Yes, it is highly likely that Alain Badiou would respond to Laruelle’s non-philosophy by categorizing it as another form of anti-philosophy - though with some important nuances.
Why Would Badiou See Laruelle as an Anti-Philosopher?
Badiou has a very specific understanding of anti-philosophy, which he applies to figures like Lacan, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and even Saint Paul. For Badiou, anti-philosophy is not simply a rejection of philosophy but a radical critique that seeks to dismantle its claims and authority from the outside.
Laruelle’s non-philosophy fits this pattern because:
1. It rejects philosophy’s “decision” Laruelle argues that philosophy is always structured by a fundamental “decision” that divides reality into dualisms (Being vs. Thought, Subject vs. Object, etc.). He claims that philosophy illegitimately claims to think the Real, when in fact the Real is immanently given without philosophical mediation.
2. It refuses philosophy’s authority Rather than engaging in philosophy traditionally, Laruelle treats it as just one form of thinking among others (akin to science, art, or religion). This de-privileges philosophy in a way that resembles Badiou’s anti-philosophers, who seek to unseat philosophy’s dominance.
3. It operates from an axiomatic, non-dialectical stance Unlike Badiou, who still believes in philosophy as the site where Truth emerges through Events, Laruelle axiomatically posits the Real as already given, beyond all philosophical interpretation. This resembles Wittgenstein’s later anti-philosophy, where certain aspects of reality (e.g., language games) are just there without needing philosophical theorization.
Where Would Badiou Disagree?
However, Badiou’s response to Laruelle would not be purely dismissive. He would likely argue:
1. Laruelle’s Non-philosophy is itself still philosophical Just as Badiou criticizes Deleuze’s attempt to escape representation while still philosophizing, he might say that Laruelle pretends to be outside philosophy but is still making philosophical moves (i.e., constructing a theoretical system, defining concepts, making ontological claims).
2. Laruelle undermines the possibility of Truth and Event Badiou sees Truth as emerging through ruptures (Events) that reconfigure knowledge. But Laruelle’s unilateral stance dissolves the conditions for such ruptures, since the Real is always already given and requires no intervention.
3. Laruelle flattens the distinction between philosophy and non-philosophy For Badiou, philosophy remains distinct because it organizes and gives form to Truth-procedures (in science, art, politics, and love). If everything is equally “just another thought practice”, then philosophy loses its transformative role.
Conclusion: Laruelle as a Unique Anti-Philosopher?
Badiou would likely regard non-philosophy as a sophisticated anti-philosophy - one that refuses philosophy’s “decision” while still paradoxically engaging in philosophical discourse. However, while Badiou admires figures like Lacan and Nietzsche as anti-philosophers who nonetheless transform philosophy, he might be less charitable to Laruelle, seeing his work as self-defeating or even a withdrawal from the philosophical struggle.
In the end, Laruelle’s non-philosophy challenges Badiou’s entire framework of Truth and Event, making their projects fundamentally incompatible - but deeply interesting as competing ways of escaping philosophy’s traditional constraints.
