A poet, wandering,
in thoughts, wondering:
If all that's imaginable,
is logical applicable.
 

Thoughts and truths analysing,
conditions and merits conceptualising,

intentional definitions venturing,
the falsification endeavoring,
 

He finds bearing in this world of knowledges,

- and yes: a plural noun because knowledge is -

This poem is his legacy, although it,
is the writing of a lazy poet.
 

Our poet challenges scepticism,
with Locke’s realism: physicalism
and Berkely’s idealism: phenomenalism.

The final blow in this battle,
after Hume’s fork of logical empiricism,

is the enlightenment of nonsense
by meaningful verificationism.

The poets - he is two in dualism,
mind and body in Descartes interactionism,

or, if you’d choose parallelism,
Leibniz’ harmony is - and if not occasionalism,

or Spinoza’s One, or one-way epiphenomenalism.

And might he be one in monism,
Ryle conceives logical behaviorism,
Nagel’s brain states reductive materialism,

others mere functionalism,
on the merits of supervenialism.

The Churchlands rebut with eliminativism,

categorizing mental states as mysticism,

and if you judge this pragmatism,
you are welcome in the land of idea-lism.

Our poet is all but a fatalist,
Sees the consequences of the causal determinist,

Objects to the irresponsible incompatibilist,

(whether it is the hard determinist
or the free libertarianist).
 

The subject of our story is a compatibilist,

one could even say he is an over-determinist.
And might you question if he is,
like to ponder in identity analysis?
When you get stuck in memory, character or psychological continuism,
Be assured he simply is, because of
personal identity primitivism.
 

The poet we get to know in these phonetics,

is a moral actor in all his ethics,
be it moral realism,
or it’s creative antagonism: moral antirealism 

or (anti)naturalism, (non)cognitivism,

emotivism, prescriptivism or quasi-realism,

he is/tries to be/act good/responsible,

although none of these are imposable.

But in his day-to-day ethical normativism,

he is lost in the conceptual schism,
acts, reflects on Bentham's utilitarianism,

and then switches to general deontologicalism,

feels unrest in Kant’s categorical imperativism,
seeks contextualisation in pluralistic formalism.

And everytime he questions if he should,

he answers in Mill’s different scales of “good”.
 

Our poet, an actor, a civilian,
lives his life between multi billion.
Willingly hands, (as Hobbes understands),
part of his freedom from chains,
for it is positive freedom he gains.

But despite Rawls’ just distribution,
his liberty is just this illusion,
that Nozick’s libertarianism,
did him choose his altruism.
 

Concluding with a joke for insiders,
with the boundless freedom of poet writers,
I enlarge this unhinged glossaryism,
with a proposed category for our poet: Timism.
 

Timism: Over-extensive word usage incompatible with libertarian poetry causing fatal omissions in any extensional definition.
R.Holmes, 30-10-2020