Abstract: The suffering subject in a postmodernism received the versatile characteristic. Differently to an occasion and Zh. Bataille, Zh. Bodriyyar, Zh. Delyoz, S. Zhizhek, Zh.-F. Liotar handled the different purposes to this problem. Philosophers sought to find sources of suffering, the reason of an inclusiveness of this feeling, to reveal social measurement of this experience, to compare masochism to a sadism. In article it is shown that the subject of a sadism received broad interpretation in connection with studying of a phenomenon of the power. Thinkers tried to find justification of love of power in works of classical philosophy and to give broad interpretation to violence. Love of power is all-embracing. All people are ready to subordinate themselves others. Nobody refuses the power voluntary. The victim dreams to become the executioner. Methods of the analysis are connected with philosophical anthropology. In article it is shown that the violence and humility express an essence of a human nature. In this sense between them there is an internal relationship. Besides, in article the historicism method is used. It allowed to compare concepts of postmodernists with classical philosophy. Novelty of article is caused by that the author explains the reasons of interest of postmodernists in a violence phenomenon. Therefore huge interest in the identity of the marquis de Sade came to light. After postmodernists the author compares Kant and de Sade's ethics. The sadism and masochism aren't separately existing phenomena. The victim finds cruel qualities, and the executioner looks for pleasures. The sadist differs in obsession, and the masochist in conciliation. In article the paradoxical logic of these characters is noted. The masochist looks for pleasures in suffering, and the sadist – in unrestrained power.

Abstract: The author tries to show why in our era of globalization and a celebration of information society suffering continues to paint life of many people that does this problem actual for the philosophical analysis. The author connects the reason of so intensive interest to this subject with transformation of a philosophical and anthropological paradigm. The classical philosophical anthropology considered the person as the mortal creation urged by all experience of the life to overcome vital tests. Therefore the suffering was treated as the inevitable satellite of human life and as a peculiar expression of a human nature. However in the conditions of consumer society the anthropological subject found other meanings. In public consciousness the belief became stronger that the suffering is simply negative experience and he need to avoid, achieve that life answered ideals of hedonistic ethics. The analysis method in article is subordinated to the historical principle. The author seeks to show that the subject of suffering was a judgment subject during various eras and contained different meanings. Besides, the author relies on methodology of philosophical anthropology. The subject of suffering is, as a rule, treated according to a philosophical and anthropological paradigm. Novelty of article consists in attempt to show basic distinction in treatment of suffering in classical and modern philosophy. Modern concepts of a deantpropologization and debiologization of the person are subjected to the critical analysis. Supporters of transhumanity without critical analysis advertize ideas of human immortality, release from all sufferings and a hedonism celebration.