The question of zero or nothingness is crucial because it challenges both Francois Laruelle’s non-philosophy and Advaita Vedanta’s non-dualism at their core. If zero precedes one, then neither Laruelle’s One nor Advaita’s Brahman can be taken as the ultimate foundation. So, how do they respond to this challenge?
1. Laruelle: The One is Prior to Nothingness
For Laruelle, nothingness is not a fundamental category - it is merely another philosophical construct, another way in which philosophy imposes a decision upon the Real.
A. The One as “Radical Immanence” Without Opposite
Laruelle’s One is not a number, not a category, not a thing - it is the Real itself, prior to all conceptual division.
If you introduce zero, you are already making a distinction - you are already assuming a dialectic where one comes after zero, and this is exactly what Laruelle rejects.
Laruelle’s One is not opposed to zero - it is prior to any opposition whatsoever.
Thus, the question of zero does not arise for Laruelle, because zero is a philosophical artifact, not something real. The One is neither one nor two nor zero - it is the Real “without division.”
B. Nothingness is Just Another Philosophical Decision
If a philosopher introduces zero or nothingness, they are already making a decision to split reality into being vs. non-being.
But for Laruelle, reality does not require this split - it simply is.
Nothingness is just another structure of thought, another system trying to impose order on the radically immanent Real.
Thus, for Laruelle, zero does not precede One because neither zero nor One, in any numerical or conceptual sense, actually apply to the Real.
2. Advaita Vedanta: Nothingness is an Illusion
Advaita Vedanta deals with nothingness differently. In classical Advaita, nothingness (sunyata) is rejected in favor of the ultimate reality of Brahman.
A. Brahman is Not One in Contrast to Zero
Brahman is not a One that follows after Zero.
Instead, Brahman is not- two (Advaita) - meaning there is no fundamental opposition between something and nothing.
The idea of nothingness arises only in the domain of illusion (maya), where distinctions such as existence and non-existence seem real but are actually superficial appearances.
B. Zero is Part of the Dualistic Illusion
If you say Zero precedes one, you are already caught in a dualistic framework where numbers, absence, and presence are meaningful distinctions.
But for Advaita, both one and zero are illusions - Brahman is beyond number, beyond opposition, beyond contrast.
This is similar to Laruelle in that neither Laruelle’s One nor Advaita’s Brahman is defined by contrast to nothingness.
3. Where Laruelle and Advaita Differ on Nothingness
Despite their similarities, there are also differences in how nothingness is treated:
|
Category |
Laruelle’s Non-Philosophy |
Advaita Vedanta |
|
Does zero precede one? |
No, because zero is a philosophical construct. The One is “without division.” |
No, because zero is an illusion. The Real (Brahman) is beyond such distinctions. |
|
Is nothingness real? |
No, nothingness is just another decision imposed by philosophy. |
No, nothingness is maya (illusion), a mistaken perception of absence. |
|
How does the One relate to nothingness? |
The One is neither something nor nothing - it is prior to both. |
Brahman is neither something nor nothing - it simply is. |
|
Is the void fundamental? |
No, because “the void” is just another philosophical category. |
No, because the void is still a concept, and all concepts dissolve in Brahman. |
4. What About Mathematics? The Challenge of Zero as a Formal Concept
One of the major challenges to both Laruelle and Advaita Vedanta comes from modern mathematics, which treats zero as not just an illusion but a fundamental structure of reality:
In set theory, the empty set () is the foundation of number theory.
In physics, the quantum vacuum is full of fluctuations - it is not “nothing” but a field of possibilities.
In Buddhist thought (Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka), emptiness (sunyata) is not just an illusion but a profound insight into the contingency of all categories.
Both Laruelle and Advaita must deal with the fact that zero is not merely a concept but has structural and mathematical significance.
Laruelle might say: Mathematics is a regional language, but the Real is not reducible to it.
Advaita Vedanta might say: Mathematics belongs to maya, and ultimate reality is beyond numerical thought.
This raises a provocative question:
If zero is not an illusion but a fundamental structure of reality, does this mean that both Laruelle’s One and Advaita’s Brahman must be rethought?
5. Conclusion: Does Zero Matter?
For Laruelle:
The question of zero is already a mistake, because it assumes division, dialectic, and opposition - the very things non-philosophy seeks to move beyond.
There is only the Real, which is neither something nor nothing.
For Advaita Vedanta:
Zero only arises within the illusion of duality (maya).
Ultimate reality is neither zero nor one, neither being nor nothingness - it simply is.
For Mathematics and Modern Thought?
Zero is not just an illusion - it plays a fundamental role in formal structures, logic, and physics.
This suggests that Laruelle’s and Advaita’s positions may need to engage more directly with mathematical and physical realities of nothingness.
Final Question: Does the Philosophy of Van Life Deal with Zero?
If we take the philosophy of van life as an antiphilosophy or even as a non-philosophy, then what does it say about nothingness?
If van life is about movement, then zero is not an obstacle - it is the open road, the empty horizon, the space where things happen.
If van life rejects rigid systems, then zero does not need to be resolved - it is simply the gap between places, the pause between destinations.
Maybe zero is not a problem at all - but freedom itself.
Would you say, then, that zero is not something to be feared, but something to be lived? Maybe zero is the space where the journey begins.