119
πάντα? Are the changes-over named in Fr. 88 to be thought as mere {193} contentions about phenomena given and not given in the animal world, or do they concern πῦρ ἀείζωον? Let us leave this question open.
HEIDEGGER: How does ζῶν καὶ τεθνηκὸς [living and dead] in Fr. 88 relate to ζῶντες [those living] and τεθνεῶτες [those dying] in Fr. 62? How are they mentioned in the one and how in the other fragment?
FINK: In Fr. 62, ζῶντες and τεθνεῶτες are referred to ...
HEIDEGGER: ... the manner of being of immortals and mortals; in Fr. 88, on the contrary, ζῶν καὶ τεθνηκὸς is referred to what is.
FINK: Not to what is, but to being alive and being dead. ζῶν does not mean a living being, but rather the living as terminus [term] for being alive, just as τεθνηκὸς does not mean something dead, but rather the dead as terminus for being dead. The same also holds for the waking and sleeping and for young and old. Waking and sleeping are termini for being awake and being asleep, and young and old are termini for being young and being old.
HEIDEGGER: Is ζῶν in Fr. 88 only the singular of the plural ζῶντες in Fr. 62? Are gods and humans also meant in Fr. 88?
FINK: ζῶν καὶ τεθνηκὸς does not refer only to gods and humans, for Fr. 88 is stretched wider. But for whom are being alive and being dead, being awake and being asleep, and being young and being old the same, living beings or πῦρ ἀείζωον?
HEIDEGGER: Thus, in Fr. 88 something else is said than in Fr. 62. Fr. 62 has a wider sense. {194}
FINK: ζῶν and τεθνηκὸς are to be understood like τὸ καλόν, τὸ δίκαιον. How is the article τὸ ἐγρηγορός [the waking] to be understood? Professor Heidegger has indicated that it is not a matter of relationships and counterreferences that would have a possessor. In the second sentence of the fragment, Heraclitus speaks in the plural, which does not, however, refer to facts but to the three different relationships. Of whom can ταὐτο be said at all? The coincidence thought here does not signify one such as in a distinctionless indifference. What is meant is even a mutual changeover. μεταπεσόντα [things changing around] refers to Fr. 90, in which ἀνταμοιβή is named, the exchange of gold for goods and of goods for gold. But what change over in Fr. 88 are not only things as against the gathering unity, but the harder opposition of being alive and being dead. Here a sameness is mentioned that slaps in the face and contradicts the everyday opinion that insists on the difference between life and death. On that account, the question of where the place is, the abode, of this change-over is disconcerting.
HEIDEGGER: Does being dead (τεθνηκὸς) mean the same as having deceased?
FINK: Yes, when τεθνηκὸς is said against ζῶν. It does not mean what is lifeless in the sense of the minerals ...