MT: Our place in the world, our Being-in-the-world, I unconsciously went all Heidegger in my last question! Heidegger is such an important thinker: almost a fraud, if you are an 'analytical' philosopher, but key if you are part of the 'continental' tradition. And key for Blanchot. How do both these writers figure in your work and thinking?

SC: Blanchot is a clandestine companion whom I rarely teach and who interests very few of my philosophy students. He is a sort of secret resource for me. I read Blanchot often and what impresses me most is the limpid clarity, economy and strangeness of the critical writing. I intend to teach a seminar on Blanchot in New York before too long. Heidegger is a more public interest. I've just finished teach Being and Time for a whole year, that's 28 lectures, 2 hours per lecture. It was a complete f*cking nightmare to prepare every week, but the experience was exhilarating. I teach Heidegger in a very austere way, but keep veering off into issues in art, politics and life. But, to be clear, I wouldn't want to be in the same room as Heidegger, not even the same building! I always find his work possesses by a dangerous power that I try to inoculate myself against and always fail.

¶ 8:15 PM