Do not be cross with poetry

[shemthepenman]

aha! you caught my drunk annoyed post that i immediately regretted and deleted. touché!

however, i am in a mischievous mood. so let's try for a rebuttal. it will have to be immanent because, quite frankly, i cannot remember the context [either of what you were saying or what i was arguing against]

if your thesis [again, can't remember] is the opposite assertion "an understood poem is one more fully enjoyed", then i suggest you look up the word empirical. both understanding and enjoyment are subjective states. if you can empirically observe either, then you are a wizard and teach me your secrets. however, if you mean that you have been told "i understood that poem, therefore i enjoyed it" [which i highly doubt], this is anecdotal evidence, at best. i have heard said, often, "i don't know what you just said, but i like it!" who wins?

my imperical evidence for people preferring poems they understand is that easily understood poems are way more popular and pervasive in current culture than obtuse difficult ones #aintgottimeforthat

again, this is not empirical evidence. firstly you are presuming that your definition of more easily understood is what is popular [a subjective determination]; and secondly that what is popular is understood. none of this leads to empirical evidence for your thesis.

i suppose i just found some irony in you using a made up word to further your argument about meaning. i also recognise that actually i was being the pompous twat, again, why i deleted the comment.

Google defines irregardless. I consider it a word, like ain't.

yeah, i know that. i was being silly. but still, that ain't a word. just to show some goodwill, once a girlfriend said to me "irrespective..." and i laughed and was like "that's not a. . ." and she was like "i said irrespective" and laughed at me. so, being a judgemental prick means you have to roll with the punches. s'all i'm saying.

so, that's that. oh, and whoever said about their 'philosophy teacher' thing doesn't sound legit. i don't know any philosophy professors [and i know a fair few] who would say that. in fact, i think it's Descartes 101 to make that argument.

I can only tell you it happened... I don't guess he was a fan of Descartes.....

ok i trust. but still, that is a fundamental argument of the western tradition of philosophy [not to mention the countless philosophers engaged in the question of theodicy. . . i could go on]; and for a philosophy professor to even bat and eye at this [centuries old] argument should have inspired you to have asked for some credentials, cos' that sounds like someone your college just dragged off the street. anyway, cool.