Heidegger thinks about tools like so: a tool is something (a thing that has being in the Heideggerian sense, not necessarily an object) that represents an extension of human capabilities in some way. A tool is thus any kind of thing that *lets you do something you wouldn't otherwise have been able to*. The important (for us) conceptual leap here is that when a tool works well, or isn't broken, it develops what Heidegger describes as a "ready-to-hand" quality: the tool fades into the background as a kind of human-tool gestalt of a human with the additional capability afforded by a tool forms. As a simple example of this, consider eating with a fork. When the fork is well-designed and not broken, *you don't explicitly have "I am using a fork" in your conscious mind while eating dinner*.
I’m pretty sure the only requirement of a thought-terminating cliche is that they are
intended to end an argument and bypass cognitive dissonance with a cliché rather than a point
It genuinely doesn’t matter what Heidegger’s human-tool gestalt says if people are using “it’s just a tool” as a thought-terminating cliche.
The reason it sounded like a thought-terminating cliche to me was this part of the article itself:
What this response seems to mean is the following:
The technology being discussed has no bearing on the attitudes or ideologies of the person holding it: use or non-use is ideologically neutral.
The technology being discussed can be effectively separated from the people using it: nothing can be inferred about a person from the technologies that they use.
The technology is used fully consciously: you are always fully aware that you are using a technology and have complete volitional freedom to use a different technology at any time.
The technology does not influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it: use of the technology doesn’t tend to encourage one course of action over another (“guns don’t kill people, people do”).
They’re describing aspects that are cliche and constructed to not have a point.
I’m pretty sure the only requirement of a thought-terminating cliche is that they are
It genuinely doesn’t matter what Heidegger’s human-tool gestalt says if people are using “it’s just a tool” as a thought-terminating cliche.
The reason it sounded like a thought-terminating cliche to me was this part of the article itself:
They’re describing aspects that are cliche and constructed to not have a point.