Comparison between Heidegger and Sartre's Existentialism

Comparison between Heidegger and Sartre's Existentialism

"Heidegger is the founder of existentialism" and "Sartre is the greatest representative of French existentialism", which is a relatively consistent view in academic circles. But there are different opinions about the connection and difference between them. This article would like to talk about some superficial views in order to correct my colleagues.

First, the similarities and differences of "the concept of existence"

Both Heidegger and Sartre emphasized the ontological significance of "existence" and regarded "the problem of existence" as the core of their academic thoughts. However, they put forward "existence" for different objects, endowed them with different functions, and their structures of "existence" are not exactly the same.

Heidegger put forward "existence" for "existence". Then, what are "being" and "being" in Heidegger's mind, and what is the relationship between them?

"Existence", the German original sein, is translated into "existence" and "you" or "yes" in Chinese. Heinz himself did not make a clear definition of this concept. Because in his view, this category presents a dynamic process of "appearance", "life", "upward" and "existence", and you can't say what is appearance and what is upward. Because once you say what is happening and what is happening, you have said "existence" instead of "existence" itself. In other words, although "existence" is the root of all "existence" in Heidegger's view, it can't have specific provisions, but only represents a possibility and a dynamic trend of "gathering" of things, and insists that everything appears in the process of emergence and exists in the process of "gathering".

"Existentialist", formerly known as Daside in German, means something that already exists, appears as reality and has been "together". This includes both material things that people can experience with their senses and spiritual things that people can't perceive in time and space with their senses. In Hayes' view, everything that exists in reality is "existence".

When it comes to the relationship between them, Heidegger thinks that "existence" is the basis of determining "existence" as "existence" and the basis and premise of all "existence". From a dynamic point of view, it is an activity and process that makes the "being" appear as "being". "Existence" takes precedence over "existence" in logic. On the other hand, since "existence" is a kind of temporality in essence, it has no realistic essence, so it cannot be defined. It is just a possibility of "being together". From this perspective, we can't ask what "being" is, but only how, why, why and so on. Obviously, this is to put forward, ask and clarify the meaning of "existence" through "existence" This shows that "existence" must be based on "existence", but the meaning of "existence" itself can only be explored and pursued by "existence". It is based on this understanding that Heidegger borrowed Plato's words: "When you use the word' existence', it is obvious that you are already familiar with what this means, but although we once believed that we understood it, we are at a loss now." [1] (p1) was at a loss because he didn't really understand the meaning of "existence". This shows that, in Heidegger's view, there is a fundamental mistake in traditional philosophy: that is, they all affirmed existence without really understanding the meaning of existence, but in fact they regarded the problem of existence as the problem of existence, which led to its loss or forgetting. On this basis, he asked: "What does the word' existence' mean? Do we have the answer to this question today? So now we have to re-examine the meaning of existence. " [1] It can be seen that Heidegger believes that since Plato, western philosophy is nominally "existentialism" but actually "existentialism". However, existence is existence on the premise of "existence". In this case, traditional philosophy is obviously a rootless ontology. The ontology he wants to establish is a "basic ontology" with evidence and roots. This shows that his whole philosophical system is based on distinguishing the different meanings of "being" and "being".

But Sartre's "existence" is aimed at "essence". In Sartre's view, both religious philosophy and the philosophy of Kant and Hegel can be called "essentialism" in a sense. Because they all believe that "absolute spirit" is a kind of "essence" hidden behind everything, which determines and dominates their existence. Therefore, logically speaking, "essence precedes existence". God, things themselves and absolute spirit are the roots and foundations of all things. Sartre wants to establish that "existentialism is a theory that puts existence above essence" (Kuhn language). Here "above" is the first, that is, the logical premise and foundation. Observing "people" from these two different viewpoints, the difference is more acute. Essentialism holds that human nature precedes the historical existence encountered in experience, while existentialism holds that the historical existence encountered by human beings is the starting point for the formation of human nature, which is formed in a specific historical situation. "Man is nothing more than his own creation, which is the first principle of existentialism." "First, man exists, appears, and then shows himself. The beginning of life is empty; Only later, people will become something and create themselves according to their own will. " [2] Obviously, Sartre emphasized that "existence" was put forward in comparison with "essence", and the existentialism he established was formed in opposition to "essentialism" and "craftsman". Artisans, such as blacksmiths, first got the essential knowledge of the axe in their minds, or made it after mastering the essence of the axe, which is completely consistent with essentialism in thought, or the latter is just the concrete manifestation of the former.

Secondly, Heidegger believes that to clarify and reveal the meaning of "existence", it is necessary to go through "existence". The question is, "On what kind of existence should we crack the meaning of existence? What kind of existence should we take as the starting point, so that existence can be displayed? Is the starting point arbitrary? " . [1] (p1) He gave a negative answer to this: the starting point is not arbitrary, and the existence as the starting point can only be "this is".

The original meaning of "Zhezai" in German is dasein, which is similar to "Dingzai" and "limited existence" in Hegel's logic, meaning specific, prescriptive and limited "special existence" and "specific existence". The difference is that in Hegel's view, it can refer to both specific people and specific things. However, this refers to the existence of people. Why should we clarify the meaning of "being" through people and the concrete existence of "being here"? To sum up: first, because only people can realize their present existence, while other beings do not have this consciousness and have no understanding of their own existence. This characteristic of "this is" makes it possible to clarify and express the meaning of "existence". Since other beings are not aware of their own existence, how can they hope to reveal the universality and universal significance of "existence" through it? Second, "this being" does not exist alone, but exists in people and things around. Contact with people and things around you is the way to "exist". People not only realize that they are a kind of existence in these ways, but also know and understand how others and other things exist and what kind of existence they are, so as to make clear the "meaning of existence". It is people with these characteristics that make them occupy a special position among many beings and become the starting point of Heidegger's basic ontology. On the other hand, taking this as the function and significance of "being" endowed by Heidegger means that only through it can we raise, question, explore and express the meaning of existence.

Coincidentally, Sartre divided existence into "free existence" and "self-excited existence". The former refers to the "existence" that can't be conscious, understand, understand and experience the meaning of its own existence, that is, the existence of things or nature, which is equivalent to Heidegger's "existence". And "self-existence" means being able to know and understand the meaning of one's existence, and such "existence" can only be "human", which is completely consistent with the essence of Heidegger's "this is".

However, Sartre's function and significance to "self-existence" are different from Hayes's. In his view, "ego is nothing more than free nothingness, which is contained in pure existence as a pure hole". In other words, he proposed "self-existence" mainly to distinguish it from "self-existence" and reveal that man himself is a way of existence different from other beings, that is, "self-existence". Man's way of existence is freedom. "The so-called freedom is the existence of a person who makes his past useless while hiding his nothingness." Here, "pure hole", "secreting nothingness" and "making oneself nothingness" are different in essence. They all mean that human existence always denies the present existence of self, transcends self, and declares what it will become by denying what it is, that is, "it is not what it is" or "what it will be". In other words, "self-existence" always obeys the purpose and future of self and is defined from the future. It is fundamentally different from the existence of freedom subject to the past and the way of determining the future existence from the past and the present.

Thirdly, Heidegger believes that the existence of "this being" is "living" and the basic structure of living is "worry". The original German word for "vexation" is sorrow, which means anxiety, annoyance, concern, worry and anxiety. Hai pointed out: "As long as this is the existence of the world, it is completely dominated by troubles, and' existence' is stamped with the seal of troubles, which is one and two, and two and one." [ 1](P240)

There are two kinds of troubles: annoying and not annoying. The former refers to the existing state when it has a relationship with other things; The latter refers to this state of being when having sex with others. It should be noted that the "other" in "worry" mainly refers not to the other when it is related to something, but to the "instruments" used when it is related to other things. The existence of certain instruments (i.e. tools) is based on the fact that they are used for the activities of "this being". The appliance in use reveals the existence of the appliance itself and the objects it touches. By analogy, the use of utensils reveals the existence of other beings related to this existence and the whole world. It is not difficult to deduce from this that the meaning of "existence" of other beings is endowed by "existence" in worrying activities.

In a sense, "disturbing God" can be regarded as a further extension of disturbing God. Because of trouble, this is not only dealing with electrical appliances, but also dealing with related people. If you study, you should deal with people who write, sell and print books, and if you eat, you should deal with people who grow grain and cook. Therefore, the existence of this being is not the existence of a lonely individual, but the existence of others, that is, the existence of * * * and the existence of * * *. However, the meaning of others' existence is the same as that of instruments, and it is also endowed by this existence, or revealed and clarified through this existence.

In addition, Hayes believes that this kind of existence in the world does not refer to a static space form such as a table in the room and a sitting Zhang San and Li Si in the classroom, but mainly refers to a dynamic process of "gathering" and "appearing". In other words, it is mainly a dynamic form of time. Since the basic structure of the world is "worry", then worry includes a time structure, which generally has three links: before itself, already in the world, and attached to other beings. The three forms a complete unity, namely present future tense, past tense and present tense. "Timeliness shows that you are really worried", [1](P378) implies that where there is "here", there is "worry", and when there is worry, there is time. Existence, existence and boredom are completely synchronized, and boredom runs through the life of existence from beginning to end.

Compared with Hayes, Sartre thinks that only when "self-existence" takes into account the responsibility arising from self-choice, can it be considered as "real slavery", thus causing troubles and anxiety. This shows that if Heidegger regards "worry" as the basic structure in the world, then Sartre only regards "worry" as an integral part of "self-existence" in the world, which will be discussed below and will not be repeated here.

Finally, Heidegger believes that there are two "existential states" to measure the past and present of this existence in the future tense, namely, the real existential state and the unreal existential state.

The so-called "unreal existence" refers to the way that people lose their unique personality, not exist independently, but are restricted and controlled by other beings, wearing masks to show their unreal face. Hay pointed out: "Mutual * * is to completely melt one's own existence in the way of' the existence of others'. And these others are disappearing more and more in various but obvious situations. In this humble and uncertain situation,' ordinary people' launched a real' dictatorship' against him. We entertain ourselves just like ordinary people. We judge how ordinary people read and judge literature and art, and we retreat just like ordinary people retreat from the public. We are angry at what' ordinary people' are angry about. This' ordinary person' is not any definite person. All people (not as a sum) are this' ordinary person', which is the way this' ordinary person' stipulates the existence of daily life. " [ 1](P 164)

Since "this is" is dominated by "ordinary people", then individuals don't need and can't make their own judgments about any events, let alone make choices about their behavior. Everything is based on "public opinion" and "public opinion", and the result will inevitably make it lose its true colors. For this kind of "quilt", Heinz took a proper term called "sinking". He also mentioned in particular that in daily life, people are often dominated by gossip, curiosity, ambiguity and other habits, and are in a state of sinking; "Gossip, curiosity and ambiguity are all characteristics used to develop a way of life in daily life ... In these characteristics, in the connection of these characteristics, a basic style existing in daily life is exposed,' we call it the sinking of existence'". [ 1](P2 19)

In addition to sinking, Hayes also talked about alienation. In fact, the essence of alienation is still sinking, but in contrast, it is deeper and heavier than the general sinking, which means that it is completely hidden in its own existence, and even goes to a state of sinking opposite to itself and itself.

But what needs to be clear is that neither degeneration nor alienation means moral degeneration, nor does it mean the accidental nature and characteristics of this existence, but the internal structure of this existence. The fundamental reason for this is that he is not an isolated person, always dealing with other beings, always in a certain natural and social environment, and inevitably bound by the political system, laws and regulations, public opinion, moral norms and customs that embody the rule of "ordinary people". If the ego is not highly aware of this, it will naturally fall into the trap of sinking and alienation.

Fear and death are the ways to get rid of, or save from, degradation and alienation.

Heidegger believes that fear is different from "fear". Because I'm afraid of having a definite object. Or afraid of something, or afraid of someone, in short, I am worried that an object will cause some harm to myself. "Fear" shows only the "present state" of this specific situation, not the "existence itself" of this existence. The difference between fear and fear is that you don't know what to be afraid of. "Fear means that the threat is nothing ... but' nothing' doesn't mean nothing". [1](P23) This shows that the object of fear is not ready-made, but only a possibility. It is this "fear" that forces this existence to develop the whole realm of existence, and at the same time makes it possible for it to be in a real "existence" according to its own wishes, without being restricted by all kinds of ready-made things.

The extreme manifestation of fear is the fear of "death". Death is the time of life. Hayes believes that "this is" only in the fear of death can we really return from the illusory state to the real state. This is because death in Heidegger's mind is related to and different from physical and psychological death. 1. Although death is the end of this existence, it is only a possibility before this existence becomes a reality; 2. This possibility is entirely in ourselves, and has nothing to do with anyone, and no one can replace it; 3. Death is something that no one can escape or avoid; 4. Death is uncertain. It is difficult to predict when and why you will die. Hai believes that when we truly understand the above characteristics of death, we can break through and reject any form of fetters and shackles, get rid of all forms of degradation and alienation, face up to life and be in a state of freedom without care. This shows that Hayes' "freedom" is only in fear, especially when he truly understands and understands the meaning of "death" to life, which is the real state of self-preservation and independence.

Sartre regards "freedom" as the fundamental way of "self-existence". Where there is "self-existence", there is "freedom", and if you want to escape, you can't escape, thus establishing a distinct concept of freedom.

Second, the concept of freedom is a contradiction.

If Heidegger only regards "freedom" as an organic link and a constituent element of his basic ontology, then Sartre regards "freedom" as the core of his whole theory. In this sense, his ontology of existence only serves his view of freedom of existence.

On the one hand, Sartre's "freedom view" is based on existentialism, on the other hand, it is established relative to the "essentialist freedom view". In Sartre's view, recognizing nature first, determinism of God, the conclusion of fate and the restriction of freedom on necessity are all incomplete and superficial freedoms, not real and complete freedoms. Existentialist view of freedom confirms that "freedom" is not a goal to strive for, but the starting point of "self-existence". In other words, if there is self-existence, there is freedom; Where there is freedom, there is self. As a kind of "self-existence", people are born free and cannot get rid of it. "Man is born a prisoner of freedom", "Human freedom precedes and makes human nature possible, and the essence of human existence hangs in human freedom. Therefore, our so-called freedom cannot be distinguished from the existence of' human reality '(etre). Man does not exist first in order to become free in the future. There is no difference between man's existence and his' freedom'. [3](P5-6)

"Freedom" is the inherent essence of human beings. Where is it reflected? Sartre replied: People must make choices about the situations they encounter all the time, even if they don't choose, it is also a choice, and "whatever our existence is, it is a choice, which depends on our choice, making ourselves great, noble, humble and obedient". [3](P472) It is in choice and action after choice that people create their own specific essence.

However, it must be pointed out that Sartre did not emphasize freedom for the sake of emphasizing freedom. His aim is to carry out the consequences and responsibilities brought about by free choice. Kant once pointed out that without free will, there is no morality, and freedom means taking responsibility. Sartre accepted the idea and took it a step forward. I think that once I make a certain choice, I am not only shaping myself, but also shaping others, so I should be responsible not only for myself but also for others. "Man, because he is destined to be free, bears the weight of the whole world on his shoulders. He is responsible for the world as a way of existence and himself." [3](P708) Obviously, the centralized thought is in the same strain as Kant's "universal moral law".

In Sartre's view, there is no pain and worry in choice itself, but being responsible for the consequences of choice is the source of anxiety. This shows that Sartre's worry is different from Heidegger's worry about being a man, but about taking responsibility after China's entry into WTO. Some people criticized Sartre, saying that this unconditional commitment is harsh and unacceptable. Sartre pointed out: "Man is only the sum of his own actions, so it is not difficult to understand why some people are extremely frightened of our theory, because for many unfortunate people, the only comfort is that the environment is beneficial to me, and I should have achieved greater achievements than I actually did. I admit that I have never had great love or great friendship, but this is because I have never met a man or woman who deserves such love or friendship. If I haven't written a good book, it's because I don't have time to write it ... But for existentialists, there is no love without love, and there is no genius except the genius shown in works of art. Undoubtedly, this idea is of no comfort to those who have accomplished nothing in their lives. " This fully shows that Sartre's "self-existence" (that is, human beings), "freedom", "choice" and "responsibility" are integrated and inseparable, and this view of extreme freedom regardless of any conditions obviously contains positive and reasonable elements of taking responsibility.

Third, scholars and soldiers.

Heidegger was born at the end of19th century and died in 1970s. Although he experienced two world wars and numerous political and economic changes, he basically went in and out of institutions of higher learning and studied. He studied, taught, researched and wrote all his life. He is a typical scholar and a profound thinker. His works are full of calm thinking, clear logic and perfect structure. Reading his works is often touched by his profound thoughts and convincing logical power. Sartre is both a scholar and a soldier. Although it is hard to say how much it can surpass Heidegger in the depth of academic theory and the innovation of viewpoints, it is beyond Heidegger in the spread and wide influence of existentialism. On the one hand, he not only inherited and carried forward Hayes' related thoughts as a scholar, but also benefited from the profound philosophy contained in his works as a writer, dramatist and poet. His cold analysis was full of fire-like passion. On the other hand, I especially want to thank him for his personal participation in many social practices as a social activist and a brave fighter for human freedom. Sartre enlisted in the army in his early years and became a prisoner. Later, he actively participated in underground resistance activities against fascist aggression. In the 1960s, he enthusiastically supported the student rebellion movement, and personally delivered speeches and distributed leaflets. Despite repeated accusations and detention, he persevered. However, no matter how different Heidegger and Sartre are, they are undoubtedly brilliant stars in the sky of human ideological history, and they are still shining today.