And ἐποίησε means the same thing; in this, one should not so much see the mere completion of a making, but rather that making, setting-forth, accomplishes the fundamental task of setting something, as finished and at rest in itself, into availability and perceptibility. For the Greeks, then, a being is whatever is stamped within limits and thereby present, and in such presence {Anwesenheit}, constant. Being: stamped subsistent presence {Anwesenheit}.

So above all it becomes clear how immediately struggle, in the holding sway of its power, pervasively reigns over the Being of beings as such. For struggle proves to be setting things into Being and holding them there, by making them emerge yet holding them fast. Origin of Being.

We are now asking about what is expressed in the second major part of the saying: which domains of power count as the decisive ones, and what this means. This part speaks of gods, human beings, servants, and masters. Obviously these are not just any arbitrary areas within the whole of beings, but rather beings as a whole are decisively determined precisely by these.

How so? Could not other domains serve just as well? Why not animals and plants, land and sea, fire and air, the living and the dead? Why is it restricted to the human and the divine? But this is asking the wrong question. How so? Because we are not holding onto the fundamental content of the saying. What this means is that it has nothing to do with naming certain regions of beings as examples, but rather with making the fundamental modes of Being visible in their origin from the essence of Being: being god, being human, being servant, being master.

And furthermore, it is not sufficient to take these fundamental modes of Being simply as a list of various types, but rather they must be taken only in their originary character. This means: the essence of Being is struggle; every Being passes through decision, victory and defeat. One is not simply only a god or just a human being, but rather in each case a decision takes place in struggle, and thereby struggle is transposed into Being; one is a servant not because there simply are servants, in addition to other types, but because this Being contains in itself a defeat, a denial, a deficiency, a cowardice—indeed, perhaps a will to be lowly and base.⁶

It is now clear that struggle sets things into Being and holds them there; it constitutes the essence of Being, and in such a way that struggle permeates all beings with the character of decision, with the constant sharpness of the either-or: either them or me; either to stand or to fall.

6. Confrontation and decision in struggle are what is essential in Being; this fundamental character modifies itself, and in each case the domains of Being are modified in accordance with it. But then is even Being anthropomorphic!? Yes and no! Question!! In brief: from these modes of power only the immediate indication of Being—exhibited in these modes of power most proximately and vividly.