Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The concept of “cruelty “is not very appropriate to use in relation to”life”. Schopenhauer is not cruel about life, he is a pessimist about life, he does not see anything good in human life. You can be cruel to people. All the theorists and practitioners of totalitarianism have to some extent preached cruelty or justified cruelty. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin are in our country. The most famous open call to cruelty that comes to mind is Maxim Gorky's words: “If the enemy does not surrender , they are destroyed!”
Philipp Batz (aka Фили Philipp Meinlander) with his ” Die Philosophie der Erlösung “(translated as “Philosophy of Liberation” or “Philosophy of Redemption”). In his opinion, at first there was a certain One (read “God”), which then broke up into Many. Meinlander considered it nothing more than death, the death of a God who deliberately committed suicide.�
From the death of God, the world was born along with humanity (the very Multitude), which is exactly the same striving for death. They continue God's only aspiration, to pass from being to non-being. Since God could not immediately pass into non-existence in view of his consciousness, he had to create the world by splitting himself into parts (such a Hegelian thesis is antithesis-synthesis). So this whole world with its heavens and stars is just a means, a way for God to die completely. And all that we see around us and what we ourselves are are manifestations of the will to die of that One.
There are anti-natalists, likeDavid Benatar. Birth for him is nothing more than a mistake, a tragic and terrible mistake, because there is no way to outweigh all the suffering of life with happiness. It would be ethically correct to stop giving birth to children, not to condemn them to exist in this world. The probability that you will suffer is much greater than the probability of happiness. It can be illness, famine, war, or mental health problems that often have long-term consequences. Although it should be clarified that Benatar himself does not consider his views a full-fledged theory of morality, and indicates that they relate exclusively to the morality of reproduction.�
And there are quite a few thinkers who revolve around the same axis as Schopenhauer, many of whom can compete for the title of the author of the most cruel picture of the world. You can read, for example, in the “Devastator”: “Peter Zapffe and his associates”.
I found myself thinking that the idea itself couldn't be more or less rigid. Cruel are the people who justify their cruel actions with this idea.
How then to evaluate cruelty? The number of victims? I doubt. But if this is true, then it is certainly Nietzsche with his idea of the superman.