The study raises important questions: Is fragmentary writing related to specific language ideas? And if it is, what are its semantic aspects? How do philosophers deal with meanings with linguistic pieces resembling fragments? Do its expressions embody distinctive philosophical visions? Does this writing have a gender that does not belong to clear fields of knowledge? ... Perhaps the questions go away: does writing represent a deliberate fracture of the pattern of thinking? Is fragmentary writinga way to break traditional writing patterns? In a field like this, it should not be overlooked in terms of formulation that the philosophical fragments are the oldest and most innovative forms of writing as well. The study noted that the phrase was coined with a confusing "snapshot", with a confusing "snapshot". How many fragments of wisdom have tried - for example - to reveal the first naked truths in a person's life, if not to reveal them in the entire journey of humanity: like love, happiness, the other, death, holiness, the unknown, fear, truth. It witnessed the birth of thinking about questions of philosophy, man, truth and existence. The study considers that semantics is a philosophical study, an important study if it was devoted to the study of philosophical writings, especially writing fragments. Semantics explores the meanings produced by linguistic formulas ... whether they are fragments or not, and also analyzes their semantic systems. It is clear that the philosophers of the fragments throw the meaning as archers towards the goals of thought. But the fragments do not have a single goal, but rather because they are a "semantic fragment", they mix a group of ideas and imagination together, and conjures up this combination (or distraction) with one blow. The fragments do not intentionally go into the mind, and become purely rational, because they do not provide a set of thinking, and do not assume a direct meaning, so they become pragmatic, communicative, and do not provoke emotion, and become only poetic. It does not offer understanding and order, so it makes sense for ideas, does not define an accurate description, and leads to knowledge. And do not form a rhythm in a sequence manner, so it is a narration and a plot, and does not care about performance and form, so it becomes representative without substance. The fragments - on top of that - give the recipient's abilities a desire to overwhelm the layout of thought, mixing things he has not become accustomed to. Perhaps at first glance, its connotations consist of clues between logic and illogic, between meaning and meaning, between reason and emotion, and between instinct and understanding. It bears the semantic momentum in its scattered remains, even after the reading experience. This is what makes semantics (here) not only an analysis of the phenomenon of meaning, but rather a philosophical experiment in producing perceptions, and using semantics to dissolve its accumulated heritage through language. That is, the fragments provide a fragmented philosophical view of life and culture (Simon Philosophical Method). This does not mean breaking up the critical mass from our immediate awareness, but rather it opens up horizons for understanding and charts a space for interpreting fragments as their connotations destroy the heritage of philosophy. It is interesting to note that the semantics of fragmentation do not stem only from this plural (semantic difference together) in terms of the linguistic structure, but there are accompanying differences: their subjects (various and may not link between them), the important thing is that they are related to the writer's ideas according to the intended contents. What applies to the subjects applies equally to the phrases where they progress, delay, or constitute a text distribution ... The outstanding thing remains: how to draw its semantic map. The unity of meaning does not exist due to the absence of the unity of the phrase and behind them the absence of the unity of the concept. As if the meanings of the families of the phrases associated with the history of the language, they are not permissible in the style of philosophical thinking. As the editing of meanings is done by cutting any links that govern the work of the language against the background of the concepts of text, book, framework, style and truth. Hence, the study contains key elements that dealt with the issues of written fragments and their most important aspects: These are unconventional elements, and the study was keen to be so to keep pace with the funny idea presented by the study. First: Introduction (general idea, approach and concepts). Second: The fragments Forest (Questions and Problems). Third: metamorphosis and paradox (the difference between fragmentary writer and a philosopher). Third: the language, this shameful old man (the nature of the language of fragments as proposed by contemporary philosophers). Fourth:Fragmentary Writing (in light of philosophies of language and semantics). Fifth: Conclusion and a list of the most important references.