Martin Heidegger, Being and Time | The Ontic and the Ontological

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

6 років тому

Get Heidegger's Being and Time - amzn.to/2IvzAnX
Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
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 .
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Heidegger's thought and works - click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
You can find the copy of the text I am using for this sequence on Heidegger's Being and Time here - amzn.to/2IvzAnX
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

КОМЕНТАРІ: 67

@jlazelle1 6 років тому

Making philosophy more understandable for us mere mortals! Thanks!

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

You're very welcome!

@jasond7147 5 років тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 5 років тому

You're very welcome!

@herrebosma9270 2 роки тому

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!

@melroycorrea7720 2 роки тому

Thank you! It was truly a wonderful presentation on Heidegger

@GregoryBSadler 2 роки тому

You're very welcome!

@MichaelJimenez416 5 років тому

This was very helpful. Thank you Professor Sadler.

@GregoryBSadler 5 років тому

You're welcome!

@akram4139 2 роки тому

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

@GregoryBSadler 2 роки тому

Thanks, man!

@huzaifaali5767 Рік тому

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

@GregoryBSadler Рік тому

Glad it was helpful for you

@daseinbellen 6 років тому

enjoyed this lesson, thahk you

@khafreahmose8768 Рік тому

Awesome breakdown sir!

@GregoryBSadler Рік тому

Thanks!

@DarkFire515 6 років тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Glad it's helpful for you

@johansigg3869 4 роки тому

Immensely helpful, thank you.

@GregoryBSadler 4 роки тому

You're very welcome!

@AshInTrees 3 роки тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 3 роки тому

It is quite nice

@TheYoungtrust 6 років тому

Thanks mate.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

You're welcome!

@Arezoo.darvish 2 роки тому

Thank you, it is helpful

@GregoryBSadler 2 роки тому

Glad to read it

@alexandria8207 Рік тому

Woooow,very enlightening!!

@GregoryBSadler Рік тому

Glad to read it

@estebandelacruzg1281 6 років тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Hahaha! Yes, my car can definitely be a problem for me, but as a car, it doesn't have any problems, really

@estebandelacruzg1281 6 років тому

Gregory B. Sadler Instead of asking the question; what does it mean to be a Jew, a Mexican, an American, or an Arab? We should ask the question, what does it mean to exist as a being-in-the-world. Because if I ask myself the question of what does it mean to be a Mexican, I am asking an ontic question.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Well, not exactly, once you get further into Being and Time, when he begins to situate the person within a history and even language

@Alexnovaify 5 років тому

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...

@thewerepyreking 3 роки тому

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

@GregoryBSadler 3 роки тому

Glad you enjoyed it

@libinandrews 4 роки тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 4 роки тому

Glad it was useful for you. Yeah. . . it would have been nice of Heidegger to include a discussion of it early on in B&T. He just starts throwing them at one!

@memeteamdreamteam3990 6 років тому

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?

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Well, I'm not going to decide about what "great big book" to do next until I've seen Hegel's Phenomenology all the way through - it's a LOT of work! But I am doing some shorter works with the same method. I did Epictetus' Enchiridion some time back. I'm hoping to do Anselm's Proslogion and Descartes' Meditations in the next year or so. As to secondary sources, I'm not good for recommendations, since I don't generally spend much time with them.

@gconnor3874 6 років тому

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?

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

No, don't try to equate or replace one with the other

@vanderlarss 6 років тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

That's probably true. And some of the passages make more sense after you've read ahead and then gone back to them

@paulmcmanus21 5 років тому

Personally, I went to the index, looked up specific topics I was interested in and then went to those individual sections. Then I decided to read the entirety of Being and Time. seemed to make it more clear but again, he himself was somewhat unclear on what being is. Indeed, each time you read the book or different translations, you may find different meanings - which is probably the very essence of 'being' - since being is perhaps determined by how that 'being' views itself. And as we develop our understanding of being, we become a different being from the first. perhaps, this is the case of Being and Time, in that as we continuously interpret Being and Time we enter into the hermeneutic circle or iterative interpretation of being (this 'being' being you!!) -- hey but this is only my interpretation, I could change my mind tomorrow hahaha

@josephtucker4486 6 років тому

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!

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Well, the Stambaugh for a long time has been the more or less "standard" translation. There's sometimes ways in which the older one is phrased nicer, but generally it makes more sense to go with what students are likely to get assigned

@Sdozeman 6 років тому

This is news to me. In most of the secondary literature I've come across, Macquarrie/Robinson seems to be the preferred one, and William Blattner, in his commentary to Being and Time, comes out and claims the Stambaugh translation is inferior in the introduction. I personally have both and often go back and forth, but in my experience M/R seems to be preferred. A really great video that I would love would be a discussion of some of the differences in translation (I remember a point in Merold Westphal's *Overcoming Ontotheology* he notes his switch from one to another because of the different aspects they each emphasize of Heidegger's German).

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Well, the older secondary lit will naturally refer to the older translation. I don't know anyone personally - and I know quite a few Heidegger scholars - who still teaches out of the Macquarie instead of the Stambaugh. I'm sure there's some holdouts here and there. I recall there being some tiffs among the Heidegger people decades back about the newer translation, but frankly, I didn't pay attention to it, since I had no intention of becoming a Heidegger scholar, and I studied him in the original German. Either translation is fine for me, but since I can anticipate most of my present and future viewers using the Stambaugh, that's the one I refer to Here's my standard response to video requests - ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rpuJf6qvo5t4omw.html

@Sdozeman 6 років тому

Interesting. Even among newer scholarship I still see M/R being preferred, but I'll keep an eye out for exceptions. My Heidegger professor must've been one of the holdouts. Thanks for the reply!

@seanericanderson3666 6 років тому

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.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Hahaha! Well, that would be a rather tricky project!

@seanericanderson3666 6 років тому

I went to the University of Ottawa, which is one of the most Continental schools in Canada. I think you really have a gift at explaining Heidegger. You should consider writing a book on him. I have rarely heard such lucid explanations. You might be doing the world a favour.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

It's certainly something worth considering. I've got several book projects on other thinkers underway at the moment.

@seanericanderson3666 6 років тому

What thinkers are you currently working on, if I may ask?

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Mostly Aristotle, the Stoics, and Anselm, when it comes to book projects

@westernman7715 6 років тому

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

@tenzinsoepa7648 3 роки тому

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

@GregoryBSadler 3 роки тому

That's on you, buddy

@tenzinsoepa7648 3 роки тому

@@GregoryBSadler oh no.i was just trying to be humourous as I overhead this lecture from roommate.. apologies sir...my friend says 'thank you".. you are really saving his grades..have a good day sir,..I never thought you reply on the comments..

@GregoryBSadler 3 роки тому

@@tenzinsoepa7648 If you look at any video, you can see quit a few replies to comments. Glad the videos have been helpful for your friend

@Mikauofthezora 6 років тому

I really like Heidegger, but it does seem nowadays that all science cares about is ontic. Even definitions of free will (Harris) have taken this strict approach.

@GregoryBSadler 6 років тому

Well, that's usually the case. Sciences also often involve what Heidegger calls "regional ontologies" as well

@Alexnovaify 5 років тому

Dr. Sadler, if you have anytime in your busy schedule to reply to me, I know I'm just a random UKposts comment, I would be most grateful. I wanted to know if you agree with Heidegger that religions, such as Christianity, are merely ontic affairs and never move down to the ontological. It seems that Heidegger doesn't really stick to this distinction later in the book, and if I recall, it is by the ontic does one have access to the ontological. Let's stick to Christianity in my example, as it is widely known and it is certainly has influenced Heidegger's thought. If we take Christians, generally speaking, we can say there are factual things about them. They pray, have devotions, do good works, and so on. But if we ask the question "What does it mean to be a Christian", could we not do a careful existential analysis of what a Christian is and thus move to an ontological register? Surely a Christian has a different way of interpreting the Being of beings than a Hindu or Buddhist does. It has its own worldview from which things come into light by a Christian understanding. I get that Heidegger thinks a fundamental ontology, an existential analytic of Dasein, has priority over all inquiries into Being, but I wonder if there is not a competition to a Christian ontology, if we can say such a thing. Maybe Heidegger is right in that philosophy and theology here are "mortal enemies", as both attempt to answer the question of the meaning of being but the very point of departure to answer that question are in total opposition. Just wonder what your thoughts are on this. Thank you again for these videos and your time on making them.

@GregoryBSadler 5 років тому

I don't agree with Heidegger about that.