As a child, I used to repeat: "The problem is not [insert technology here] but how you use it."
I had a lot of faith in humanity back then.
Many years have passed, and I understood that the tools we use shape our thoughts.
That's why I am very careful nowadays in choosing which tools I use.
Beyond his controversial political orientation, Heidegger posed a very important thing: The primary danger is not in the specific technologies themselves but in the way their mode of revealing conceals other possible ways of relating to and understanding the world.
One consequence that matters to us from this is that, normally, writers do not have access to programming.
That is, they cannot create their own tools, and therefore are forced to work under someone else's decisions , and above all, under those other people's ways of thinking.
The tool you choose to use can be one of the most important decisions you make, and you might not even realize it.
(Dear reader: here's the answer to why you can't find me on social media, but I'm always an email away)
Heidegger said something interesting that we can use as a rule of thumb: It's only when a tool breaks or malfunctions that it becomes "present-at-hand."
If a tool becomes "present-at-hand" too often, should we replace it?
Is becoming "present-at-hand" an indication that the tool is trying to change the way we think?
Top comments (0)