Heidegger makes the distinction between the ontic (concerning beings themselves) and the ontological (the being of beings, being as such).
Would it be wise to say that the ontic covers the contingent possibilities concerning beings and the ontological concerns the universal and necessary structures that makes those beings possible? (a posteriori/priori)
One place where I can see this definition failing is that suddenly the ontic sciences, physics for example, are now “degraded” to studying just the contingent possibilities of beings, which hardly seems like the right categorization. In this definition, however, the sentence “the ontic fact that Dasein is ontological” makes much more sense, along with “the ontological fact that Dasein is pre-ontological.”
