The Nietzschean Spirit as Aristotle's Metaphysics Theta according to the art of the ergon with the name Heidegger
(The essence of the categories is rooted in λόγος as a gathering and making manifest. Does this connection of oneness and truth signify being? At that place in Parmenides where the first saying of being occurs, the character of presence is ἐν [compare p. 19 below]. Notice the interconnection of ὄν as οὐσία, παρ– and συνουσία, and ἐν as together with, and λόγος as gatheredness, assemblage, consolidation; and in this context the "copula," the "is.")
A part of the Paramenides Fragment reads:
Μόνος δ΄ ἔτι µῦθος ὁδο
One path only is left for us to (muthos) speak of
When we think “ὄν as οὐσία” we think according to the ‘categorization’ of οὐσία. Categorization is emphatic, it tends to promote, is a sly way at first, discussion that does not see what it is saying at the level of the tonality of what is said. Rather, it tends to fix the standards. The Einheit, unit, as the unitary, which is spoken again, as Einheit is what Nous as the faculty which is defined by the thinking of this categorical ousia as thought in the Parmenides fragment becomes for Aristotle. We have, on the other hand, Hericlitus, who speaks of the one and the many in another way:
λέγει που Ἡράκλειτος ὅτι ‘πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει,’ καὶ ποταμοῦ ῥοῇ ἀπεικάζων τὰ ὄντα λέγει ὡς ‘δὶς ἐςτὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης.’
Heracleitus says, you know, that all things move and nothing remains still, and he likens the universe to the current of a river, saying that you cannot step twice into the same stream.
Here we have this Platonic talk of the same river, auton. Insofar as our technical skill, is not perfect, in sensing and bringing to thought the fine distinctions, in Parmenides, in Hericlitus, in Plato and then in Aristotle, we fail to keep to the level of consciousness demanded by the essence of the work that thinks Nietzsche into the Methodos.
We must here make what amounts to an excursus from the text, but we must know what is going on in a way that does not come up in the text. If we stay to the understanding of Nous as the faculty at work in Aristotle, we must understand nous that when Aristotle sets Plato’s theory of Participation aside, as we will see in the text forthcoming, he at the same time, putting aside the methexis, Aristotle, who was known by the ancients as a Platonic Philosopher, and was not as is often said a great dissenter from Plato, though, true, he founded his own school, brought this problem back in at the level of Nous. Here we make a distorted jumble of biography and philisophic thought, out of spirit with the text we are following, yet these remarks are necessary to give the Methodos a contact with the comprehensive knowledge which is needed to move in the region of the work of thought undertaken. It is even possible that we will come to sense this problem in the λόγος.
One must consider the question whether the limit of the logos is what is also an object of the eye. The seesaw of sight and the word that houses the sight, or the symbol that one makes, and the thing, hold the immediacy of the understanding between them. However vaguer images, that in a concrete way, for instance in the art of the artist, can be the potential or power according to which a thing is made, are not necessarily clear inner pictures. When the logos is made to serve the natural precision of Aristotle, which is exacting, but not artificially so, as with many others, it, even with this graceful exactitude that knows the limit of exactitude, cuts into the basic ground. The tendency to think is wafted up in this movement towards greater and greater remove form the undivided or orginary, which is not a ground to be expressed. Thus we have the evidence of the muthos of Parmenides.
Muthos is said to be a manner of speech, distinct from logos. In Ortega y Gasset we have the opinion that muthos was used by the Early thinkers self-consiously, in a dissent from the older tradition, which used muthos unironically. thus that logos ran through the muthos, either because no other way was available, or because it was to be hidden from the public arbiters, or, again, because the ironists enjoyed the stylistic game. However here the Methodos follows another view, the muthos is not yet broken into ground and reason, and the thing being thought is not yet ousia, it is not yet determinate in its character. Not the word philosopher is passing about yet in the public, amongst the gentleman. Insofar as it speaks, it is a only for those who are developing the new Lichtung. This is how the text with the name Heidegger is thinking the originary, as prior to the split of the ground, and the reasoning.
Great technical skill is demanded in the exposition of this that is said in the above, only loosely. Ergo, we must be on the lookout for the unfolding of the theoretical rigor of this thought in the text as we move forward. When what holds in the material is thought, it is though in the logos, or in maths, it is represented, either as this and that thing, or as the ubiquity of the einheit of potential and actual. In the Christian thought, this movement that in the Greek was never fully thought, and remained the subject that we now enter into in the text of Aristotle, raises up out of the Greek idea, that the cause and the result are thinkable, that they yield a Lichtung for the thinking, into the Godhead, as the energia that is thought as the pure kinesis of the Erotic movment. Man is thought as that being that is receptive to the movement. When history is thought as Progress, this thought casts off, for the first time in Kant, the Godheit, it casts the potentia away. It makes of Progress a Salvation without the “Parasit der Ethik”. This thinking becomes the notion of determinacy. The consideration concerns the necessity, which, finally becomes nature-fact, rather than artifact. The History of being, looked at as concrete development, is the coming to see the fact as ground, and the value as reason. Yet, anyone who stumbles amidst the bleached bones, senses the falseness of the division, but without the power to regain the unity.
Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme — the quantum theory — which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualisation, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies — the wave picture and the corpuscular picture.
- "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.