(I thought about hiding my repost as a reply to someone else’s post so that it would not stand on its own–what could I possible say that would be interesting enough after Easton’s posting on jugs??)
Heidegger’s article seems as though it could fit in to many of the weekly topics we’ve discussed in class so far. I kept thinking of Ingold’s stance on materiality in particular while reading “The Thing”. After reading Ingold’s thoughts, especially in “Materials against Materiality” I thought “ohhh ok, I got it, don’t forget to examine the materiality of an object and that will help discover its thing-ness, help give the object the respect and attention it deserves.” Ingold urges us to “take materials seriously, since it is from them that everything is made” (14). Enter: Heidegger and his jug. When investigating the thingness of the jug, or what makes the jug a jug, Heidegger points out that it is the void, not the impermeable surfaces (walls and bottom) that make it a jug, saying “The vessel’s thingness does not lie at all in the material of which is consists, but in the void that holds” (my copy does not have page numbers). In describing the jug as a thing, it seems as though Heidegger is disregarding the materiality altogether, saying that is it not important. Rather, what is important is the task that the jug does for us (like recognizing the door closer?) and the fact that it may stand forth, be near us/be a part of a gathering, and because it can take in and keep/hold and pour out. I think that all of his points are relevant, but I think that he should give materiality its due. I am interested in the discussion tomorrow to see if I am completely misinterpreting his stance on materiality.