the possibility of the objects of expenence. But Aristotle's thesis only sounds like that. Aristotle is not saying that the Being of beings would repose in and consist of representedness by a representing Ego, i.e., as subject of consciousness and of its self-certainty. Of course, the Being of beings, as the Being of what shows itself and appears, is unconcealedness, but unconcealedness still has its essence in physis.
Admittedly, Aristotle calls genuine being (Met. α 1) τὰ φανερώτατα πάντων, that which, of all things, is most apparent, in that it has already shown itself in advance in all things and everywhere. But τὰ φανερώτατα πάντων retains the distinguishing determination τὰ τῇ φύσει φανερώτατα πάντων (993b 11), that which appears in such a way that its appearance is determined on the basis of self-emergence: φύσις.
Accordingly, at the beginning of metaphysics, both are retained: appearance in the sense of emergence and coming forth and also appearance in the sense of a self-showing to a perception or to a "soul." Here is hidden the reason for the peculiarly unsettling transitional character that marks metaphysics at its beginning and lets it become what it is; on the one hand, with respect to the beginning, the last light of the first beginning, and on the other hand, with respect to its continuation, the inception of the oblivion of the beginning and the start of its concealment. Because the subsequent time interprets Greek thought only in terms of later metaphysical positions, i.e., in the light of a Platonism or Aristoteleanism, and since it thereby interprets Plato as well as Aristotle either in a medieval way, or in a Leibnizian-Hegelian modern way, or even in a neo-Kantian way, therefore it is now nearly impossible to recall the primordial essence of appearance in the sense of emergence. i.e., to think the essence of physis. Accordingly. the essential relation between φύσις and ἀλήθεια also remains concealed. To the extent that it is ever referred to, it seems very strange. But if φύσις signifies a coming forth, an emergence, and nothing that one might mean by ratio or "nature," and if, then, φύσις is an equiprimordial word for what is named by ἀλήθεια, why then should not Parmenides' didactic poem on ἀλήθεια bear the title περὶ φύσεως. "On the Coming Forth into the Unconcealed"?
We of today only acknowledge slowly and with difficulty the distorting excessiveness of "nature" as a translation of φύσις. But even if we do succeed, we are still far from a transformation of experience and of thinking that might once more bring us into the proximity of the first beginning, in order to be closer to the beginning of the approaching beginning. Without having in view the essence of φύσις, we will not see what is closest in ἀλήθεια and toward which our thinking is now under way.