|
February 23, 2005
After the rather thin accounts of nihilism in the two previous essays we come to Blanchot's third essay in his 'Reflections on Nihilism' section in The Infinite Conversation. It is called 'Nietzsche and fragmentary writing' and it is a part of the Limit-experience section.
This text acknowledges that Nietzsche's writing can be thought of as belonging to the philosophical institution, may even constitute a system, and can be interpreted as responding to Plato, Kant or Hegel. Blanchot says:
"Let us admit this. Let us admit as well that such a continuous discourse may be behind these divided works. It remains nonetheless true that Nietzsche does not contend himself with such a continuity. And even if a part of these fragements can be bought back into this kind of integral discourse, it is manifest that such a discourse--philosophy--itself---is already surpassed by Nietzsche; that he presupposes it rather than gives it exposition, in order further on, to speak according to a different language: no longer for the whole but of the fragment, of plurality, of separation."
Granted. Nietzsche is anti-system. He is no Hegel, constructing a dialectical system. Nietzsche's texts abound with aphorisms. Whole sections of a book are composed of an organized series of aphorisms. Nietzsche excels in this kind of writing.
So what? What is the significance of this?
next
|
I think by 'fragment' Blanchot may mean something other than (Nietzsche's) aphorisms. That is, the fragment must be understood precisely as the 'impossible-necessary' (The Writing of the Disaster).