M. HEIDEGGER VS J.-P. SARTRE: ABSURD AND MEDITATION

Abstract Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre approach the question of being differently. Sartre employs the logic of traditional metaphysics and defines existentialism in key traits: existence precedes essence; human being does not have a predetermined purpose; a person defines themselves through the freedom of choice; the negative freedom of subjective will of being is not negated by any projects of self-definition; human life is absurd in its principle-less determinism, and the being of the world does not encompass the meaning of all that is. Heidegger considers it possible to bring a person closer to their essence. He views the person as a being among beings, that is, one who questions their being and believes in their being through forms of meaning. Humanism is regarded by Heidegger as part of metaphysics and the doctrine of the animalistic nature of humans, shaped by education through a certain idea of good, by which a social being of the required kind is formed. The discussion between the works "Existentialism is a Humanism" and "Letter on Humanism" is a discussion between metaphysical and ontological approaches to the question of human being. The study focuses on an attempt to explain Martin Heidegger's criticism of existential humanism as a subjective project of social existence, in which the ego-consciousness of the human social unit does not need to engage in careful and unhurried contemplation of the nature of things, its essence, and the meaning of being. Instead, the author of the article proposes an analysis of remarks from "Letter on Humanism" developed in the context of Martin Heidegger's later reflections, related to the philosophical term Gelassenheit. This analysis aims to explain what is lacking in the calculative thinking of existential humanists and why the framing of things, carried out from the freedom of choice to determine a principled world in an unprincipled life, threatens human self-understanding.