I don't know whose side I'm on.
Unfortunately, they do.

Do not admire
the poet's pain
nor the doubts
of a philosopher.
They're both trying
to be precise.

As a poet, his feelings embarrassed him;
he sought his dignity in the intensity
of the emotion that is implicit in the act
that each of us is guilty of forever.

As a philosopher, he was loth to think. The clarity of the concept itself was to be the source of his authority. He would simply describe the facts that obtain everywhere, indifferent to our suffering.

Poetry and philosophy, both, address the image. One seeks the emotion there; the other seeks the concept. But poets, of course, are never pure, ever prone to philosophical digressions. And philosophers, thankfully, are easily diverted by poetic notions. The imagination gives them what they need. The image is all they have and, in their private suffering, all that they want.