Re: Python for philosophers

Discussion in 'Python' started by Jake Angulo, May 14, 2013.

  1. Jake Angulo

    Jake Angulo Guest

    On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <> wrote:
    > Do I want to learn to program?
    > I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the
    > opposite. I've said that I wasn't sure.

    Hmmmm... i'd say you'll make very good business applications analyst. In
    fact i'd hazard to say you can make it to CIO.

    Recommended reading:
    * PERL for dummies by: Paul Hoffman
    * Crime & Punishment by: Fyodor Dostoyevsky

    With your natural philosophical talent, and just a little more
    supplementary knowledge you would Pwn & ruLZ!

    dont do programming...
    and Never do Python.

    On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <> wrote:

    > I'm amazed with your feedback, even when due to a lack of knowledge I'm
    > not able to discuss some of them. I've been inspecting the stuff about
    > rewriting and that drew my attention to my first intuition of Python being
    > economic. Maybe could it support my impression about a thing thats behind
    > the language and got to do with condensing expressions until their end
    > point is reached. I'll absolutely read the book you recommended, coz looks
    > perfect. The dis module thing sounds and looks perfect too. Then again
    > something that was discussed here about Python being economic or not and
    > how or in which sense also threw some light on my first impression about
    > the language. Everything here is interesting and illustrative. Anyway, I
    > think that maybe I'm missing the point and I'm not being capable of
    > expressing the fundamentals of the reason why I'm here. I thought that the
    > most convenient thing to do is trying to keep myself attached to the
    > natural language I master (so to speak) and answer the a set of questions
    > that has been formulated. Maybe with this I'm helping myself.
    > Towards what purpose I'm just inspecting Python's environment?
    > Towards what purpose one would be just inspecting Chess' environment.
    > Eventually, I could end up playing; but that isn't told yet.
    > Do I want to learn to program?
    > I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the opposite.
    > I've said that I wasn't sure. And I said that because it's true. I'm not
    > sure. Sureness tends to proliferate at its highest rate when one is looking
    > to know. I'm looking to understand this something called Python. I've came
    > here as explorer. I know_about numbers of things that go_about a number of
    > topics of various supposedly most separated sciences. Since I sometimes
    > have the capacity for combining these knowledge units in a fancy way and
    > "realize" a great deal of things, is that I use a lot the verb "realize".
    > These constant instantiations of mine are like well done objects of real
    > true knowledge, made somehow by myself, by calling a method called
    > "understanding" from the class that corresponds and apply to any number of
    > memorized_data_objects that were previously instantiated in my mind coming
    > from my senses. For me this seems to look like what follows:
    > >>> understanding(combination(a_set_of _memorized_data_objects))

    > >>> def real_knowledge
    > >>> understanding(a_set_of_memorized_data_objects) # How does this

    > look?
    > I'm positive about that being told all the time about everything is pretty
    > much an economic issue, it just saves time, which in this environment saves
    > money, but at the cost of not playing with real knowledge that's verified
    > by each self (checksummed so to speak). Monkeys didn't developed our actual
    > brains just by being told about everything, but experiencing the phenomena,
    > that now we humans are talking about.
    > If not, then why do I care about Python programming?
    > In part is like a gut_decision. Internet is plenty of information about
    > one or another thing that one could be looking for, I've taken a look to
    > Ruby and Java and C++, but was a set of Python characteristics that really
    > matched with something inside of me. An entity named Python must be somehow
    > as a serpent. Don't forget that I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now
    > I'm not trying to follow the path of what's told but acting like the monkey
    > and pushing with my finger against the skin of the snake. Could be the case
    > that a stimulus_response method is being called inside of me. If that's the
    > case, objects instantiated by the stimulus_response method are the first
    > ones that can be considered scientific like, inside of me. Python also must
    > be an entity that's able to swallow, doesn't matter that it's chicken
    > object. Then it will throw whatever by its tail. For me that's interesting
    > and, in me, interestingness use to call the understanding method. Then I
    > realize that what's stated above implies that I can feed Python, and (here
    > starts the magic) see what type of whatever throws back by its tail. Then
    > I'll approach to smell any possible profit.
    > What do I aim to get out of this exercise?
    > Since actually I'm not running for programmer, my reason for understanding
    > Python must be sui generis and it is.
    > What do I think "Python's core" means?
    > More than thinking I'm just trying to guess what Python's core must be.
    > Any phenomena has a core. Maybe Python is economic as a snake and it is
    > almost all core. What would be the core of a digestive system covered with
    > skin? Considering Python as which in itself is all its truth and nothing
    > but its truth (that's to say thinking it without all its optionals) I tend
    > to look at it as if one of the most economic living creatures, and maybe a
    > core in itself.
    > One color note is that in the serpent class there's no attachment method.
    > Serpents are unemotional, they use to drop their eggs here and there
    > without a care. Serpent class lacks of empathy method.
    > What do I mean by "global definition"?
    > I mean one that would generic enough that includes myself.
    > What's an "entity"?
    > It could be any phenomena. I just wanted to frame something and draw the
    > attention to it, even if I'm still not in the position of label the
    > phenomena in a correct manner nor conceptualize it at all.
    > Why do my affirmation pre-suppose that exists something *more fundamental*
    > to programming that Python is for?
    > With this I don't mean more important but fundamental, that comes from
    > foundation, that's to say something meta or previous.
    > Aside from driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a
    > screwdriver?
    > Aside the use that materialistic marketing tends to include in its eternal
    > propaganda, there's another use of whatever tool that I, the monkey, am
    > able to manipulate. My hand and my thought are engaged in the closest
    > relationship one can ever imagine. Manipulating, sets a foo in my brains,
    > foo that doesn't set the just listening to what someone would tell_about.
    > The case is I'm not able to get my material hands over Python, but that
    > doesn't mean that I must merely observe it as if it were non material. I'm
    > trying at least to emulate certain conditions to fill this gap. Modeling
    > something that could be called object_manipulation in order to understand
    > sounds crazy and maybe it is, it's paradoxical too, at the same time sounds
    > logic.
    > For my purposes, what is so special about interactive mode that I single
    > it out in this way?
    > Using the command line I'm setting myself closer to what I'm trying to
    > understand. That doesn't seem to be what one would consider doing wrong.
    > Why do I tend to believe that interactive mode isn't just like
    > non-interactive mode?
    > It seems that there are tiny differences between typing on the command
    > line and running a .py file. This drew my attention to the fact that being
    > economic has a lot to do with my purpose, so I decided to avoid the tiny
    > differences.
    > Why do I insist on the fact that "I must prevent myself from knowing too
    > much about a subject, that the best for me here is trying to fill the gaps,
    > mostly, using intuition?
    > This is an important question that I've tried to answer close to the start.
    > Why do I believe that intuition isn't greatly over-rated, and that most of
    > the time, isn't just an excuse for prejudice, and a way to avoid
    > understanding?
    > This is another good question that I've already tried to answer.
    > What do I think "to know" means? What do I think "to understand" means?
    > I've already tried to answer this.
    > What do I think Python's "axiomatic parameters" are, and how did I come to
    > that conclusion given that I know virtually nothing about Python?
    > I'm coping with this, as I've already stated, as if Python and Chess
    > inherit from Games. Games are known for being a particular kind of
    > phenomena, phenomena that not always but often includes something called
    > board, that's to say whatever in that game that remains immutable and
    > serves as its basic constant. With "axiomatic parameters" I've tried to
    > illustrate this immutable. That could be called perimeter or edge or
    > boundary, and even if all of those labels denote a limit, all of them,
    > unless for me, sound like... static. To think about Python in terms of
    > something that's static seems incorrect. "Axiomatic parameters" looked like
    > an initial limit that one can set, it just sounded accurate for a Python's
    > kind of thing.
    > Why do I maintain that Python could be something like chess.
    > From the "trying to understand" point of view, everything can be
    > considered a game. In my opinion even science could be considered a game
    > that could be played in solitary mode.
    > Am I getting closer to the point?
    > 2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <>
    >> Hi,
    >> this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original
    >> purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At
    >> this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to
    >> Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of
    >> view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an
    >> "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication
    >> about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in
    >> the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about
    >> Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity
    >> it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result
    >> one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I
    >> roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic
    >> mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer
    >> types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed
    >> it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for
    >> example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears
    >> between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but
    >> expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the
    >> apostrophes).
    >> So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that
    >> mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the
    >> most shortened expression of that data?
    >> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that
    >> programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the
    >> lowest level of it's existence.
    >> Thanks a lot for your time.

    > --
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ¿Has leído «Las Novelas Prohibidas» <>?
    > --
    Jake Angulo, May 14, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Citizen Kant

    Python for philosophers

    Citizen Kant, May 11, 2013, in forum: Python
    Ramchandra Apte
    May 15, 2013
  2. Mark Janssen

    Re: Python for philosophers

    Mark Janssen, May 11, 2013, in forum: Python
    Dennis Lee Bieber
    May 12, 2013
  3. Fábio Santos

    Re: Python for philosophers

    Fábio Santos, May 11, 2013, in forum: Python
    Fábio Santos
    May 11, 2013
  4. Ned Batchelder

    Re: Python for philosophers

    Ned Batchelder, May 12, 2013, in forum: Python
    Ned Batchelder
    May 12, 2013
  5. Joel Goldstick

    Re: Python for philosophers

    Joel Goldstick, May 12, 2013, in forum: Python
    Joel Goldstick
    May 12, 2013

Share This Page