-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.21 Nov 2004

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.