the place of poetry among discourses

[milo]

How do you tune it out? It's not poetry, it's a philosophical argument and I think it's fair to say that I'm entitled to make judgments as to the philosophies I follow and those I dismiss. In ideas about poetry, nobody has for me surpassed Boccaccio, though Shelley comes close. Although I wouldn't take instructions from him about crossing the street, I tend to remain quite true to Barthes as well. And Kierkegaard. With a little bit of Heideggerian pomposity thrown in. How? They're all a little bit different, but then so am I on any two given occasions.

You clearly haven't learned the most fundamental of truths, though. Poetry is like religion: if you don't want people calling you a wanker and occasionally threatening violence against you, don't bring it up in conversation. And whatever you do, don't expect people to act like uppity scholars at a moderation meeting -- this is the Pig Pen. The clue is in the name.

Part of this is because poets don't /need/ philosophers as philosophers need poets. They especially don't need philosophers explaining to them what poetry is. Your list includes almost exclusively craftsmen.

It is amusing to discuss philosophy on the philosophy boards and here I think you point to the big difference:

people who discuss philosophy choose their heroes and launch them against others like groups of teenage girls might discuss whether they prefer Edward or Jacob or whether they prefer 'N Sync to the Backstreet Boys - it is all mindless hero worship and they are afraid to tear them down.

For poetry we seem to acknowledge certain masters of the craft or pieces we like and then continuously challenge everything else. Of course part of this is because poets are craftsman - Kant, while terribly brilliant was also a terrible bore - so while we acknowledge that While Spencer may have said some things brilliantly, most of what he said was also terribly stupid.