I shall make a plaque and hang it above my computer to ever remind of the wisdom I’ve learned this enlightening evening: There is no anything without words, so saying there is no philosophy without them is crap. The words of zodiac

Yes, in "Solitude" I rhymed foe with abode whch stands to this day as one of poemranker's finest and most unusual iambic vowel chimes.

I omitted a few items from the transcript.

Only if you decide to interpret it that way.

Jesus. I just found this message and evacuated into my pants. For one thing, no one on this site credits you with too much reason. We credit the human race in general with a capacity for reason - most of which, we're well aware, is regularly and somewhat disgustingly pissed upon by aspiring poetes such as yourself. For another thing, "find fascination" is not a real English construction; rather, it's what I've come to identify as "typically Dovina" - an ignominious category chockfull of such gems as "realized its reciprocal" and "discover all that I've made quite pleasing". For yet another thing, your bumming on about "strictly philosophical" anything, including that bum bum-filled bum of a "strangled verse" above is totally nuts. You'd have done much better to answer -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment something like: "Almost any poem I, Dovina, can think of (except my own) is philosophically sound, meaning roughly that it can be regarded using the tools or language of philosophers without being found totally bum," instead of just proving his point. Frost's "The Road not Taken," for example, is more-than-adequately philosophical, proposing as it does that the profit from blindly picking only one of two more-or-less equivalent options (and without later knowing the result of picking the other option) is pretty much unknowable and only in the mind of the chooser, who thinks, man I'm sure lucky I picked this option, I'm a great chooser. And I bet you thought the road less travelled by really does make all the difference. And for another thing, there is no anything without words, so saying there's no philosophy without them is crap and a cheap dis. And for another thing, "the only things we can talk about logically are words and numbers" is simply wrongheaded. We can only talk about anything with words and numbers, so obviously thinking logically about them is pretty important. And for another thing, saying "if so, there is no fun, and without fun, what good is logic." is bum twice-over and mispunctuated. This is essentially equivalent to saying both, "without harnesses and polo horses, there is no fun" AND "without fun, what good is sewage-treatment?" Bum and bum.

I misspelled blurred.