5

Are the two terms the same or not? In what sense Heidegger makes a distinction between the two?

Can someone give also simple examples of the difference?

4

The science that studies a be-ing is, for Heidegger, ontic [ontique], and it is necessary to distinguish it from the science of the being of a be-ing which alone is ontological [ontologique]. Let us examine these distinctions more closely. The attributes of a be-ing make it to be of this or that determination. In identifying its attributes, we say what it is, or end up at its essence [GT : the realm of the ontic]. But alongside the essence of a be-ing, we can affirm, through a perception or demonstration [GT : the realm of ontology], that it exists. (Emmanuel Levinas, 'Martin Heidegger and Ontology', Diacritics, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 11-32 : 15.)

So, for example, I can take X, an object in my world, and determine its essence, fix its essential attributes. This is an ontic exercise. I can also consider what it is for X, with its essential attributes, to exist. In contrast this is an ontological inquiry.

  • ontic is like what it is, and ontological is its Being, right? a hammer is ontically a tool with a head and handle, and ontologically something present at hand – user38026 Feb 4 at 5:30
  • 1
    Thanks for comment. Yes, you're right. Best - GT – Geoffrey Thomas Feb 5 at 12:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.