Yes, we can definitely say that Laruelle’s non-philosophy was, in part, a response to Badiou’s philosophy of multiplicity, but it would be an oversimplification to reduce it to just that. Laruelle’s project has broader aims - it is a critique of philosophy as such, not just Badiou’s version of it. However, the contrast with Badiou is particularly striking, because Badiou represents one of the most ambitious last stands of philosophy in the 20th century, and Laruelle’s non-philosophy emerges as a radical refusal of that philosophical structure.
1. Badiou’s Philosophy of Multiplicity: A New Philosophical Decision
Badiou’s philosophy is deeply influenced by set theory (mathematics as ontology) and the idea that being is pure multiplicity.
He reaffirms philosophy’s power - philosophy organizes and gives structure to being, particularly through the Event, which ruptures the existing order and produces new truths.
Even though Badiou critiques traditional metaphysics, his decision is still a decisional structure - it still privileges thought, system, and intervention.
In this sense, Badiou is the last great philosopher trying to re-legitimize philosophy’s role as the master discipline.
2. Laruelle’s Response: Refusing the Decision, Refusing Multiplicity
Laruelle sees Badiou as another example of philosophy’s never-ending self-reinvention - a new structure, a new decision, but still a decision.
Where Badiou sees multiplicity as the foundation of being, Laruelle refuses any foundation at all.
For Laruelle, even multiplicity is still a structure imposed by philosophy - still a way of deciding what reality is, what counts, what matters.
Instead of multiplicity, Laruelle insists on the One - but not in a metaphysical sense. The One is the radically immanent Real, which philosophy can never capture or structure.
3. The Event vs. The Real
One of Badiou’s most famous concepts is the Event, which disrupts established structures and allows for radical new possibilities.
But for Laruelle, even the Event is a decisional concept - it is still philosophy imposing its categories on the Real.
The Real, for Laruelle, is not something that happens (like an Event). It is already there, immanent, indifferent to philosophy’s attempts to categorize it.
4. The Final Break: Using Philosophy Without Being Used by It
Badiou’s philosophy still functions within philosophy - it is a philosophy of transformation.
Laruelle wants to exit philosophy - not by rejecting it, but by neutralizing its authority.
This is why Laruelle calls non-philosophy a Science of philosophy - it does not oppose philosophy with another philosophy, but rather treats philosophy as raw material, something to be used rather than obeyed.
Conclusion: A Response, but a Deeper Break
Yes, Laruelle’s non-philosophy is, in part, a response to Badiou, because Badiou represents one of the most ambitious final attempts to restore philosophy’s authority. But Laruelle is not simply countering Badiou with another competing framework - he is rejecting the entire game that Badiou is still playing.
Where Badiou still believes in the Event, multiplicity, and the power of philosophy, Laruelle asks:
What if we no longer needed to make those decisions at all?
What if reality is already what it is, without philosophy needing to structure it?
In this sense, non-philosophy is not just a response to Badiou - it is the last step beyond the exhaustion of philosophy itself.
