To me it sounds like you’re roughly getting at the distinction Heidegger made between ontic and ontological being, something like what we might think of as the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-phenomenological-object. Compare also noumenon vs noema.
Sorry, this comment doesn’t make any sense to me at all because of all of the terminology.
That was kind of the point—to give you handles for related ideas you didn’t seem to be aware of so you could look deeper if you are interested.
Heidegger is the one philosopher who I refuse to read due to generally being incomprehensible, but thanks for the comment anyway!
To me it sounds like you’re roughly getting at the distinction Heidegger made between ontic and ontological being, something like what we might think of as the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-phenomenological-object. Compare also noumenon vs noema.
Sorry, this comment doesn’t make any sense to me at all because of all of the terminology.
That was kind of the point—to give you handles for related ideas you didn’t seem to be aware of so you could look deeper if you are interested.
Heidegger is the one philosopher who I refuse to read due to generally being incomprehensible, but thanks for the comment anyway!