{"id":810,"date":"2016-10-10T16:31:27","date_gmt":"2016-10-10T20:31:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/nietzsche1313\/?p=810"},"modified":"2016-10-10T16:36:45","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T20:36:45","slug":"etienne-balibar-a-precis-for-nietzsche-313","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/nietzsche1313\/etienne-balibar-a-precis-for-nietzsche-313\/","title":{"rendered":"Etienne Balibar: A pr\u00e9cis for Nietzsche 3\/13"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"monoblue\"<\/a><\/p>\n

After reading Annelies Shuldte-Nordholt<\/a>\u2019s text, I completely agree\u00a0with the idea that Blanchot’s relationship to Nietzsche is never to be\u00a0taken in isolation, but always in “constellations” where Nietzsche\u00a0appears at the same time as a “companion” to other author (or a\u00a0latent source of their power to make us think in today’s conjuncture),\u00a0and – in some privileged cases – as forming a kind of “antithetic\u00a0couple” (I am particularly thinking of Hegel, of course, but also\u00a0Kafka, and Sade).<\/p>\n

The question at stake is always \u00e9criture<\/em>, in particular – when it\u00a0comes to Nietzsche – the question of “\u00e9criture fragmentaire” which is\u00a0underlined both in Le pas au del\u00e0<\/em> and in L’entretien infini<\/em> (and\u00a0practiced in Le pas au-del\u00e0<\/em>). I won\u2019t deal with all that, which\u00a0Annelies will treat in her presentation.<\/p>\n

For my own reflections, I will focus on Hegel and especially on Sade\u00a0compared to Nietzsche, for two main reasons (closely associated):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. I want to emphasize how, for Blanchot (and others at the same time,\u00a0that he endorses\/reviews), Nietzsche is the author who writes “in\u00a0excess of philosophy” (very different from “anti-philosophy”).\u00a0This is\u00a0completely true of Sade as well, in Blanchot’s description, although\u00a0the “philosophical reference” is not the same (not completely); and\u00a0the “procedure” (or style) of excess is also not the same (if somebody\u00a0does not write in fragment, this is indeed Sade, but they both\u00a0practice “repetition”, according to Blanchot).<\/li>\n
  2. However, there is a strong -and provocative- common element,\u00a0which is “la folie d’\u00e9crire”, the madness of writing (we might add: of\u00a0writing madness), crucial indeed when it comes to “exceeding\u00a0philosophy” (or reason; or perhaps “neutralizing” it, in the\u00a0Blanchotian sense of the “neuter”). And, in both cases, there is also\u00a0an allusion to writing as “crime”.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    So, I want to see if this leads me\u00a0somewhere (it is very tentative and experimental, just returning to\u00a0the texts and making sense of some of their literal phrases). Perhaps\u00a0it will lead me also to return to the question of “interruption” and\u00a0the “rapport du 3\u00e8me genre,” which in my opinion is one of Blanchot’s\u00a0lasting demands on our thought (but I am not sure I can get as far as\u00a0that).<\/p>\n

    I will be using the following chapters from L’entretien infini<\/em> (The\u00a0Infinite conversation<\/em>), as most of the passages from Le pas au-del\u00e0<\/em>\u00a0which are indeed relevant for me have replicas in L\u2019entretien infini<\/em>:<\/p>\n