The aim of the paper is to reconstruct the polemics of two eminent philosophers of technology, M. Heidegger and G. Simondon. In spite of very big coincidences between their conceptions, Heidegger and Simondon disagree on the main point, i.e. the role played by technology in the history of Western civilization. As argued by Heidegger, the Western civilization, at the moment of the rise of classical Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, embarks on the path of technological thinking that considers all things, regardless their nature, as a potential material for production. This diagnosis is based on Heidegger's analysis of Aristotelian hylomorphism, which arises, according to Heidegger, as a result of transposition into thinking of technological operation and artisan attitude towards the world. The hermeneutic of hylomorphic scheme by Simondon is right opposite to heideggerian one. The hylomorphic scheme, Simondon claims, is not an adequate representation of technological operation. The technological operation as represented in hylomorphic scheme is anthropologically and socially mediated. This case is illustrative for the attitude towards the technological operation throughout all the history of the West: the technological thinking had never been a part of culture, and always remained at periphery. Both Heidegger and Simondon put forward a project of fulfilling the gap between technological knowledge and humanities within the Western culture – whether by returning to the point of their initial inseparability (Heidegger) or by developing a technologically oriented philosophy (Simondon). The paper also discusses the possibility of a universal theoretical paradigm that could be used in replacement of hylomorphism.