No – not the critique of Immanuel Kant, but a rather different critique; that of G.K. Chesterton. From his book, Orthodoxy:
The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion… To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
I suppose you either get this or you don’t. The dream of the Enlightenment is dead. Now what? So far the answer has been post-modernism; subjectivism canonized. But this will not do either. We can’t build our philosophy on the supreme authority of the individual. This leads to nothing, and rids the world of truth; or at the very least, radically redefines what is meant by truth. Surely universals (i.e. truth, beauty, justice, etc.) are apprehended by the individual in a subjective manner, but why should this necessarily imply that universals are non-existent? I wish I knew more philosophy to posit an intellectual answer to the problem thus proposed. I only know enough to know that it is inadequate. And perhaps in the end, Chesterton is right – the attempt to apprehend the universe through the use of pure reason is a dead-end road, leading to madness!