be; it should be what it can. With the setting off of the indigenous character of conceptuality, specifically in the case of the Greeks, the concern of an interpretation of basic concepts is given its orientation.
Conceptuality is characterized by three aspects: 1. concretely giving basic experience, 2. guiding claim, 3. prevailing intelligibility. Therefore, the question concerning the indigenous character of conceptuality is the question: Where and how do the characters mentioned have their being, such that they are possible in this being, from which they arise in such a way that they also are there at home as beings that are there, that they belong there; i.e., they themselves constitute a possibility of this being. The purpose of answering the question concerning the indigenous character of conceptuality must be to exhibit a being of this aforementioned type.
Being-there was explicated. This explication was such that the basic concepts it treated (in Greek science) were understood: λόγος, ζωή, ψυχή, τέλος, ἀγαθόν, πάθος, ἡδονή, δόξα, etc. Compare the interpretation as retrieved: primarily of what is there—genuine interpretation.
1. Is the being characterized in this way in its being the possibility, the ground of conceptuality?
2. How is being-there this possibility? (The answer in two steps: a), b).)
Ad 1. Demonstration that conceptuality is, in accordance with the three aspects, in being-there as possibility. “Possibility,” moreover, in the sense of the being-character of beings in which they are possible; not in the sense of an empty possibility that could, so to speak, be held before being-there. Rather, it must itself be conceptuality in a certain mode. Still, it is not necessary that it already have come forward in being-there.
a) Concretely giving basic experience, therein lies: a being that can show itself, and a being as disclosing approach to it. Being-there is being-in-theworld: world there, discovered in its looking-thus-and-so. Being-in itself in a certain possible mode there: disposition. Being-in as dealings, concern—the possibility of abiding, abiding alongside . . . , looking-out, having of . . . , abstaining from accomplishing and setting things in place. How, as possibility, becomes properly evident only as in 2. above.
b) The guiding claim: in terms of which beings are addressed. Ultimately, in terms of their being. A determinate sense of being implicitly guides: οὐσία in its customary meaning. There: presence and being-produced. All assertions about beings that say something of them, insofar as and how they “are,” have in the “being” that is said one basic meaning rather than another: ready.
c) The prevailing intelligibility: being-with-one-another pervaded by ἔνδοξα, in terms of which everything is interpreted, and out of which, along with other aspects, determinate claims to intelligibility (the idea of evidence and of validity, “rigor”), can be formed: familiarity in which understanding and cognition occurs, manner and mode of cultivation, claim to being-familiar.
Ad 2. The how of the being of the possibility is defined by the being-character of being-there itself. Here is what is distinctive: this being is determined