Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea is not a philosophical work, but it embraces the reality that zero has drawn the attention of all disciplines. Scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers all have thought about zero, and Seife’s book mentions numerous philosophers and discusses several philosophical traditions. However, Seife foregoes thorough analysis of philosophical traditions or individual philosophies to maintain an appropriate pace—he has over two millennia to cover in only about 200 pages. The philosophies of Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Descartes and the religions of Hinduism and Christianity figure most prominently in Zero.

Since the philosophical context of Zero is broad, it is also general. Among the broadest generalizations in philosophy is the distinction between “Eastern” and “Western” philosophy—a distinction that Seife recognizes and plays into. Conventionally, Western philosophy is understood to emphasize the individual self, experience, and logic and reasoning, whereas Eastern philosophy emphasizes collectivity, intuition, and paradox and transcendence.

While Seife generally maintains a neutral tone, he implicitly favors Eastern philosophy for its acceptance of contradictory ideas and thus The Dualism of Zero and Infinity. Not by accident does Seife more than once compare the relationship between zero and infinity to that between the symbols of yin and yang; he almost suggests that Eastern philosophy is entitled to zero because zero is paradoxical and transcendent. By contrast, Seife portrays Western philosophy as merely borrowing zero after finally overcoming its detrimental bias against the idea. The paradoxes of zero stump Western reason, and the unfathomability of zero, which erases individual numbers, challenges the individual self.

A related philosophical generalization Seife engages with is the distinction between science and religion, or between philosophy and theology. Eastern philosophy and religion are generally intertwined, whereas in the modern West there usually exists a critical gap; philosophy and religion are viewed as separate or even antagonistic. Seife shows how narrow that gap often became when zero was the focus of attention from scientists, theologians, philosophers, and mystics alike. Though by the end of the book Seife concentrates on zero’s impact in scientific disciplines, he uses theological terms to preserve an impression of the transcendental quality of zero. Zero, with its universal power, significance, and incomprehensibility, is mythical—even godlike—in Seife’s depiction.

Although this guide retains Seife’s use of “Eastern” and “Western” as philosophical categories, it is important to note that these designations are inevitably reductive. Eastern philosophy in particular is a catch-all term for a diverse group of traditions. Even in its most restricted sense—i.e., limited to East and South Asia—it includes Taoist, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Jain, etc. thought. As Western philosophy typically encompasses only the European tradition, it is somewhat more unified. However, the dichotomy also fails to account for the exchange of ideas across regional and cultural lines; Western thought, for example, at times borrowed from Jewish and Islamic philosophy. These latter two traditions illustrate the problems of the Eastern versus Western dichotomy particularly well. Though influenced by “Eastern” (e.g., Indian, as Seife explains) philosophy, Jewish and Islamic thought also retained strong links to “Western” philosophy through their use of classical sources and the Abrahamic roots they shared with Christian philosophers. Furthermore, the distinction between Eastern and Western thought has only grown blurrier as intercultural exchange has grown more common, so they are not particularly useful terms in the context of modern philosophy.