2 Answers

  1. What is the fundamental difference between the ontological and the ontic?

    Here is an explanation – the definition is terrible:

    “…Philosophers who used these terms understood them differently, but in general, the ontic is the concrete, “factual” existence of objects, and the ontological is their categories and properties (quantity, quality, etc.)

    It is terrible, because the whole thing boils down to the distinction between the concrete and the universal, and not only was this distinction already well made in the old metaphysics, namely, under proper names – concrete and universal, and it is stupid to attach to them a completely different projection of the ontic and ontological, but it is also fundamentally wrong, because then we get that the ontological, the existential is never concrete, and the ontic is completely separated from the essence and meaning – that is, from the universal and categories. Although it was just the opposite, it came as close as possible to the essence, to the essential in the world – albeit roughly, but it was best to equate it with categories and the universal. The ontological, on the other hand, should be attributed to the sensuously concrete, either as naive(simple, uncompounded being) or as complex(composite being). Even such attributions would be wrong, but they would be closer to the truth than what the author of this article wrote to us. The very first definition gives him away with his head – that he does not understand what he is writing about…

    So, the ontic is the essential, the objective, the objective in the sense in which the object becomes an object – such – in its essence, and the object becomes an object within its categories – quantity, quality, form, content, etc., considered both at the metaphysical and scientific level. Here's the ontic-it covers both the categorical world and the” facts ” – objects, but it covers them in this specific way. It can even be said that it does not represent the unity of its categories and the objects under them – their definite joint work in cognition.

    The ontological is the semantic, continuous, continuous, integral, sensually perceived in the sense of the word in which it is not an object or object, but a mystery, universality and collectivity.. And although this definition is also rough( any definition is inappropriate here, thinking and understanding of the problem is appropriate, in line with which the meanings also become clear), BUT I dare to hope that it is more correct than the previous author's one.

    We see the same thing in humans. The ontic is not a fireman, not a father and mother, or just a son; the ontic is also a person in general, since man is still defined, thanks to the old metaphysics, only as a certain entity in which individuality is completely lost, like an insignificant remnant of being.

    Therefore, a person is an ontic definition, not an ontological one. So firefighters with other statuses have a rest here – everything is clear with them, but the problem of the person himself is that he is considered only as a person in the vast majority of cases of thinking about him. Heidegger tried to show that if we also see a person as an object, then we see him shabbily – a person is not only an entity among other entities, even the most, the most, but a person is also an existential, ontological structure-read Dasein, because this is such a structure.

    Dasein is an ontology, man is an ontic understanding. Dazain is event-like – both another Dazain and the world(being in the world), a person is abstract in all, even the most complex projections of his understanding.

  2. Philosophers who used these terms understood them differently, but in general, the ontic is the concrete, “factual” existence of objects, and the ontological is their categories and properties (quantity, quality, etc.)

    These terms are especially important in Heidegger's work. For him, the ontic and the ontological are two different ways of exploring and understanding being. Ontically (apophantically) considering a person (i.e., the essence of the Dasein character), we understand him “factually” (for example, as a man, son, father, fireman, etc.) in the network of referential connections that define these roles. When we look at a thing ontically, we understand it “factually” – its properties and the structures of understanding based on them (for example, physical laws). This consideration can be called apophantic because ontic consideration makes it possible to express the understanding of the entity under consideration with the help of statements: for example, “I am a firefighter and I have to put out fires, for which I am paid a salary”, “this is a red hammer that is convenient to hammer nails”, etc.

    Ontological or hermeneutical research for Heidegger is the study of existential structures of being (“facticity”, “being-in-the-world”, “being-with-others”, etc.), which would be too long to talk about here, constituting everyday human practices, including the possibility of ontic understanding.

Leave a Reply