It’s tempting to argue that when a philosopher has a central keyword (e.g., being for Heidegger, plasticity for Malabou, will to power for Nietzsche), their philosophy tends toward systematicity, as such a term often serves as a conceptual anchor around which their ideas coalesce. However, this is not necessarily the case. The presence of a key word does not guarantee that a philosophy is systematic; it depends on how the concept is used and the thinker’s overall orientation toward system-building.
Systematic Tendencies of Key Words
1. Unifying Principle:
A central keyword may function as the organizing principle for a philosophy, linking various concepts and ideas into a cohesive whole.
Example: In Heidegger’s philosophy, being serves as the foundation for his exploration of ontology, unifying his inquiries into history, language, and existence into a systematic framework.
2. Constructing a Totalizing Framework:
Philosophers like Hegel, who systematically explore reality in terms of a single principle (e.g., the Absolute), often use their key terms to articulate an all-encompassing system.
Example: For Hegel, concepts like spirit and dialectic are not isolated ideas but are deeply embedded in his systematic exposition of reality.
Anti-Systematic Philosophers with Key Words
In contrast, many anti-systematic thinkers also have key words, but their use resists totalization or coherence:
1. Multiplicity Rather Than Unity:
Some philosophers deploy their key words not as unifying principles but as tools for fragmentation, exploration, or destabilization.
Example: Nietzsche’s will to power is not a fixed concept but a fluid, dynamic force, deliberately resisting systematization.
Example: Deleuze’s rhizome is a metaphor for non-hierarchical, decentralized thought, explicitly opposing systematic unity.
2. Openness and Ambiguity:
Anti-systematic philosophers may use key words as open-ended provocations rather than precise, fixed concepts.
Example: Derrida’s differance resists definition and serves to deconstruct systematic thinking rather than construct it.
3. Fragmentary or Context-Dependent Usage:
A key word can appear in shifting, fragmentary contexts, emphasizing the instability of meaning rather than serving as a foundation for coherence.
Example: Lev Shestov’s groundlessness reflects the impossibility of building a stable system.
The Deciding Factor: How the Key Word Functions
If the key word is used to build connections, organize ideas hierarchically, and explain phenomena within a single framework, the philosophy tends to be systematic.
If the key word is used to fragment, challenge coherence, or highlight the instability of concepts, the philosophy resists systematization.
Heidegger vs. Malabou
Heidegger (Systematic): His focus on being as the grounding question of philosophy leads to a comprehensive framework that seeks to reinterpret the history of Western thought. Despite stylistic shifts in his later work, his project remains systematically tied to this central concept.
Malabou (Semi-Systematic): While plasticity is central to her thought, it functions more as a lens to reinterpret existing systems (e.g., Hegel, neuroscience, psychoanalysis) than as a totalizing framework, making her work less rigidly systematic than Heidegger’s.
Conclusion
Having a key word does not necessarily imply systematicity. It depends on whether the philosopher uses the word to build coherence or to embrace fragmentation and openness. Anti-systematic philosophers may use key words not to structure their thought but to resist systematization, destabilize meaning, or provoke new ways of thinking.
