But here, where we have to restrict ourselves to the ode in isolation, we can dare this third phase only in a particular respect, in accordance with our primary task, and this only in a few steps. While recalling what was said in the first phase, we begin with the result of the second phase’s explication of the concluding strophe.

The δεινότατον of the δεινόν, the uncanniest of the uncanny, lies in the oppositional relation of δίκη and τέχνη. The uncanniest is not the augmentation of the uncanny to the highest degree. It is one of a kind, according to its kind, within the uncanny. In the opposition of beings as a whole as overwhelming and of the human being as violence-doing Dasein, the possibility arises of plunging into what has no way out and has no site: perdition. But neither perdition nor its possibility first occur at the end, when the violence-doer does not succeed in a particular act of violence and mishandles it; instead, this perdition holds sway and lies in wait fundamentally in the opposition of the overwhelming and doing violence. Doing violence must shatter against the excessive violence of Being, as long as Being holds sway in its essence, as φύσις, as emerging sway.

But this necessity of shattering can subsist only insofar as what must shatter is urged into such Being-here. But the human being is urged into such Being-here, thrown into the urgency of such Being, because the overwhelming as such, in order to appear in its sway, requires the site of openness for itself. The essence of Being-human opens itself up to us only when it is understood on the basis of this urgency that is necessitated by Being itself. Historical humanity’s Being-here means: Being-posited as the breach into which the excessive violence of Being breaks in its appearing, so that this breach itself shatters against Being.

The uncanniest (the human being) is what it is, because from [125|172] the ground up, it deals with and conserves the familiar only in order to break out of it and to let what overwhelms it break in.