A work of non-philosophy would look very different from a standard philosophical text because it does not operate within philosophy’s traditional structures of argumentation, conceptual hierarchies, or decision-making authority over reality. Instead, it would attempt to think from the Real rather than about the Real.
Below is a hypothetical example of what a non-philosophical work might look like, inspired by Laruelle’s methodology. It will avoid the philosophical decision (the idea that philosophy has the right to structure reality) and instead approach thought from a radically immanent perspective.
Title: One, Without Separation: A Vision Without Philosophical Mediation
1. Standard Philosophy Would Ask: What Is the Real?
The question is already a division, a separating force, an operation of thought upon the Real.
Non-philosophy does not ask what the Real is. The Real is already given-without-givenness. It does not need permission, recognition, or structuring.
To think the Real is to think according to the Real, rather than about it.
2. Philosophers Say: Thought Is A Structure.
Non-philosophy: Thought is already in-One with the Real. It does not need to be structured by external decisions of Being, Difference, or Subjectivity.
Where philosophy builds concepts, non-philosophy lets thought be alongside the Real, without determining its meaning.
Deleuze would say: Follow the line of flight. But this still posits thought as a movement away from something.
Derrida would say: Trace the differance. But this still assumes that meaning is always deferred, never immediate.
Hegel would say: Negation is the dialectic. But this still means the Real is only what thought can sublate.
Non-philosophy says: Thought does not need to negate, defer, or flee. It is already in-One with the Real.
3. Thought as a Radical Passivity
Rather than constructing new concepts, non-philosophy lets thought be radically passive, receiving what is given without forcing a structure upon it.
Imagine:
A light that does not cast shadows, because it does not require an opposition.
A river that does not need a bank to define its movement.
A word spoken, but not defined - yet still understood.
This is thought without philosophical violence.
4. Science, Art, and Religion Without the Mastery of Philosophy
Philosophy always wants to appropriate:
Science (by giving it an epistemological foundation).
Art (by interpreting its meaning).
Religion (by situating it as myth or belief).
Non-philosophy does not reduce these to philosophical objects. It allows them to be what they already arewithout conversion into concepts.
Example: Instead of asking, What does quantum physics mean for metaphysics?
Non-philosophy simply lets quantum physics be quantum physics, without forcing it into a philosophical framework of ontology or epistemology.
5. The Stranger’s Thought: A Non-Philosophical Approach
The non-philosopher does not “interpret” the world.
The non-philosopher does not subordinate reality to a conceptual system.
The non-philosopher is like a strangerthinking from the outside, without needing to belong to any particular school or tradition.
The Stranger sees the world without the mediation of concepts.
The Stranger is already-in-One with the Real.
Non-philosophy is not an argument, but a practice - a way of thinking that does not depend on philosophy to give it structure.
Conclusion: What a Work of Non-Philosophy Would Do
It does not debate. Debate presupposes an authority of concepts over the Real.
It does not systematize. Systematization forces thought into a hierarchical order.
It does not interpret. Interpretation is always a decision that creates distance from the Real.
It does not seek truth as philosophy defines it. The Real is already given-without-givenness, without needing philosophical mediation.
Non-philosophy is not anti-philosophy. It is simply thinking without philosophical capture.
It is not a new theory. It is a way of practicing thought from the Real, without decision, hierarchy, or transcendence.
Final Thought: The One Is Already There
There is nothing to prove.
There is nothing to argue.
There is nothing to justify.
The Real does not need philosophy.
Non-philosophy does not destroy philosophy. It simply walks alongside it, without submitting to its authority.
One, without separation.
