After examining metaphysical approach, let us know look into some versions of existential approach.

We
shall examine the approaches of Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Heidegger’s analysis of the human person as a being in the world.

To begin with, according to Heidegger, the human person, in terms of his/her kind or mode of existence,
has two fundamental features. First, the human person exists in a world, that is to say, the human
person does not exist in a vacuum, for there is always a context, or a situation, in which he/she exists.

The second, the human person has a self that he/she defines as he/she exists in the world, that is to say
a human person does not exist in the world as a nobody for he/she has a self which he/she defines as
he/she exists in the world.

To determine what is unique about the human existence in the world (or a human person’s being-in-the-
world) we need to compare it with the existence of mere things or objects in some place.

How does, for instance, Mark’s being in a room differ from a table’s being in the room?

It shall be observed following Heidegger, that a human person’s being-in-the-world or existence in the
world cannot be described simply as a relation in space. In that the human person just happens to be in
that particular place. It is also characterized by the involvement or engagement which Heidegger refers
to as care (Sorge in German).

This means Mark’s being in the room cannot sufficiently described simply by the fact that Mark is
spatially located inside the room. For while inside the room, Mark is engaged in certain things. He’s may
be chatting with his friends; maybe he is reading a book, and other ways to deliver his purpose why he is
inside that room. While the table’s being in that room can be sufficiently described by the fact that the
table is spatially located in the room. There is nothing more that we need to say or account for.

Heidegger identifies two ways by which a human person gets involved with things in the world. In being
involved with this things, a human person is either being alongside or being with these things or entities.
This means that things appear to the human person merely as a form of equipment or instrument, or as
things that the human person can use either for his/her practical purposes or for his/her theoretical
contemplation.

For practical purposes- Things appear to him/her as things that he/she can use to satisfy his/her
practical needs.

For theoretical contemplation- things appear to him/her as things that he/she can study or observe.

On the other hand, being with other entities, a human person’s involvement has the character of
considerateness (and forbearance) which are best shown in moments which the human person
emphasizes with his/her fellow human persons. Consequently, the totality of entities that a human
person is alongside constitutes a human person’s equipmental world, while the totality of entities a
human person is with constitutes the human person’s public or social world.
A human person is ideally alongside mere objects or nonhumans, and with his/her fellow human
persons. Meaning, ideally we should use mere objects as pieces of equipment but see other human
persons as objects of considerateness, or what we should use mere objects but be considerate with
other human persons. \

But sometimes happens that a human person is alongside his/her fellow human persons, like when
he/she relates to his/her fellow human persons for utility-related reasons.

On the other hand, it also sometimes happens that a human person is with a nonhuman person, as
when he/she worships natural objects or human artifacts or regards the as having some form of
consciousness and preferences.

In sum, a human person exists in the world not just as a matter of location I space, like how mere
objects are in a certain place, but primarily as involved or engaged in various things. This involvement
however, takes two forms. One is with utility, the other by considerateness. Divided in two types,
equipmental world, the world of things that a human person uses to satisfy his/her interest, and
social/public world, the world of things that a human person relates to considerateness.

Now a very important dimension of human person’s being-in-the-world is its temporality, referring the
fact that a human person’s existence in the world has a dimension of having a past, present, and future.
This temporality, however, is fundamentally different from ordinary clock time.

Ordinary clock time regards the past, present and future as unconnected to events.