For example, no even number is a prime number. Some numbers are prime numbers, and some are not.
But there is no possibility of stating anything similar about what makes a number be only one {in the sense of being always identical to what it is}.
One cannot maintain that some numbers admit of a certain whatness and others do not [178] {in fact there is no “some”}.
Rather, one will either directly uncover or cover-over insofar as the being does not change but always comports itself the way it is.42
* * *
Interpretation of the text.
The preceding translation has already introduced some divisions into this passage. In order to facilitate an overview of the whole, let us, prior to interpreting the text, briefly lay out the divisions according to their content.
The chapter falls into two major divisions:
I. 1051a34–b17
The first division provides an exposition of the problem: getting the proper being of beings from an interpretation of uncoveredness, and doing so while also invoking and taking up the previous interpretation of being as οὐσία (presence {Anwesenheit}) and δύναμις–ἐνέργεια (not-thereness and pure and simple thereness).
II. 1051b17–1052a11
The second division provides the answer: it determines the kind of uncoveredness of beings within those two modes of being—οὐσία and ἐνέργεια—and consequently determines the most proper being of beings. Likewise there is the application of this to “truths” in the sense of uncovering statements about always-existing beings.
We will now look at some particular points.
Outline of the text
I. The problem: Being and uncoveredness (1051a34–b17).
1051a34–b2, 6:
Possible viewpoints in studying being, the most proper of
which deals with uncoveredness.
b2–5:
In a parenthetical sentence, uncoveredness is determined in
a preliminary way in terms of the uncovering performed by
λόγoς.
42. [Here Heidegger draws to a close his lecture of Tuesday, 15 December 1925, to be followed by his lecture on Thursday, 17 December.]