Care is ontological not ontic, just take my fucking word for it

> Care is ontological not ontic, just take my fucking word for it.

Care doesn't exist outside of human conscience so why should it be ontic?

People (brainlets) who suppose the existence of objective values

"Care" is not a value it's a mode of existence.

ahem...

>anime_girl_face_with_a_question mark.png

Jesus christ

Which is inherently centered around values

And? What's your point? In which way do you contradict me? Also
>centered around
how do you imagine a thing which is "centered around"?

Alright dude, you know what I was saying no need to LARP as Herr Professor

>They don't think it be like it is but it do
t. all western philosophy since descartes

Sorry if it sounded angered but this "centered around" is really funny.

I think its self explanatory, one can not care if one doesn't have anything to care about.

care is a subsumption of the 'self' to the everyday. the character of that subsumption is contextually determinate, so contingent, and so 'ontic'. but care 'itself' is a primordial 'disposition', a 'mode' that Dasein is always falling into. that is what makes it ontological.

Yes I totally agree. Neither care nor values are ontic.

By this logic nothing can be described as ontic. Obviously all phenomena is dependent on the ontological (by definition) but if the things we are talking about are dependent on the Dasein to be speakable at all then they are ontic

>so contingent, and so 'ontic'
I don't see how you can go from care being contingent to it being ontic. Please elaborate. Care is truly determined by the human context but this "context" itself is a category of phenomenology, not being-in-itself.

dasein is itself an ontological 'category', so no, other categories being 'dependent' upon dasein for their meaning do not 'make them ontic'.
ontology itself is and only can be a problem for dasein. it is *the* problem, essentially. the ontological categories are just those essential features of dasein. that is what ontology *is*, for heidegger.
'contingent' as a opposed to 'necessary' or 'essential to' the being of dasein. the objects of care are ontic; care itself is ontological.

>the objects of care are ontic; care itself is ontological.
I agree with that. But "object" is also an ontological category, isn't it?

nope, and there's a really complicated explanation for why it isn't that i'm not fully prepared to give as it's been years since i read What is a Thing? I was using the term very loosely, anyway.

What is the difference between ontic and ontological ?
They seem pretty arbitrary to me

Okay, anyway I'm better reading some works on it instead of asking on Veeky Forums

Suppose there is no intrinsic value for not being a brainlet; only the mere self-flagellation of an ego even bothers with drawing the distance between existence factors in the first place. Suppose you are the brainlet instead, and it needs not matter. Bah, as if matter mattered. Disgusting language.

Only if you're a brainlet that thinks the answer of: "What is the meaning of the verb To Be?" to be: "A really really big being!"

So answer my question

Only the latter deals with "What is the meaning of the verb To Be?", done spooonfeeding retards on Veeky Forums for today.