Ontic versus ontological

Daniel C September 02, 2019 at 19:32 10250 views 9 comments

In the analytical school these two terms are usually used as synonyms. However, in the continental tradition a distinction is made in the way they are used. Where "ontic" is seen as pertaining to the beings themselves ""ontological" is viewed as that which has to do with the being of beings, usually human being, especially in the way Heidegger uses the concept, for example his usage of the concept "dasein". In the case of "ontic", to say that a human being has 2 arms and 2 legs will be an example of an ontic description of a human being. My question is if you think this distinction is meaningful, or should we rather turn to the analytic school and regard them as synonyms in which case the distinction between the two as used continentally becomes meaningless. If we opt for the first option - retaining the distinction - do we really gain anything in terms of "meaning refining" by maintaining the ontic / ontological conceptual destinction, or are we just making it difficult for ourselves when there isn't really any need for it. On the other hand, by going for the second option, are we losing more than it seems by sacrificing meaning complexity for meaning simplicity. Will be interesting to hear if anyone has any views on this, or, perhaps, the "problem" is nothing more than playing a game with words!

Comments (9)

uncanni September 02, 2019 at 21:56 #323322 0 likes

Quoting Daniel C

playing a game with words

The best game there is!! Is this distinction parallel to genotype/phenotype? Ontic as human genetics or the things that all humans do (eat, poop, sleep, etc.) and ontological as the "phenotypical" expression of my being vs. yours.

I vote we keep the distinction. "Meaning simplicity" is deceptive and very complex: I tend to assume that an authoritarian tendency is present whenever people want to simplify, or reduce meaning. Derrida said folks can get angry when we tamper with their language.

Terrapin Station September 02, 2019 at 23:56 #323384 0 likes

I wouldn't say that a distinction that hinges on "beings" versus "beings of beings" makes sense without a lot more explanation.

Daniel C September 03, 2019 at 12:26 #323608 0 likes

One important reason, I think, to keep this distinction lies hidden in the paradox of the "distance" between these two "entities". You can never be any nearer to yourself than you are in an ontical way, because this refers to your very "essence" - metaphorically of course. By subtracting this from a human being, his being as such is terminated, because its impossible for someone to be able to be while he / she is not (there) - more or less a contradiction in terms. With "ontic" then near to the subject in a superlative sense, this is not the case with "ontological". Ontologically most people a very far removed from themselves, because ontological involvement with yourself implies that there must be a theoretical reflection on the nature of being as being, usually of being as human being (Heidegger) - an activity very few people ever engage in. I hope that this explanation can make a contribution to convince "Terrapin Station" that there is some justification in keeping the "ontic / ontological" distinction.

Streetlight September 03, 2019 at 12:51 #323617 0 likes

Why not both?

Eiwar September 08, 2019 at 08:28 #325878 0 likes

"Ontological" is like a level up in relation to "ontic". Ontological being is not only being, but also being who understands being. It leads to dispute not about words, but about kinds of being. If Ontological Dasein is essentialy different from others forms of being, we have ontological pluralism. We have two types of existential quatifiers, and neither of them is unrestricted.

Ariel D'Leon September 08, 2019 at 17:26 #326079 0 likes

Quoting Daniel C

If we opt for the first option - retaining the distinction - do we really gain anything in terms of "meaning refining" by maintaining the ontic / ontological conceptual distinction, or are we just making it difficult for ourselves when there isn't really any need for it.

Hi Daniel thank you for the definitions presented, on my appreciation, separating the meanings has the superior hand on this question.

The reason behind this conclusion is as follows, difficulty is just a personal evaluation, if an individual wants to forget about the ontic term and work his way around by describing the ontological nature of existing, he can do so with no problem whatsoever.

But having a second word to refer only the physical nature of things, even if means acquiring even more definitions to the existing ones, will permit you to describe only the physical nature of things, and your listener will know you are not making reference to any other topic outside that realm.

Does this make sense to you?,

k thx bye

Fine Doubter September 20, 2019 at 14:22 #331291 0 likes

Reply to uncanni

In this case Derrida has a good instinct. It is indeed a power thing. Ontic means what I go through and what happens to me, ontological means running to an expert to tell me (at best, they can add to my understanding).

Ask a person with a nerve condition how often they see a neurologist!

uncanni September 20, 2019 at 19:24 #331432 0 likes

Reply to Fine Doubter And this, in turn, reminds me of Bakhtin: anyone who insists on having the "final word" wants to shut language down to a single and authoritative (=authoritarian) meaning. The so-called expert never opens, dehisces, meaning; s/he always reduces it.

Fine Doubter September 21, 2019 at 12:24 #331941 0 likes

I've known some good experts (including neurologists) but I know what you mean, it all too often works out like that.

I knew what ontic was but couldn't articulate it; thanks to the better ontologists I can now talk about what ontic is as well as ontology.

Fortunately I've often encountered those that didn't see the "need" to have the last world in a world that is bigger than they are, and were willing to bring me up to their level of authority, informally.