Martin Heidegger was an Existentialist theologian who wrote reams and reams of theology and in one large volume he comes to the end and gives this advice; “Listen to the poet.”
Methinks that Truman is channeling Heidegger who being Existentialist was also at the same time neo-orthodox.
In this paragraph, we read our British Ph.D. make the case of “poetry” over “argumentation.” If he is making an argument for poetry wouldn’t he be better served using poetry to “argue” for poetry? Why provide a rational argument in favor of poetry when poetry is superior to the rational argument?
This idea that somehow the imagination bypasses argumentation and reason is just utter tripe. Even if the imagination “connects” it connects on the basis of some shared univocal point of meaning that was arrived at by the rationality of “line upon line and precept upon precept.”
I have no problem teaching poetry to undergrads. I love poetry. But the argument that poetry is going to circumvent argumentation is an argument that only a Ph.D. could come up with.