ontic

is to be understood vis-a-vs ontological thusly: Ontically, I save for a pension because the old man who draws it will be the same person as I am now ('me'). Ontologically, he will be the same person as I am now because I am saving for his pension.

In care Dasein pulls itself together: 'As care Dasein is the 'Between' [birth and death]' (BT, 374). Ontically, I save for a pension because the old man who draws it will be the same person as I am now ('me')... ontologically, he will be the same person as I am now because I am saving for his pension. But Sorge also includes Besorgen and Fu rsorge. Thus I might save for someone else's pension, as long as I do not do so much for him that he loses his own care and becomes an appendage of myself. (inwood 'heidegger' 37)

is something like 'factual as we generally understand the term'... it is contrasted with ontology which refers to a kind of human logic that is different from factual. For example, ontically, I put away money into savings because the old man who draws it will be the same person as I am now (this is a fact) . But the same scene viewed ontologically, focuses on the fact that the old man will only be the same person as I am now because of the fact that I am saving for his pension (this second viewpoin

is something like 'factually' or objectively. Thus, we can say, dasein is distinguished ontically (factually) in that it alone among beings is ontological. That is to say, it alone understands the being of beings.

The ontical distinction of Dasein lies in the fact that it is ontological (BT, 12). That is, Dasein, unlike other entities, understands the being of beings. (Inwood 147)

is distinguished from ontology in that ontics is a mode of seing things whereby our everydayness is not only close to us, it is that which is closest, we are it, each of us, we ourselves. Ontology, on the other hand, is a perspective whereby the very proximity of everydayness puts it farthest from us (something like trying to get away from our own shadow).

Ontically,ofcourse, Dasein isnotonlyclosetousA 'eve thatwhichisclosest:weweit,eachofus, weourselves.Inspiteofthis, orratherforjust thisreason,itisontologically that which is farthest. (inwood 'heidegger' 36)

is a term that pairs with “ontological.” It describes specific beings, while “ontological” is used to describe being itself.

ontic and ontological. “Ontic” is the adjective Heidegger uses to describe specific beings, while “ontological” is used to describe being itself. “Ontic” is almost always a negative term for Heidegger. It is generally uttered in tones of sarcastic contempt, often in combination with the word “mere.” If told about the September 11 hijackings, for instance, Heidegger would probably say: “This supposed ‘disaster’ was a mere ontic incident. The essential danger to the West occurred far earlier, when being was forgotten.”

is a term that evokes the sarcastic contempt at work in the word ‘mere'; as in, a 'mere' theoretical description.

Ontic and ontological. “Ontic” is the adjective Heidegger uses to describe specific beings, while “ontological” is used to describe being itself. “Ontic” is almost always a negative term for Heidegger. It is generally uttered in tones of sarcastic contempt, often in combination with the word “mere.” If told about the September 11 hijackings, for instance, Heidegger would probably say: “This supposed ‘disaster’ was a mere ontic incident. The essential danger to the West occurred far earlier, when being was forgotten.”

is an adjective that designates a specific entity (or specific entities) as well as the description, interpretation or investigation of it (or them).

Ontic is an adjective that Heidegger uses to designate a specific entity (or specific entities) as well as the description, interpretation or investigation of it (or them).

is directed at disclosing an entity’s manner of being as such.

Heidegger contrasts an ontic investigation with an ontological investigation that is directed at disclosing an entity’s manner of being as such.

ontic, n.Definitions

ontic