The impossible tools

This article pursues a twofold objective. First, it analyzes the shortcomings of R. Dipert’s classification of technical objects. Specifically, I will focus on explicating the way artificiality is detected, the problem of the polyvalence of the notion of ‘property,’ and the question of how types of artefactual communicativity are classified. This approach aims to show that the category of ‘tool’ is unnecessary, since it is impossible to find a tool that is not already an artifact. As a second objective, I seek to propose a cautious stratification of the various levels of communicativity that appear intertwined in Dipert’s proposal