Python for philosophers

[Jake Angulo]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citizenkant at gmail.com> 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!


Just...
pls...
dont do programming...
and Never do Python.


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citizenkant at gmail.com> 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 <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/>?
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20130514/3c51073a/attachment.html>