Let’s try to get more precise with that Heraclitus fragment than the typical translations out there

Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστι, πάντων δὲ βασιλεύς, καὶ τοὺς μὲν θεοὺς ἔδειξε τοὺς δὲ ἀνθρώπους, τοὺς μὲν δούλους ἐποίησε τοὺς δὲ ἐλευθέρους.

I trust Heidegger’s judgment on how it is ideally rendered

Der Kampf ist allem Seienden zwar der Erzeuger, allem Seienden aber auch Beherrscher, und zwar die einen macht er offenbar als Götter, die anderen als Menschen, die einen stellt er hinaus als Knechte, die anderen aber als Herren.

Or in English

Battle is for all beings indeed the creator, yet for all beings also the ruler, and it indeed makes some manifest as gods, others as humans, bringing some to light as slaves, yet others as masters.

This is the ground of reality that he believes precedes the friend-enemy distinction.

In parallel with that Hegel seminar he was also giving the course titled Hölderlin’s Hymns “Germania” and “The Rhine”, which is where I pulled the above from. Heidegger thought that Hölderlin, also, spoke Heraclitus anew.

The Sophist can be perceived as a debate between Heraclitus and Parmenides, the two most prominent philosophers before Socrates. In his preoccupation with the pre-Socratics Heidegger is indicating that something went wrong in Plato. The latter confused us about something that his forerunners understood better.

Heraclitus’s epithet throughout history was ὁ Σκοτεινός–the Obscure–so perhaps the meaning of the above supposedly well-known fragment isn’t so obvious as it might seem at first.

Kampf, or battle, or strife, or struggle, or fight, is both the creator AND ruler of all things, thus once a given battle is seemingly over, battle remains, battle continues to rule- peace can only be an illusion if battle is the creator and ruler of all things.

What else is Heraclitus known for? Saying everything flows. He was a flux ontologist. What “Being” was for him was fire. He also said it was One, and that it was both willing and unwilling to be called “Zeus”. So it follows that when Being is unwilling to be called Zeus it could alternately be called fight, or flow, or fire.

Scholars tend to read the Sophist as Parmenides winning the battle. Heidegger seems to think something was lost there. Heraclitus said it was a battle from the beginning so how could he technically lose that battle? Plato says it isn’t fight or fire, it’s the Good. Perhaps the Good is both willing and unwilling to be called the Good? It’s only when you’re convinced Being is not battle that you don’t think to battle. When you know it’s battle then you battle the one calling it Zeus. Or to return to the initial fragment, perhaps there was something lost in our understanding of reality from making battle and fire the slave.

Here is some fire from the “enemy” Heidegger

Wherever battle ceases as a power of preservation, standstill begins: a leveling out, mediocrity, harmlessness, atrophy, and decline. Such battle, however—and this is the other thing that must briefly be pointed out—is here not arbitrary discord or dissension or mere unrest, but the strife of profound conflict between the essential powers of being

This appears to be the state of things in our heeb-totalitarian gynocracy.

It’s an interruption of the flow. A dam, with a stagnant reservoir. Or, if Being IS fire, then it is a fire that’s going out, that’s being snuffed out. To rearrange the initial fragment again, this is what happens when “slaves” win the “battle”.

We have non-beyng

The flowing pertaining to conflict, i.e., conflictual harmony, creates precisely subsistence and steadfastness, beyng.


Do you ever experience Beyng this way and don’t answer its call?

The lord, whose oracle is at Delphi [the God Apollo], neither says, nor does he conceal, but rather beckons.

This is Heidegger’s translation of another fragment of Heraclitus

Der Herr, dessen Spruchort zu Delphi ist [Gott Apollo], sagt weder, noch verbirgt er, sondern winkt.

This is the originary

ὁ ἄναξ, οὗ τὸ μαντεῖόν ἐστι τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς, οὔτε λέγει οὔτε κρύπτει ἀλλὰ σημαίνει.

And here is an alternate English translation

The lord whose is the oracle at Delphoi neither utters nor hides his meaning, but shows it by a sign.

I think there are beckonings and winks and signs all around, the flickering of the fire amidst the flow of time, people just hesitate in the face of battle. They are slaves to the victory of the slaves, their fire is out, they are non-beyng. Being a freelance Mossad agent is being a fire-extinguisher in the hands of the egregore. It’s a blinding to the signs of battle which is Being.

τὸ μὴ δῦνόν ποτε πῶς ἄν τις λάθοι;
How can one hide from that which never sets?
how could what never goes-under (never hides) escape our notice?
the [process of], indeed, not going-under ever, how might someone be concealed from it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: