"hole" [Höhle], a hideaway that conceals something while it itself remains unconcealed.
Since τὸ ψεῦδος, according to the testimony of Homer, belongs to the essential realm of hiding, i.e., concealing and disconcealing, the Greek oppoσition of the otherwise unrelated words ἀληθές and ψεῦδος no longer seems odd. The Greeks think in ψεῦδος a concealing, and we must not forget that ψεῦδος is used of "signs," e.g. lightning; thus ψεῦδος does not merely characterize human behavior. Of course it is often used of ἔπος, μῦθος, and λέγειν, of the word and of speech. But even "the word" is for the Greeks primordially not just a formation produced by the "human subject." Because the Greeks think in ψεῦδος concealing as an event, therefore even ψεῦδος, veiling, can now become a point of departure for the formation of a counter-word which means the "non-false," and hence the "true," and for which the ordinary word for "true," namely τὸ ἀληθές, is not needed. The opposite of "hiding" is "dis-hiding." The "dis" is in Greek "α"; to ψεῦδος and ψευδές is opposed ἀψευδές, the not-hiding. Hesiod gives simple, univocal information concerning this word and its basic meaning (Theogony, verse 233) Nereus, the oldest and most venerable son of the God of the sea Ηόντος, is called ἀψευδέα καὶ ἀληθέα, "the one who does not dissemble"; καί does not mean here simply "and," but it denotes an explaining "because." Nereus is "the one who does not dissemble," because he is the ἀληθής—because he is the not-concealing. Ψευδής is determined on the basis of "-ληθῆς." Τὸ ἀληθές now means, "literally" translated, before all else "the unconcealed," "the disclosed." Something unconcealed, disclosed, e.g., a piece of rock, does not have to be "disclosing." Indeed in this case, the unconcealed and disclosed, the piece of rock, can never be "disclosing" at all. On the contrary, what is "disclosing" is man's speech and perception.
The Greeks denote, however, the "disclosed" as well as the "disclosing" with the same word ἀληθές, which literally means the "unconcealed." At any rate, we maintain that the translation of ἀληθές as "the unconcealed" is the only "literal" one. But now it can be seen that ἀληθές, in the double sense of "disclosed" and "disclosing," is ambiguous. We come to know this ambiguity very clearly on the detour through ψεῦδος and its counter-word ἀψευδές. We also realize that mysterious relations obtain here. In order to appreciate the essence of the ambiguity of ἀψευδές and, above all, to experience its ground, we have first to traverse the realm of essence of un-concealedness and disclosure in its broad extent. That means we must first consider the essence of concealment in a more penetrating way. Ψεῦδος in the sense of dissembling is a concealing. But is then every concealing necessarily a dissembling? Is every concealedness in itself already ψεῦδος, i.e., "falsity"? And what about "concealing closure" and its various modes?