Heidegger's Letter on Humanism was written in response to a letter from Jean Beaufret, November 10, 1946, asking "How can we restore meaning to the word 'humanism'?". Beaufret has been in touch with Heidegger for almost a year.

In October 29, 1945, Jean-Paul Sartre has delivered his Existentialism is a Humanism lecture and shortly thereafter published it as a book. Philosophical talk revolved around that essay as Europeans tried in make sense of what had just happened in the war. In the essay Sartre claimed man was thrown into an athiestic universe and must commit himself to actions for the "human community". And, he also claims, that existentialism is shared by Heidegger.

Immediately after the war, Heidegger has been quite keen on an alliance with Sartre. An attempted meeting between the two in Baden-Baden failed because transporation could not be arranged. Camus was also invited, but declined because of Heidegger involvement with the Nazis. In a surviving letter from Heidegger to Sartre, October 29, 1945, Heidegger praises Sartre's writings and invites him to Todtnauberg for skiing and philosophizing about being. So it is not surprising that Sartre thought Heidegger agreed with him.

A year later, Heidegger had regained his confidence and was ready to reclaim his own destiny without the umbrella of post-war existentialism, under which Merleau-Ponty, Marcel, and Jasper were also grouped.

I'm fairly sure this is cover letter for the Letter on Humanism because the dates match up. The notes in the book in which I found it are less than definitive. I don't think it has been translated before.

Freiburg, November 23, 1946

Dear Mister Beaufret,

Your kind letter, that was brought to me, some days ago, by Mr. Palmer, gave me great satisfaction. I have known your name for only a few weeks, through the excellent articles, on "Existentialism", published in Confluences. Unfortunately, up until now, I have not obtained # 2 and 5 of the review, but since the first article it has become evident to me the high understanding you have of philosophy. There still remain here some obscure parts that only the future will clear up. But that will not happen unless rigorous thinking, vigilant attention to speaking and the economy of words are rewarded more than they are today. You yourself see that an abyss here separates my thinking from Jasper's philosophy, without even talking about the other question that animates my thinking and that, in a curious manner, has been up to now completely unknown. I truly esteem Jaspers as a person and as a writer, his influence on university youth is considerable. But the approximation, now almost classic, "Jaspers and Heidegger", is the misunderstanding par excellence that circulates in our philosophy. This mistake peaks when one pretends to see in my philosophy a "nihilism", in my philosophy that not only questions, like all previous philosophy, about the being of beings, but about the truth of being. On the contrary, the essence of nihilsm is characterized by being incapable of thinking the nihil. I sense, as much as I could realize after a few weeks, in the thinking of young French philosophers, an extraordinary élan which clearly shows that a revolution is being prepared in this domain.

What you say about the translation of Da-sein with "human reality" is quite justified. Also excellent the annotation: "But if German has its recourses, French has its limits"; here hides an essential indication of the possibilities of one instructed by the other, in the bosom of a productive thinking, inside a mutual exchange.

"Da-sein" is a key word of my thinking, and because of that it is a source of grave errors of interpretation. "Da-sein" does not mean for me exactly "here I am", if I might express myself in an undoubtly impossible French: ser-o-ai e o-lá [translator: being-towards-having and towards-there] mean exactly AlhJeia, uncovering-opening.

But the preceeding is but some brief information. Fecund thinking requires, more than writing and reading the sunousia [translator: togetherness] of preserving,and this work that is, already teaching received, already teaching given.

Martin Heidegger

All translations are imperfect and interpretations. I have refrained from using the formal forms of addressing that are archaic in English. Suggested alternatives appreciated.  ¶ 2:06 PM