Subject: MB: Blanchot and Heidegger
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 21:35:00 +0000



I want to say something briefly about this problem of the reflexivity of   
discourse.  How can we speak about that which we say is beyond speaking.   
 Of course we all now this is supposed to be a performative contradiction   
as in the example of the liars paradox.  Some people seem to think that   
this is also a good description of Continental philosophy - Derrida,   
Levinas, and now Blanchot all seem to suffering from a basic logical   
error, which if they had only been English enough, they would have   
realised from the beginning, and would have therefore saved themselves a   
lot of wasted effort.  But what might seem very profound in terms of   
logic, is philosophically very shallow.  I mean philosophy is about   
problems, not about logic, and in relation to problems language is always   
on the edge of what cannot be said.  This is why philosopher's create   
concepts. To say what has not been said before.  Now I don't think this   
is very controversial.  Why are philosophical problems not like the   
problems of geometry?  This is because there are  answers to the second,   
even if they need to be discovered, whereas there are no answers to the   
first.  Blanchot's engagement with Heidegger should be seen in these   
terms as the deepening of a problem.  What is this problem? Then it is   
our turn to think.
stawla.