Sri Aurobindo
Letters on Poetry and Art
SABCL - Volume 27
Part 2. On His Own and Others’ Poetry
Section 2. On Poets and Poetry
Philosophers, Intellectuals, Novelists and Musicians
Was Shaw a Mystic? [1]
It is, of course, difficult to manufacture a mystic
out of Shaw in the Yogic sense of the word, but in the philosophic sense I think
it can be said that his conception of the universal life-force and his vision of
man’s future are prompted by a keen sense of the infinite, divine potencies of
the human consciousness and of the secret urge towards godhead which is the
motive power behind all evolution.... What Shaw claims to be is an
artist-philosopher — that is to say, a man with a constructive as well as
critical vision of life, who is able to express that vision in a spirited and
cogently attractive form by means of his literary gift. So the real question is
whether his vision is great enough, inspired enough, and he brings a sufficient
power of interpretation to render his insight compellingly intelligible and
valuable.
Your reasoning seems to proceed by abolishing the
necessary distinctions and running different things into each other.
1st equation. Philosopher (artist kind) = a man with a
constructive as well as a critical vision of life = Shaw. I may add = all poets,
if Matthew Arnold’s equation about poetry and criticism of life is correct.
Hundreds of others also can at this rate be called philosophers.
2nd equation. Mystic =
mystic philosopher = philosopher who has notions about supraphysical entities or
forces, e.g. Life-Force = Shaw. But a mystic is currently supposed to be one who
has mystic experience, and a mystic philosopher is one who has such experience
and has formed a view of life in harmony with his experience. Merely to have
metaphysical notions about the Infinite and Godhead and underlying or
overshadowing forces does not make a man a mystic. One would never think of
applying such a term to Spinoza, Kant or Hegel: even Plato does not fit into the
term though Pythagoras has a good claim to it. Hegel and other transcendental or
idealistic philosophers were great intellects, not mystics. Shaw is a keen and
forceful intellect (I cannot call him a great {{0}}thinker[[An admirable
many-sided intelligence and an acute critic discussing penetratingly or
discoursing acutely or constructively on many problems or presenting with force
or point many aspects of life, he is not a creator or disseminator of the great
illuminating ideas that leave their mark on the centuries.]]) but his ideas
about the Life-Force certainly do not make him a mystic. And do you really call
that a constructive vision of life — a vague notion about a Life-Force pushing
towards an evolutionary manifestation and a brilliant jeu d’esprit about
long life and people born out of eggs and certain extraordinary operations of
mind and body in these semi-immortals who seem to have been very much at a loss
what to do with their immortality? I do not deny that there are keen and
brilliant ideas and views everywhere (that is Shaw’s wealthy stock-in-trade),
even an occasional profound perception; but that does not make a man either a
mystic or a philosopher or a great thought-creator. Shaw has a sufficiently high
place in his own kind — why try to make him out more than he is? Shakespeare is
a great poet and dramatist, but to try to make him out a great philosopher also
would not increase but rather imperil his high repute.
May 1932