Software Needs Philosophers

[Terry Reedy]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers


"nikie" <n.estner@gmx.d e> wrote in message
news:1148254714 .668727.298420@ y43g2000cwc.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue]
> Xah Lee wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Software Needs Philosophers
>>
>> by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.
>>
>> Software needs philosophers.
>>
>> This thought has been nagging at me for a year now, and recently it's
>> been growing like a tumor. One that plenty of folks on the 'net would
>> love to see kill me.[/color]
>
> No, we all wish you a long and quiet life! Although some of us are a
> little annoyed that you keep cross-posting articles wildly to
> completely unrelated newsgroups...[/color]

The above was written by Steve Yegge, not Xah Lee, who just reposted
Steve's blog entry. To reply to Steve, go to his blog.

tjr

[jab3]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

SamFeltus wrote:
[color=blue]
> Religious Fanaticism is a very strong in the Computer community. But,
> is it really a surprise that when a bunch of hairless apes created a
> new mental world, they created it with a complicated Quilt of religions
> and nationalities, and many became fanatical?
>
> I am confidant the responces Xah will recieve will validate his
> observation on religious fanaticism. It is funny, Xah always questions
> people's Sacred Cow's, I have often noted that the reponces often read
> like the writings of religious fanatics. As a Georgian (US), the
> responces often remind me of the Dark Side (there is a Light) of the
> Southern Baptist Church, translated into Computer Speak.
>
> Software needs philosophers is an interesting point, perhaps the most
> important function of Philosophers is exposing Sacred Cows as just
> Cattle.[/color]

Unless Xah Lee is Steve Yegge, Xah Lee did not write that essay. Nor did he
claim to:
[color=blue]
> Software Needs Philosophers[/color]
[color=blue]
> by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.[/color]

<....>
[color=blue]
> This post is archived at:
> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006...losophers.html[/color]
[color=blue]
> and http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...ware_phil.html[/color]
[color=blue]
> This essay is reported with permission.[/color]

[alex23]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

As a professionally trained "philosophe r" and "programmer ", I'm
perfectly well aware that the onus is on _me_ to make others respect &
appreciate my skills and what they offer. Posting to usenet about how
others just don't "get it" is, in fact, not "getting it".

Even further, using "religion" as the antithesis to the glorious
philosophy which produces only truth makes this little more than the
standard net rant of "your way is different from mine and therefore
wrong". I can just as easily use "philosophy " to mean "the pointless
rantings of obsessed individuals"...

Seriously, this fails on every single level it aims at.

- alex23

[Jeffrey Schwab]

Re: Software Needs Less Idiots

David Steuber wrote:[color=blue]
> "PofN" <7abc@sogetthis .com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> Xah Lee wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Software needs philosophers.[/color]
>> No, software neds less idiots. So please take your medication and
>> change profession.[/color]
>
> Perhaps fewer would do.[/color]

Thank you. I didn't want to be "that guy."

[Mumia W.]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

Xah Lee wrote:[color=blue]
> Software Needs Philosophers
>
> by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.
>
> Software needs philosophers.
>
> [...]
> ----
> This post is archived at:
> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006...losophers.html
>
> and
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...ware_phil.html
>
> This essay is reported with permission.
>
> Xah
> xah@xahlee.org
> ? http://xahlee.org/
>[/color]

Remember that this was a blog post from Steve Yegge that Xah
Lee got permission to repost.

It was a little long, and I got bored in the middle, but I
think I understand (a little) Steve's point. He thinks we need
software philosophers to break programmers' religious-like
devotion to their languages of choice. I don't agree with
this.

I'd say we need software philosophers to help us see where
software is taking us so that we can avoid bad spots if
necessary. After all, the computer might just be the cotton
gin of our time. We might be virtually enslaved by
our own information if we don't watch out.

Philosophers have the ability to think long, to think big,
and to think about the future, and to think about the
consequences of actions in a rational manner. They would be
able to warn us if we were about to do something stupid with
our society.

However, Steve Yegge's software philosophers only serve to
eliminate programmer's passions for their programming
languages. While removing irrational beliefs is a good
thing, I see Yegge's philosophers moving through the
software industry, destroying everyone's passions for
programming, and, as a result, the software industry is
destroyed.

It's scary the way I see it. On the other hand, I support
rational thinking, and part of supporting rational thinking
is (presumably) having the courage to support rational
thinking even when the results are not to your immediate
liking. IOW, I have to support something that scares the
bejeebers out of me.

Yet on the other, other hand, if people think rationally,
the quality of life can only improve. Boy, am I confused :)

Fortunately, people have their passions, for both
programming and life, and that's not going to change anytime
soon. If it does, it'll be a very gray world indeed.

Thanks again Xah for getting these brain cells working
again.

[Mirco Wahab]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

after all, somebody dumped some
backup of his brain to use-net:
[color=blue]
> Software Needs Philosophers
> by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.[/color]

including lots of personal details.

So what I basically took from it
is written in this paragraph:
[color=blue]
> I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and I renounced it when I was
> thirteen years old, after my Uncle Frank (a devout terrorist Catholic
> if there ever was one) told me to stop reading the Bible, that it would
> “really screw a person up” to do that, that you needed someone to
> interpret it for you. That wasn't the only reason I renounced it, but
> it'll suffice for our purposes.[/color]

Under 'best effort interpretation' , one could see
the whole thing in the light of the small thing:
he's rescuing 'us' by telling us:
- to think rational,
- to de-construct our beliefs and
- don't put that much personal sympathy into
'subculture group pseudoreligion' ,
the latter is what he thinks 'computer language culture'
really is today.

I can't see what's wrong with these hypotheses
(besides he got some terms wrong); he describes
things we most probably are already aware of
(in our own context of notions) - but wouldn't
bother to fill the communication lines of the
world with it (wouldn't give a damn about ...)

(my €0.05)

Mirco

f'up ==> c.l.p.m

[Matt Garrish]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers


"Mumia W." <mumia.w.18.spa m+fbi.gov@earth link.net> wrote in message
news:nfecg.192$ Sf2.171@newsrea d1.news.pas.ear thlink.net...[color=blue]
> Xah Lee wrote:[color=green]
>> Software Needs Philosophers
>>
>> by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.
>>
>> Software needs philosophers.
>>
>> [...]
>> ----
>> This post is archived at:
>> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006...losophers.html
>>
>> and
>> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...ware_phil.html
>>
>> This essay is reported with permission.
>>
>> Xah
>> xah@xahlee.org
>> ? http://xahlee.org/
>>[/color]
>
> Remember that this was a blog post from Steve Yegge that Xah
> Lee got permission to repost.
>
> It was a little long, and I got bored in the middle, but I
> think I understand (a little) Steve's point. He thinks we need
> software philosophers to break programmers' religious-like
> devotion to their languages of choice. I don't agree with
> this.
>
> I'd say we need software philosophers to help us see where
> software is taking us so that we can avoid bad spots if
> necessary. After all, the computer might just be the cotton
> gin of our time. We might be virtually enslaved by
> our own information if we don't watch out.
>
> Philosophers have the ability to think long, to think big,
> and to think about the future, and to think about the
> consequences of actions in a rational manner. They would be
> able to warn us if we were about to do something stupid with
> our society.
>[/color]

Thank you for that laugh. I think you're the first person I've read in this
century who advocates Plato's silly notion of the philosopher kings. If you
want to talk philosophy, please jump foward past the Enlightment.

Matt

[vjg]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers


nikie wrote:[color=blue]
>
> (BTW: Have you ever considered the possibility that philosophers might
> not be interested in tab-versus-spaces-debates in the first place?
> Maybe they have more interesting matters to discuss. Just like the rest
> of us.)[/color]

Debate? There's no valid dabate. Tabs bad. Spaces good.

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

vjg wrote:[color=blue]
> nikie wrote:
>[color=green]
>> (BTW: Have you ever considered the possibility that philosophers might
>> not be interested in tab-versus-spaces-debates in the first place?
>> Maybe they have more interesting matters to discuss. Just like the rest
>> of us.)
>>[/color]
>
> Debate? There's no valid dabate. Tabs bad. Spaces good.
>
>[/color]
Hrmms, I think we should debate about the debate now, I mean we've
already beaten the actual topic to DEATH.

..c



--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Tim Churches]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

Xah Lee wrote:[color=blue]
> Software Needs Philosophers
>
> by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.
>
> Software needs philosophers.
>
> People don't put much stock in philosophers these days. The popular
> impression of philosophy is that it's just rhetoric, just frivolous
> debating about stuff that can never properly be answered. “Spare me
> the philosophy; let's stick to the facts!”
>
> The funny thing is, it's philosophers who gave us the ability to think
> rationally, to stick to the facts. If it weren't for the work of
> countless philosophers, facts would still be getting people tortured
> and killed for discovering and sharing them.[/color]

Paging Dr Mertz... (http://www.gnosis.cx)

Tim C

[Timo Stamm]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

Dra¾en Gemiæ schrieb:[color=blue]
> Xah Lee wrote:[color=green]
>> Software Needs Philosophers
>>[/color]
>
> Welcome to my junk filters !!!![/color]


Thanks for informing each and every reader of the newsgroups
comp.lang.perl. misc, comp.lang.pytho n, comp.lang.java. programmer,
comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.funct ion about your junk filters.


Timo

[Dra¾en Gemiæ]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

Timo Stamm wrote:[color=blue]
> Dra¾en Gemiæ schrieb:
> [color=green]
>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Software Needs Philosophers
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Welcome to my junk filters !!!![/color]
>
>
>
> Thanks for informing each and every reader of the newsgroups
> comp.lang.perl. misc, comp.lang.pytho n, comp.lang.java. programmer,
> comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.funct ion about your junk filters.[/color]

Anytime......

DG

[John Bokma]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

fupto: poster

Dra¾en Gemiæ <usenet@local.m achine> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Timo Stamm wrote:[color=green]
>> Dra¾en Gemiæ schrieb:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Software Needs Philosophers
>>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome to my junk filters !!!![/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for informing each and every reader of the newsgroups
>> comp.lang.perl. misc, comp.lang.pytho n, comp.lang.java. programmer,
>> comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.funct ion about your junk filters.[/color]
>
> Anytime......[/color]

Instead of adding Xah to your junk filter, you might want to complain with
his ISP: abuse at sbcglobal dot net

Hosting provider has already taken steps

Google Groups might not care, but its worth a try. The more people
complain, the faster Xah has to hop ISPs and providers, and maybe one day
he understand that shitting in your garden costs money.

--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

[Dan Mercer]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers


"nikie" <n.estner@gmx.d e> wrote in message news:1148254714 .668727.298420@ y43g2000cwc.goo glegroups.com.. .
: Xah Lee wrote:
:
:
: I wonder where you get your historical "facts" form? (Monty Python
: movies?) Let's just add a few fun facts: Yes, philosophy did flourish
: in ancient greece, but liberty certainly didn't. Yes, Athens was (at
: least most of the time) a democracy - which by the way, most
: philosophers thought was a very bad thing. But still, about 90% of the
: population of Athens were slaves at that time. Not just "mentally
: enslaved", no, real, physical slaves.

Small quibble - while only 10% of the population were citizens,
by no means were the rest all slaves. The other 90% were children,
women, metoikoi (a commercial class of free men of foreign birth
who paid for the right to live in Athens) and house slaves.
Most Athenian slaves lived in the country.
: Also, it was dangerous to have oppinions that authorities didn't like
: (Socrates for example was sentenced to death because of impiety,
: Anaxagoras and Aristoteles had to flee because of similar charges,
: Hipposus, who _proved_ a flaw in Pythagoras' number theory was
: drowned).

Which should act as a warning to all who employ the Socratic Method. Sadly,
it doesn't.

Dan Mercer

[John D Salt]

Re: Software Needs Philosophers

<corff@zedat. fu-berlin.de> wrote in news:4dbartF19c b9rU1@uni-berlin.de:

[Snips][color=blue]
> Wrong. We live in a paradise of ideas and possibilities well beyond the
> wildest dreams of only 20 years ago.[/color]

What exciting new ideas exist in software that are both important and
cannot be traced back to 1986 or earlier?

I'd like to believe that there are some, but I can't think of any at the
moment.

All the best,

John.