The aim of this paper is to explore the issue of the relationship between philosophy, critical commentary as Blanchot practises it and the literary work of art. I take issue with Gerald Bruns’ claim in Maurice Blanchot: The Refusal of Philosophy in which Blanchot’s critical practice is contrasted to philosophy. The “refusal” of philosophy attributed to Blanchot by Bruns is a subtle affair, as I indicate in readings of “Literature and the Right to Death” and The Space ofLiterature. Blanchot’s critical (...) commentary remains faithfuI to the literary work of art only insofar as he tolerates a paradox that pertains to the peculiar ontological or trans-ontological status of the literary work of art. In attempting to bear witness to the work of art insofar as it problematizes and even exceeds ontology, Blanchot can indeed be said to refusephilosophy insofar as it resists the impulse to resolve paradox.Cet article cherche à explorer les enjeux relatifs aux rapports qu’entretiennent la philosophie, le commentaire critique tel que le pratique Blanchot et I’oeuvre d’art littéraire. J’engage un débat autour de la déclaration de Gerald Bruns, dans Maurice Blanchot: The Refusal of Philosophy, où la pratique critique de Blanchot est mise en contraste avec la philosophie. Le «refus» de la philosophie que Bruns attribue à Blanchot est une question subtile, tel que je I’indique dans des extraits de «La Littérature et le droit à la mort» et L’Espace littéraire. Le commentaire critique de Blanchot ne demeure fidèle à I’oeuvre d’art littéraire que dans la mesure où il tolère un paradoxe relatif au curieux statut ontologique ou trans-ontologique de l’oeuvre d’art littéraire. En cherchant à saisir l’oeuvre d’art en tant qu’elle problématise etmême excède I’ontologie, on peut en effet prétendre que Blanchot refuse la philosophie dans la mesure où celle-ci résiste au désir de résoudre le paradoxe. (shrink)

In a raucous debut that summons up Britain's fabled Goon Squad comedies, writer and philosopher Lars Iyer tells the story of someone very like himself with a "slightly more successful" friend and their journeys in search of more palatable literary conferences and better gin. One reason for their journeys: the narrator's home is slowly being taken over by a fungus that no one seems to know what to do about. Before it completely swallows his house, the narrator feels compelled to (...) solve some major philosophical questions (such as "Why?") and the meaning of his urge to write, as well as the source of the fungus... before it is too late. Or, he has to move. (shrink)