A Comparative Analysis of the Phenomenon of Freedom in the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger and in the French Neo Hegelianism of the XX Century (Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault)

By the end of the 19th century, a critical amount of facts had accumulated that showed the incompleteness of the classical theory of knowledge. In the XX century, the search for true self-understanding of human subjectivity continued. After two world wars, a revision was required both of the concept of man as a rational being and of the perception of man as a free individual. As a response to the crisis of classical metaphysics a new type of rationality began to form - non-classical. One of the most significant examples of a non-classical philosophical system was the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. According to Heidegger, man is Dasein, questioning Being about himself. Opening himself as Dasein, a person understands his place in the world and his ontological connection with Being. The beginning of a systematic criticism of the classical approach to subjectivity can be found in the philosophy of Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel. Subsequently, the Hegelian line of elevation of the subject was taken up by the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, where man received total freedom, and where man is "nothing." The response to existentialism was structuralism, with its blurring of the subject and the view of man as a by-product of structures. In Heidegger's system, human play a unique role. All of the above philosophical systems have common features with Heidegger's approach to man. The similarity with the Hegelian system lies in the fact that a person, through the ability to understand Being, realizes his rootedness in the Absolute. However, Heidegger does not agree with Hegel's panlogism, because, according to Heidegger, Being contains not only rationality, but also goes beyond it. From existentialism, Heidegger took the understanding of man not only through his rationality, but also taking into account the uniqueness of human existence as an experience ("existence"), since before his understanding of Being, a person already appears in it to successfully exist and understand it. But at the same time, Heidegger denies endowing a person with such a high level of freedom as in existentialism. The idea common to structuralism and Heidegger is that a person always finds himself in an already existing world. But for Heidegger, the question of Being for the construction of a philosophical system was primary, and in structuralism the theme of Being was not problematized. There is something in common between Heidegger, Foucault, Sartre and Hegel - they explore how human being is interiorized. In other words, they write about how a person's identity realizes itself in society. The importance of this issue is reflected in the basic tenet of existentialism - each individual should be aware of the boundaries of his own life and take responsibility for it. Sartre and Foucault are different ways of developing the Hegelian approach to subjectivity. In the philosophical system of Hegel, man occupies an important place, since it is through him that the formation of the self-consciousness of the Absolute Spirit takes place. But precisely because the Absolute Spirit receives the realization through a person, the freedom of the individual is erased, a person always speaks not on his own behalf. Sartre brings the idea of the unique role of man in the world to the extreme. In existentialism, the individual finds himself "thrown" into the world and finds himself alone, he no longer has moral guidelines. Foucault's structuralism is a reaction to such a rise in the significance of man in the universe of Being. Foucault's subject is blurred; it is only a part of the structures. Therefore, a person, according to Foucault, cannot be an autonomous subject, his subjectivity has a social nature. Existentialism and structuralism are opposite philosophical systems. They are simplifications compared to Heidegger. In Heidegger's system, you can find features of both systems therefore his philosophy is richer in meanings and readings.