So we have, now, where the Rav got this from: He had Plato and he mapped Plato onto Halakhah into this spectacular intellectual thing.While this sounds interesting, there is much more to it, in addition to his setting up his points more, so it's worth a listen if you are into this work.
What I want to argue, though, is Plato's vision is written from the perspective of the philospher. The poet, however, would write a very different book - he would write a very different allegory. Ish haHalakhah, the Rav tells you over and over again, is written from the perspective of the person who sees Halakhah as the central aspect of reality. From the perspective of the person who sees lomdus, specifically, as the central aspect of reality, this is what psak is. It doesn't mean you couldn't write an entirely different book called Ish haPsak. And Ish haPsak would use a totally different metaphor in which poetry would be at the apex. So, the question is "Is the Rav committed to this vision as the only vision? or is the purpose of this book designed to tell you that for the person who is the Ish haHalakhah, this is how they conceive the world - they conceive the world the same way that Plato's philosopher conceived the world. But we don't necessarily have to perceive the world that way.
Tags: Judaism, The Rav, Rabbi Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, Man of Halakhah, Rabbi Klapper, Rabbi Aryeh Klapper, Summer Beit Midrash, SBM 2006, SBM 5766