Poem
"The More Loving One"
W.H. Auden
Read the poem HERE.
Why prefer to be the unrequited lover?
This narrator prefers, if a participant in unequal affection, to be the more loving participant. Perhaps love, even unrequited, is more satisfying than indifference.
In addition, for the indifferent one, there is no course of action to resolve the problem, (except, perhaps, to inflict more pain and drive the other away—which really means that there is no desirable course). For the more loving one, there is a course: that of learning the peace of having the affection, even is it is unrequited. One can, in effect, choose to blacken the sky of stars, and find peace in the darkness. The loving one knows the sublime-ness of affection, even in the absence of a recipient.
It is also possible to read this poem as being strongly ironic. In effect, the narrator says, “If my affection is not returned, I can find some joy in learning to be indifferent,” though that might not be so easy, as the hesitant last line implies.
Where is the Science?
What does this poem have to do with science? The narrator takes the view that the stars are indifferent to us. This is essentially a scientific view, because science can conceive of no way that stars could be aware of us, and what is more, no way that stars could have any specific effect, or exert any force or influence, on us and our affairs. A narrator who believes in astrology would not be so quick to discount the influences, or perhaps even the personal feelings, of the stars.
Facing doubters, an adherent of astrology might say, "But who knows? It just might be true!" Scientists never talk that way. Anything you can think up "just might be true", but science deals in things that appear to be true because of evidence to support them, and because of the absence of evidence to disprove them.
Has science proven that that stars have no influence on our lives and affairs? No, but objective observation has never found a single instance; that is, there is not one reproducible, testable, sharable example of such influence. Could science prove that stars cannot affect us? No, because there are an infinite number of cases to test. But science could prove that stars do influence us, by finding only one example of an effect that everyone could observe and agree on. A single, well-documented example could disprove the notion that the stars are indifferent. So far, no one has found such an example.
So the indifference of the universe has the same fragility as any scientific law--very hard to prove in all instances, but subject to disproof by only one clear example. A consequence of the second law of thermodynamics (that the entropy of the universe increases during any process involving energy change) is that it is impossible to build a perpetual-motion machine. We need only build one simple machine, one that can run endlessly without consuming any energy, to refute the second law. So far, no one has.
Science-minded people conduct their lives under the assumption that no one ever will build a perpetual-motion machine. But science-minded people have open minds. If anyone ever does build one, we won't feel silly for having doubted it. On the contrary, we will be excited that what we thought was an inviolable law needs revision. In science, times of revision are exciting times.
The narrator of Auden's poem apparently subscribes to the notion that the stars do not know or care about us. A scientist would say that this is an enlightened view, but that those who consult their horoscopes each day are unenlightened. This poem reflects a belief about the universe that is in keeping with science’s views and laws. In addition, it gives us an opportunity to reflect on the character of the natural laws that scientists try to discover.
