Introduction
Bogusław Wolniewicz proposes a "theology of the devil" not as folklore, but as a description of the world's real mechanisms. Understanding the nature of evil is crucial for the survival of civilization. Readers will explore the definition of the love of evil and learn why anthropological optimism can be dangerous. This article analyzes how philosophy, from Kant to Lem, attempts to grasp the essence of disinterested destruction.
Wolniewicz: A Real Definition of the Devil as Negation
Wolniewicz defines the devil as the love of evil. This is not a metaphor, but a rigorous ontological proposition. It consists of cruelty and malicious joy: the active desire to cause harm and the passive delight in the suffering of others. Wolniewicz rejects Augustine and his vision of evil as a mere privation of good. He argues that evil is an active, positive force woven into the very constitution of life.
This thought grows from the foundations of radical evil in Kant and the Schopenhauerian concept of disinterested malice. The author calls for the creation of a secular theology of the devil to study the mechanisms that transform destructive tendencies into action. Evil is not an error of reason, but a sovereign choice of the will.
Epiphanies of Evil: Historical Turning Points of Murder
Evil manifests through epiphanies—moments when destruction becomes pure and devoid of utilitarian justification. Examples such as Katyn or concentration camps show that evil does not always serve profit. In the Wolniewicz vs. Arendt debate, the philosopher emphasizes that evil is an instinct, not just bureaucratic thoughtlessness. Lem’s systems complete this picture, describing the mechanical production of cruelty through flawed structures.
This reflection has deep civilizational roots. Greece saw evil in pride (hybris), India in ignorance, and Persia in cosmic dualism. Wolniewicz stands closer to ditheism—the recognition of evil as a real entity. Sovereign responsibility lies in recognizing these forces and building institutional barriers before evil floods the public sphere.
Pejorism vs. Meliorism: The Dispute Over Human Nature
Modern politics is based on the clash of two visions. Meliorism believes in progress and natural goodness, while pejorism assumes the ineliminability of evil. Rousseau’s optimism is regarded here as a dangerous foundation, as it absolves the individual of guilt by shifting it onto "the system." Wolniewicz argues that anthropological pessimism should be the basis of social order. Institutions must serve as dams against the human inclination toward destruction.
The ground for epiphanies is prepared by language and the dehumanization of the opponent. When words strip away dignity, violence becomes a mere formality. Today, malicious joy in social media takes the form of "liking" another's humiliation. This is the modern mask of cruelty, normalizing disinterested unkindness on a mass scale.
Summary
In the age of technology, evil becomes quantifiable but no less dangerous. Can we resist the "love of evil" hidden within procedures and algorithms? The more we understand the mechanisms of evil, the greater the responsibility we bear not to become its unconscious executioners. Wolniewicz’s reflection reminds us that the fight against evil begins with the courage to call it by its name.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF