Yes, there’s definitely a resonance between non-philosophy and Daoism, particularly in their shared emphasis on letting go of conceptual mastery and yielding to an immanent flow. But there are also some important differences. Let’s explore the parallels and distinctions.
1. Letting Go of Philosophical Decision = Wu Wei (無為）
In Daoism, wu wei (effortless action, non-resistance) is a key principle. It suggests that the best way to live is not by imposing one’s will upon the world, but by aligning with the natural flow of things (Dao).
Non-philosophy, similarly, refuses the “decisional structure” of philosophy - I.e., the tendency of thought to always impose its categories upon the Real.
Parallels: Both Daoism and non-philosophy advocate a way of thinking that is not grasping, asserting, or dominating but instead receiving, yielding, and moving with what is already given.
Example: Instead of “fighting the wind” (to use our earlier metaphor), both Daoism and non-philosophy let the wind carry them.
2. The Real as Dao?
In Daoism: The Dao (道）is the ineffable, immanent principle that underlies everything. It cannot be grasped by rigid conceptual thought (The Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao).
In Non-Philosophy: The Real is radically immanent and cannot be fully grasped by philosophy. It is indifferent to philosophical distinctions yet determines thought in the last instance.
Difference: Daoism often describes the Dao as a kind of cosmic order, a way that things naturally follow. Laruelle’s Real, however, is not an order or a pattern, but something that simply is - it has no structure that philosophy can map.
3. Non-Philosophy’s Radical Immanence vs. Daoist Spontaneity
Daoism encourages spontaneous alignment with the Dao (ziran, 自然 - meaning both nature and spontaneity).
Non-philosophy suggests a kind of radical immanence where thought does not reach out toward something (e.g., Dao, Being, Truth) but is already determined by the Real.
Key Difference: Daoism often has an organic metaphor of following nature, while non-philosophy avoids nature as a concept, instead focusing on a purely immanent and indifferent Real.
4. Non-Philosophy’s Passivity as Daoist Non-Resistance
Daoism teaches that resistance creates suffering and that one should “be like water) (水）that flows around obstacles instead of breaking against them.
Non-philosophy neutralizes philosophy’s desire to structure reality, advocating a non-impositional, non-mastering mode of thought.
Similarity: Both resist the idea that thought must actively structure the world. Instead, both embrace a kind of passive receptivity - thinking as something given rather than something that must conquer reality.
5. The One vs. The Dao
Daoism has a dynamic vision of the Dao - an ever-changing, self-transforming process.
Non-philosophy’s “One” is not a process, not a flow, not even something experienceable - it is simply what is already there, radically immanent and indifferent.
Key Difference: While Daoism might see the world as an organic unfolding of Dao, non-philosophy is even more indifferent - the Real has no cosmic meaning, no moral dimension, no harmony - it simply determines thought without caring about it.
Conclusion: Daoism as Proto-Non-Philosophy?
Yes, non-philosophy and Daoism share a deep affinity - both reject conceptual mastery, both embrace a kind of non-imposing thought, and both suggest a radical letting-go of philosophical control.
But Daoism still offers a kind of wisdom about nature, flow, and balance, whereas non-philosophy does not provide wisdom, only a method for neutralizing philosophy’s authority.
If Daoism says follow the Dao, non-philosophy might say thought is already determined by the Real - there is no need to follow anything.
So, in a way, Daoism is a gentle yielding to the river, while non-philosophy is realizing you were never separate from the river to begin with.
