Concerning "bachelors are unmarried men", please look here: http://www.thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_2/6b_chapter_02.htm
The proposition "bachelors are unmarried men" may appear in people's minds in one of two ways. Either (1) we arrived empirically at the idea that "there are unmarried men" and then decided to attach a name to this phenomenon, viz. "bachelor"; or (2) we found texts about "unmarried men", and other texts about "bachelors" and eventually realized from context that the two terms are equivalent. In case (1) although the new name being attached is a conventional act, there is no added knowledge, and it is ridiculous to speak of "analysis", not to mention that "unmarried men" is a concept based on experience (of men, of the social institution of marriage). In case (2) the tying together of two separate threads is not an "analytic" equation but an inductive act based on observation of contexts of use, and understanding of these contexts depends on experience of course. Try doing all that with the content-less "C are BA" - is even this analytic truth?
As regards, taking into consideration the perception of "words on the page" as you put it - this relates to mathematical proofs. Many mathematical proofs are based on the manipulation of symbolic objects (whether as ink on paper or dots on a computer screen or in mental imagination). The behavior of these symbolic objects are effectively the empirical basis of the mathematical principles. The fact that physical objects like apples or mental objects like imagined apples are not used, but symbols like a, b, c changes nothing to the empiricism involved. Without the visualization of something there is no mathematical proof. So it cannot be said to be purely analytical, i.e. purely based on rational insight, without any content whatsoever. Similarly in logic - the laws of thought have no meaning if not "applied" to something more concrete. Even spoken in terms of symbols (as in "A is A") their meaning proceeds form the concrete percepts involved (A, is).
As I said before, to ignore some elements of one's own discourse, and try to formulate philosophical, logical or mathematical ideas without taking into account ALL its constituents, is idiocy.
Something about you (optional) logician-philosopher
