[10]

with these tools, other tools; and with other tools, means of consumption. The "as" character is what is made possible through human language^a. Only because man is able to say "hammer" or "pot" or "cup" or "wheel", or any other of the primitive tools, and makes a thing which always has this character, which has become a universal^b, which has "as" character--tool as tool, hammer as hammer--man is different from all other living beings and produces a whole new world out of the given world, transforming the given reality into technical creations. Now the immensity of this possibility is visible to the man of the 20th century more than to any other man in all history. But even [in] the most primitive man who made the fist tool--perhaps a knife, in order to cut--the principal character of man, this fundamental function of his culture^c, was present, and the most complicated artificial brain^d of today is only a logical continuation of this fundamental power of the human mind to produce tools. And don't forget what I said, that this is possible only because man has the power of universals^e, is free ^ffrom the given, has language. Technical functions ^gare dependent-- as are all other functions--on language^h. This refers to all realms of reality. I gave, for the technical or transforming function, examples only out of physical techniques, but there are also biological, psychological, sociological techniques--biological in growing plants and animals (as in agriculture, gardening, growing animals); or medicine, the techniques of growing in SPITE of interferences from other forces from outside, or disturbances from inside. The technical function is all-pervasive. Even this lecture has a technical side, without which it would not be possible. This refers also to economies, to politics, to education. This whole great realm has been often too much neglected by not only theologians but also [philosophers?]. and has been treated as something of minor importance. But we cannot do that any more; the revenge of the technical realm was that it swallowed all the others, including religionⁱ. We will see this when I deal with the present situation. Generally speaking one can say: the technical function^j of human culture is the function in which means are used for intended ends. So we have now two [?] functions, which we have to confront with religion. In the technical function, in all transformation of reality for an end--that's technique--there is something implied. It is presupposed, and on the other hand enhances the technical function, namely the function of cognitive perception^k. And this is the third one, to which I refer. Now notice here one methodological point. I don't