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

[@jlazelle1]

Making philosophy more understandable for us mere mortals! Thanks!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@jasond7147]

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]

You're very welcome!

[@huzaifaali5767]

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

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was helpful for you

[@akram4139]

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

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks, man!

[@DarkFire515]

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]

Glad it's helpful for you

[@melroycorrea7720]

Thank you! It was truly a wonderful presentation on Heidegger

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@herrebosma9270]

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!

[@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...

[@thewerepyreking]

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

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@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.

[@GregoryBSadler]

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!

[@MichaelJimenez416]

This was very helpful. Thank you Professor Sadler.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@estebandelacruzg1281]

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]

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

[@estebandelacruzg1281]

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]

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

[@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.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It is quite nice

[@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.

[@GregoryBSadler]

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

[@paulmcmanus21]

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

[@khafreahmose8768]

Awesome breakdown sir!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@gconnor3874]

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]

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

[@seanericanderson3666]

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]

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

[@seanericanderson3666]

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]

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

[@seanericanderson3666]

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

[@GregoryBSadler]

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

[@alexandria8207]

Woooow,very enlightening!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read it

[@memeteamdreamteam3990]

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]

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.

[@westernman7715]

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]

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

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's on you, buddy

[@tenzinsoepa7648]

@@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]

@@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

[@Arezoo.darvish]

Thank you, it is helpful

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read it

[@josephtucker4486]

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]

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]

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]

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 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJy7fKeuocp6d5o

[@Sdozeman]

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!

[@TheYoungtrust]

Thanks mate.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@daseinbellen]

enjoyed this lesson, thahk you

[@johansigg3869]

Immensely helpful, thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@Alexnovaify]

Dr. Sadler, if you have anytime in your busy schedule to reply to me, I know I'm just a random KZbin 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]

I don't agree with Heidegger about that.

[@Mikauofthezora]

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]

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

[@harrybotter854]

Muggle clothes, sir. They snapped through it, holding Sir Patrick's head.