italicising words sometimes act like punctuation marks, or simply an emphasis used or missing, to involve punctuation, even i loose the plot upon rereading because of this rubric of unsaid laws of writing.
for all of kant's efforts
to create the categorical imperative,
i haven't read a single
book of philosophy that
stated the only categorical imperative
of whatever narration
under the sun, with the odd
balancing act referring to grammatical
words of categorisation,
whereby you didn't care much
about how moral your activity was,
but how moral your expression
of neither moral nor immoral your
activity could be;
immoral expression of the same circumstance?
oh, like modern journalistic censorship
of f**k ****** it all to hell, hmm?
that's about it.
Feb 14, 2016
Feb 14, 2016 at 9:52 PM UTC
italicising words sometimes act like punctuation marks, or simply an emphasis used or missing, to involve punctuation, even i loose the plot upon rereading because of this rubric of unsaid laws of writing.
for all of kant's efforts
to create the categorical imperative,
i haven't read a single
book of philosophy that
stated the only categorical imperative
of whatever narration
under the sun, with the odd
balancing act referring to grammatical
words of categorisation,
whereby you didn't care much
about how moral your activity was,
but how moral your expression
of neither moral nor immoral your
activity could be;
immoral expression of the same circumstance?
oh, like modern journalistic censorship
of f**k ****** it all to hell, hmm?
that's about it.