In the analytical school these two terms are usually used as synonyms. However, in the continental tradition a distinction is made in the way they are used. Where "ontic" is seen as pertaining to the beings themselves ""ontological" is viewed as that which has to do with the being of beings, usually human being, especially in the way Heidegger uses the concept, for example his usage of the concept "dasein". In the case of "ontic", to say that a human being has 2 arms and 2 legs will be an example of an ontic description of a human being. My question is if you think this distinction is meaningful, or should we rather turn to the analytic school and regard them as synonyms in which case the distinction between the two as used continentally becomes meaningless. If we opt for the first option - retaining the distinction - do we really gain anything in terms of "meaning refining" by maintaining the ontic / ontological conceptual destinction, or are we just making it difficult for ourselves when there isn't really any need for it. On the other hand, by going for the second option, are we losing more than it seems by sacrificing meaning complexity for meaning simplicity. Will be interesting to hear if anyone has any views on this, or, perhaps, the "problem" is nothing more than playing a game with words!