There is something strange in the life and work of Heidegger. He was sad when he saw that Sein and Zeit is interpreted as a philosophical anthropology. He did'nt want at all to be respected as an existentialist. About Sartre, he also said that if the question mark of the author of L'Etre et le Neant is man, in his philosophy it's essentially the question of Being. Nevertheless, and however he insists to fix the meaning of his work, he left a trace who is eminently existentialist. Henri Gouhier, who was at that time the oldest French philosopher, said with enthusiasm and irony that the most interesting perspective in Heidegger is precisely the anthropological one. Finally it is the analytic of Dasein that had the most influence. It is the being-in-the-world of man, described by Heidegger, that aroused great interest. We can say then that the description of human existence is who had give us the most researches, including on psychology and psychiatry like the works of Medar Boss and Ludwig Binswanger. Heidegger let us with a paradoxal heritage, but promising. And we are now precisely living in that paradox. In reality, it is only at the coming of the work of Merleau-Ponty that we have surmount this major difficulty. With a radical return, beyond Heidegger, to phenomenology, and an eternal return to the life-world, he give us a possible solution and a real project, to get out from the metaphysics of subjectivity, and to be not going again between mind and body, subject an object, man and world. "We burst out laughing, said Nietzsche, when we see man and world separated by the sublime pretentiousness of a little word and". Merleau-Ponty was inspired by returning to the body and the life of things... There is maybe here an inspiring of future and the future of inspiring. He new how to talk about Cezanne and painting, Proust and literature, and, strangely, also about cinema. We have to learn again how to see the world, how to feel the world, and how to return to the life-world, after a long exile, there we have lost how to speak in the ded-world. We have to return to a world before knowledge, who's older and younger than any knowledge, that we are not able to talk about, what we are, in the same time, always talking about. We are discounted of life, of our lives, of what makes us being here. Returning to this world it means put us in the test of the world, and go through that crossing that let us have something like a reeducation of what we become now. We can call it existentialism, we can call it phenomenology, but here is the destiny of the philosophical heritage of the twentieth century.
