Though I rely on intuition for the writing of poems and for the general management of my life, the cult of intuition has never tempted me to dispense with reason. One must obviously check intuition by reason whenever possible. Poets are (or ought to be) reasonable people; poems, though born of intuition, are (or ought to be) reasonable entities, and make perfect sense in their unique way. I should not, however, describe either poems or poets as ‘rational.’ ‘Reasonable’ has warm human connotations; ‘rational’ has coldly inhuman ones. To see what I mean, examine the abstract nouns that both adjectives yield. The stock epithet for ‘reasonableness,’ first used by Matthew Arnold, is ‘sweet.’ The usual epithets for ‘rationality’ are not at all affectionate; and those for ‘rationalization’ are often positively crude.
Dear, useful reason! The technique of isolating hard facts from a sea of guess, or hearsay, or legend; and of building them, when checked and counter-checked, into an orderly system of cause and effect! But too much power and glory can be claimed for this technique. Though helpful in a number of routine tasks, Reason has its limitations. It fails, for example, to prompt the writing of original poems, or the painting of original pictures, or the composing of original music; and shows no spark of humour or religious feeling.
Already have an account? Log in
Join KR for even more to read.