ИСТИНА

It is well known, that Martin Heidegger continues a lot of themes initiated by S. Kierkegaard. Even the language of Heidegger's philosophy is related with the language of Kierkegaard's philosophy (even Heidegger's notion of Dasein is related with the notion of Tilværelse by Kierkegaard). In his understanding of the inherent for ancient Greeks way of being-in-the-world Heidegger does not simply continues Kierkegaard’s thought, but polemically addresses to it. Heidegger is agree with Kierkegaard that the typical human being in the ancient Greece is a human being, extremely converted outward, into the world, and so is not subject with any inner world. Heidegger points out that the word "subject" (Gk. hypokeimenon) in the ancient Greek language means not a person, but something what a person is dealing with in the world. Both thinkers agree that the ancient Greek has no reflection of himself. But for Kierkegaard such a way of being (correlated with his aesthetic "stage on the life way") is something like childhood. It is a necessary stage on the way, leading to maturity; but human being must go beyond it. The main criterion for the mature human existence by Kierkegaard is the ability to practice genuine religiosity. Religiosity for Kierkegaard is first and foremost the realization by a person of an authentic relationship with the Other (God), who creates the human self (Dk. Selvet). Since the Greek human does not know his self, he is not able to implement authentically the religious relationship with God. So the religiosity of such a man, according S. Kierkegaard, may be only “external”. For Heidegger, this «Greek» way of being is not a «stage», but one of the equal-valued ways of being. So, f.ex., this way of being is not worse or better for Heidegger than the way of being dominant in the New Europe. And Heidegger shows that this way of being doesn’t exclude the possibility of authentic religiousness. He shows it, linking religiosity with the openness to the being (germ. Sein). The difference in the positions personified here by S. Kierkegaard and M. Heidegger may have important consequences for the practical (f.ex. psychological) work with the person. When psychotherapist works with a person, whose way of being seems to be like «Greek», should he help this person to carry forward to the other "stage" or to develope the inherent potentialities of this «Greek» way of being as such? The answers derived from the Heidegger’s and the Kierkegaard’s positions are different. I will try to show why the Heidegger’s position seems to be more productive.