Python for philosophers

[Ramchandra Apte]

On Sunday, 12 May 2013 01:33:15 UTC+5:30, Citizen Kant  wrote:
> 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.
I expected some spam but this actually makes some sense.