56
was created neither by gods nor by humans; rather, it was always and is and will be eternal living fire kindled in measures and quenched in measures." At first we interpret only the second half of the fragment. Lightning, we could say, is the sudden fire, the sun is the fire in orderly passage of the course of time, but πῦρ ἀείζωον [eternal living fire] is something that we do not find in the phenomenon like the lightning and the sun.
HEIDEGGER: How do you wish to translate κόσμος?
FINK: I would like to pass over the first half of Fr. 30 and attempt to interpret only the second half. If we translate κόσμος with world order or ornament, then we must bring that translation into connection with Fr. 124, where the talk is of the most beautiful κόσμος as a junk heap. When we now attempt to read and interpret Fr. 30 from the end, we must.also return to naivete. A phenomenal fire continues in burning. The conflagration of fire is a process in time. The fire was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow. Now, however, my question is: are ἦν ἀεὶ [was always], ἔστιν [is], and ἔσται [will be], in reference to πῦρ ἀείζωον, determinations of the ways of fire's being-in-time? Is the ἀείζωον [eternal living] of fire thought by always-having-been, being-now, and coming-to-be? But must we think the fire in terms of the familiar way that we specify duration, with only the difference that the usual fire that is ignited lasts a while and goes out again and thus has not {GA 15: 96} always been, is not always, and will not always be? How is ἀείζωον to be understood? Does it mean the perdurance of fire through the whole time? Do we not then think the fire named here by Heraclitus too naively, if we suppose that its distinct character would be that it always was, is present and will always be? I would rather suppose that we must think the other way around. The fire is not always past, present, and coming; rather, it is fire that first tears open having-been, being-now, and coming-to-be.
HEIDEGGER: But what is the subject of the second half of the sentence on your interpretation? For Diels it is κόσμος, of which he says that it has been brought forth neither by gods nor humans. Rather κόσμος always was, is, and will be eternal living fire.
FINK: I reject this translation. I understand πῦρ [fire] as the subject of the second half of the sentence.
HEIDEGGER: Do you make a break before ἀλλ᾽ [rather], so that the following has nothing to do with the preceding?
FINK: The κόσμος as the beautiful joining of πάντα is that which shines in fire. To this extent the first and second halves of the sentence have much to do with one another. The fire is the productive power of bringing-forth. Gods and humans shine up and are brought to unconcealed being only because there is fire to which they stand in a preeminent relation.