Where history is genuine, it does not perish merely by ending and expiring like an animal; it perishes only historically.
But what happened—what must have happened—for Greek philosophy to meet this inceptive end, this transformation of φύσις and λόγος? Here we stand before the second question.103
On 2. Two points should be noted about the transformation we have described.
a. It begins with the essence of φύσις and λόγος, or more precisely, with an essential consequence—and in such a way that what appears (in its shining) shows a look, in such a way that what is said falls immediately into the domain of assertion as chatter. Thus, the transformation does not come from outside, but from “within.” But what does “within” mean here? What is at issue is not φύσις in itself and λόγος in itself. We see from Parmenides that both belong together essentially. Their relation itself is the ground that sustains and holds sway in their essence, their “inner core,” although the ground of the relation itself initially and authentically lies concealed in the essence of φύσις. But what kind of relation is it? What we are asking comes into view if we now bring out a second point in the transformation we have described.
b. In each case, a consequence of the transformation is that, from the point of view both of the idea and of assertion, the original essence of truth, ἀλήθεια (unconcealment), has changed [145|198] into correctness. For unconcealment is that inner core, that is, the relation that holds sway between φύσις and λόγος in the original sense. The sway essentially unfolds as coming-forth-into-unconcealment. But apprehending and gathering are the stewardship of the opening up of unconcealment for beings.
103. See p. 200.