--- title: "The Hollow Hub" sousTitre: "Lao Tzu on the Use of Non-Being, in Dialogue with Seneca" description: "In Chapter XI of the *Tao Te Ching*, Lao Tzu presents a decisive insight: it is the hollow that makes a tool functional. An unexpected convergence with Seneca." date: 2026-06-03 lang: en tradition: transversal auteurs: ["Lao Tzu", "Seneca"] --- # The Hollow Hub Thirty spokes converge around a hub. An ancient chariot wheel holds together through this minimal geometry—except that at the heart of the hub, there is precisely nothing. The hollow is what allows the axle to turn. Without this central void, the wheel is a lifeless disc. Chapter XI of the *Tao Te Ching* takes this mechanical detail as its starting point to articulate one of the most disconcerting insights of early Taoism. 三十輻，共一轂，當其無，有車之用。 埏埴以為器，當其無，有器之用。 鑿戶牖以為室，當其無，有室之用。 故有之以為利，無之以為用。 Thirty spokes gather around a hub. It is from its hollowness that the chariot’s use arises. Clay is shaped into vessels. It is from their hollowness that the vessels’ use arises. Doors and windows are cut to make a house. It is from their hollowness that the house’s use arises. Thus, utility comes from what is; use arises from what is not. The chapter unfolds in four images and a conclusion. Three familiar objects—a chariot, a vessel, a house—are described through their function. Yet their function does not reside in the material that composes them. It resides in what they *lack*: a hollow for the axle, a cavity for contents, openings to enter and exit. Matter is what we see; the void is what serves. *[無 wú]* The character *wú*—often translated as “non-being” or “nothing”—is one of the two structuring terms of Taoism, alongside *yǒu* (有, “being”). Far from a logical negation, *wú* here designates an operative absence, a hollow through which something comes to be. Lao Tzu does not claim that the void is superior to being. He asserts that the two are inseparable: “utility comes from what is; use arises from what is not.” Matter provides utility—without clay, no vessel. But without a hollow, the vessel holds nothing. The pairing of *yǒu* and *wú* is what makes things practicable. The obviousness of the full ordinarily conceals the condition of the void. The stakes extend beyond mechanics. This discreet ontology carries a practical consequence: if use depends on the void, then *preserving emptiness* within oneself determines what one can do. A saturated mind functions only on the surface. A gesture encumbered by objects loses its efficacy. This is one of the theses the *Tao Te Ching* will later develop more explicitly (Chapter XLVIII): “He who studies increases daily; he who practices the Way decreases daily.” ## Contented Poverty Four centuries apart and at the opposite end of the ancient world, Seneca, writing to Lucilius from Campania, unwittingly echoes a kindred intuition. In his second letter, he defends a rare approach to reading: not to multiply authors, but to choose, to linger. The argument might have remained pedagogical. Yet Seneca drifts toward the question of *how to live*, and the formula he borrows—from Epicurus, his doctrinal adversary—shares the same logical structure as Chapter XI of the *Tao Te Ching*. > It is not having little, but desiring more, that makes one poor. > > — **Seneca**, *Letters to Lucilius*, § Letter II. éd. canonical ref; from the French of Joseph Baillard, Wikisource (Hachette 1914). The reversal is exact: poverty is not a material deprivation. It is a lack relative to desire. To have little *and* be content is no longer poverty; it is sufficiency. Conversely, the rich man who “reckons not what he has acquired, but what he would like to acquire” lives in a poverty that has nothing to do with economics. Lao Tzu said: the vessel’s use depends on its hollow. Seneca says: contentment depends on the hollow one leaves in desire. Both objects—a vessel, a life—do not derive their function from accumulation, but from a form of restraint toward what they might contain. Overfull, the vessel spills and serves no purpose. Too consumed by lack, life chases itself and no longer inhabits itself. ## Distinguish Before Drawing Near The two passages do not say the same thing. Seneca speaks of a psychological poverty: it is one’s attitude toward what one has that decides. Lao Tzu speaks of an ontological structure: it is the very making of things that depends on the void. One is moral, the other cosmological. Yet both converge on this quiet observation: efficacy lies not with the full. For a wheel to turn, its hub must be hollow. For a mind to function, desire must be tempered—and thus a portion withheld from greed. There is something almost artisanal in this thought. The potter knows he shapes clay *for* the void it will enclose. The carpenter cuts openings *so that* one may enter. The sage, perhaps, does the same with his days. ## Sources - Lao Tzu, *Tao Te Ching* — Wikisource (trans. Stanislas Julien, 1842); from the French of Stanislas Julien, Wikisource, trans. Stanislas Julien (https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Tao_Te_King_(Stanislas_Julien)/Chapitre_11) - Seneca, *Letters to Lucilius* — Wikisource (trans. Joseph Baillard, Hachette 1914); from the French of Joseph Baillard, Wikisource, trans. Joseph Baillard (https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Lettres_%C3%A0_Lucilius/Lettre_2) Canonical source : https://viasophia.org/en/articles/2026-06-03-le-moyeu-vide/