Python for philosophers

[Citizen Kant]

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 <citizenkant at gmail.com>

> 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» <http://lasnovelasprohibidas.com/>?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20130514/f589b55f/attachment.html>