Martin Heidegger, Being and Time | The Ontic and the Ontological | Philosophy Core Concepts

This is a video in my new Core Concepts series -- designed to provide students and lifelong learners a brief discussion focused on one main concept from a classic philosophical text and thinker.

This Core Concept video focuses on the introduction to Martin Heidegger's early work Being and Time, specifically on his not entirely explicitly drawn out distinction between the "ontic" (ontische) and "ontological" (ontologishe). Here I focus on his uses of those terms particularly in sections 3 and 4 .

My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation

#Heidegger #existentialism #metaphysics

[jlazelle]

Making philosophy more understandable for us mere mortals! Thanks!

[jasond]

Thank you Dr. Sadler for these videos. I am currently studying phenomenology trough the readings of Heidegger and Dewey for my PhD, and your videos about Dasein and the concepts of ontology have helped greatly in clarifying what I am studying. Thank you very much.

[huzaifaali]

Thank you, Professor! I was scratching my head for quiet a while.

[akram]

Sir, you're truly a master of your own Craft.

[thewerepyreking]

I think this is a great introduction to Heidegger as a whole.

[DarkFire]

The previous attempt I made at reading Being & Time it went so far over my head I couldn't even see it with a powerful telescope. I got the impression that there were many deeply profound concepts in there but that I simply wasn't grasping them. I'm sure this video series will provide some welcome enlightenment as I tackle it again.

[melroycorrea]

Thank you! It was truly a wonderful presentation on Heidegger

[herrebosma]

Thank you very much for making this video! It was very helpful for me. I am sure I'll end up watching a lot of your videos in the future!

[MichaelJimenez]

This was very helpful. Thank you Professor Sadler.

[libinandrews]

I am a young research scholar and I often found it difficult to understand the distinction between 'ontic' and 'ontological' while reading Heidegger. Thank You for your in-depth analysis Prof. Gregory. I think i got a clarity regarding the two terms now.

[AshInTrees]

Just got into a course on Being and Time. I'm so excited! I think the Stambaugh SUNY edition is one of the most beautiful books I've owned. Such a simple and elegant cover.

[estebandelacruzg]

Being-in-the-world, dasein, is the only being to whom his being is a problem for him.
A chair, a car, a book have an ontic origin. On the other hand, dasein has an ontological origin.

Thanks for this video.

[vanderlarss]

Thank you. I am reading Being and Time and I am really trying to understand it, but I feel that if Itry to understand every sentence, I will never finish reading this book.

[Alexnovaify]

One other question I have about Heidegger's "fundamental ontology". Is he not trying to recover philosophy as "the queen of the sciences"? If I have this right, the modern hierarchy of the domains of knowledge used to look something like: 1. Philosophy. 2. Mathematics. 3. Positive Sciences. etc. So Philosophy has priority over Mathematics and so forth. But it seems that in a "postmodern" era, this sort of hierarchical way has fallen out in that each domain (mathematical, the positive sciences, literature and so on) does not have a priority over the other. They all have their own "regional ontology" that doesn't make one domain better than the other. However it seems Heidegger is trying to reclaim the old modern way of having philosophy get back to the fundamental "science" that undergirds the rest of the domains. It always puzzled me that the critics of Heidegger who accused him of being a "postmodernist" seem not to understand what he's trying to do in B&T which is establish a new foundation for the sciences. Obviously he failed to do so, but I was wondering if I'm on the right track in how Heidegger sees philosophy as the study of being qua being still has priority over everything else. Perhaps this is too narrow...

[seanericanderson]

I have read Being and Time twice, and have read over 10 supplementary books on Heidegger. I think you articulate his ideas particularly well, and I would encourage you to write a book about Heidegger. Cheers.

[gconnor]

Doctor Sadler, I am midway through my first reading of 'Being and Time' and I am at the point of the explication of "Care" as Being-in-the-world. With this part of your lecture concerning the distinction between "ontical" and "ontological, " I was wondering if a term that comes in later on in the text, which is the term "primordial, " could be a sufficient replacement or relational idea for the term "ontological" or "existential" in the sense that "primordial" has a meaning of fundamentality?

[westernman]

This ontic/ontological distinction sounds similar to Spenglers conception of the world as nature/history respectively. Spengler said the world as nature is mans attempt to understand the world as something become, dead, calculable and rationable. The mathematician is a typical exponent of this outlook. The 'world as history', Spengler said, is the view of the world as becoming, a living breathing cosmos that is fundamentally beyond mans capacity to fully explain, a world view he attributed to the artists. It is known that Heidegger read Spengler. Heidegger of course is taking it to a deeper level. I may be completely off, but these seem similar to me

[memeteamdreamteam]

Hey loved the video! I am curious would you consider doing a half hour Heidegger or any sort of lecture series like that through Being and Time? Also what do you recommend for secondary texts for Being and Time?

[tenzinsoepa]

took a shot every time sir said being and now I have cirrhosis developed in 20 mins

[josephtucker]

Hi, Dr. Sadler. I noticed you are using the Stambaugh translation. I own both translations but so far I've only read the Macquarrie and Robinson version. I was wondering if you had a preference between the two. Thanks!