents an appearance of relating philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life."

The way philosophy applies to word definitions is: It takes everyday words which are only used in certain sorts of situations, and tries to determine the "real" definition of those words, such that the definition covers all possible situations and avoids all ambiguity and contradiction.

Of course this endeavour is doomed to buncombe, because most everyday words don't have (or need) a precise definition. Insisting that they must and trying to find out what it is is like insisting on knowing what colour Winston Smith's underpants are. There is no answer, and there won't ever be until George Orwell rises from his grave and writes a prequel to 1984 where Winston frequently appears in his underpants for an hilarious assortment of reasons.

At any rate, what has all this got to do with "relating philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life"?

And for Christ's sake, use linebreaks.