3 ms·
Of course we're more than just that, but if we agree on the definition of tool to be "an object that can extend an individual's ability to modify features of th
by maybe_pablo 5y ago
Of course we're more than just that, but if we agree on the definition of tool to be "an object that can extend an individual's ability to modify features of the surrounding environment" (lifted from wikipedia) then wouldn't you agree that humans are being used on a daily basis exactly this way?
- LegitShady 5y agoIf we agree on the definition of a broom as something that can sweep the floor and say that humans can also sweep the floor, wouldn't you agree that humans are brooms often on a daily basis?
- maybe_pablo 5y agoI think that definition of a broom may be too broad for me to be able to exclude anything from it but I'll concede on the definition of tool from wikipedia being similarly also too broad.
- LegitShady 5y agoI think you’re missing the point if that’s what you’re getting from my posts. The issue isn’t picking the right definition from wikipedia - the issue is not being able to distinguish between an object and a person.
- maybe_pablo 5y agoI still don't agree with your premise, people can be used as tools even when I can distinguish it from a person given other aspects (for example I may recognize that people can act autonomously and tools not). My initial question was precisely about semantics though and I think there's the possibility that my initial reasoning may not hold for some, more specific definition of tool.