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*.
There’s a term for phrases like “it’s just a tool”: thought-terminating clichés.
Here you’re treating thought-terminating clicheness as a quality inherent to the phrase “it’s just a tool”, not to the subjective motivations of the people using the phrase in a thought-terminating capacity.
I think, especially in discussions where strong opinions abound and form cliques, labeling certain phrases as “thought-terminating cliches” is itself a form of permission to forego any critical engagement with an argument. Or, to put it another way, to use a cliche to terminate thought. I think it’s worth my time and effort to say, essentially, “hold on, I don’t think we should immediately dismiss anyone who tries to distinguish the tools from the tool users, that line of thought has some important and useful ramifications for this conversation.”
The reason I decided to reply was this:
Here you’re treating thought-terminating clicheness as a quality inherent to the phrase “it’s just a tool”, not to the subjective motivations of the people using the phrase in a thought-terminating capacity.
I think, especially in discussions where strong opinions abound and form cliques, labeling certain phrases as “thought-terminating cliches” is itself a form of permission to forego any critical engagement with an argument. Or, to put it another way, to use a cliche to terminate thought. I think it’s worth my time and effort to say, essentially, “hold on, I don’t think we should immediately dismiss anyone who tries to distinguish the tools from the tool users, that line of thought has some important and useful ramifications for this conversation.”