I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned before, at least not explicitly (it was implicitly pointed out in one of the comments, as this view is considered to be nihilistic):
“Nothing exists; even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.” - Gorgias
One must be careful though:
This argument has led some to label Gorgias as either an ontological skeptic or a nihilist (one who believes nothing exists, or that the world is incomprehensible, and that the concept of truth is fictitious). But it can also be interpreted as an assertion that it is logos and logos alone which is the proper object of our inquiries, since it is the only thing we can really know. On Nature is sometimes seen as a refutation of pre-Socratic essentialist philosophy (McComiskey 37). (source: IEP)
As many have said before me here, I think the question is self-defeating. You have the thought (i.e. it exists) to ask yourself whether there is a philosophy that asks whether nothing exist. The existence of the thought means that something exists and would famously give rise to Descartes' new foundation of all knowledge.