Poll: Philosophical Influences

Firstly, for a brief intro; I have studied philosophy for approximately five years now. Only very recently have I taken an interest in programming, with as unlikely a beginning as boredom on a Friday night and my dad's old pc as the sole source of entertainment in my new apartment (- any cool games, = discovery of VB6 and MSDN Help Library for a rather awkward, self-taught beginning). Anyways, I've found it to be a good exercise for an undisciplined mind such as my own. In fact, I think that philosophy and programming are rather excellently mutually beneficial for a serious study in either. With that said, I am curious of any of your own favorite philosophical influences. For my own part, I appreciate most Ayn Rand for her type of ideal, Socrates for his method, Descartes for his attempt, and Nietzsche for so many reasons.

Arent there just too many philosophical "methods" to be so general about it?

Even in the case of Analytic Philosphy, there are several different subsets that are quite different: Logical Empiricism and Logical Atomism

Marx and Lennon come to mind ... (G and J)

Also Jones, Palin, Idle, Cleese et al ..

.. and Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink therefore I am"
http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.html


PS: my apologies, I do take philosophy seriously, but can only think about it in the bath, or perhaps out in the forest, but not on a PC :rolleyes:

Marx and Lennon come to mind ... (G and J)

Leave it to Dr. Memory for that one. :rolleyes: ;) :chuckle:

I personally (and it's quite obvious if you read through some of my posts in the Presidential Debates thread) use past presidents as my philisophical influences, and of course biblical figures as well. :)

Arent there just too many philosophical "methods" to be so general about it?

Even in the case of Analytic Philosphy, there are several different subsets that are quite different: Logical Empiricism and Logical Atomism

I thank you for your criticism Rockoon. Does his method suffice? With my limited scholarly inclinations, you'll excuse my ignorance regarding the labels ad nauseum which, in my own opinion, demote the potentially personal affection felt in studies of particular authors to the ranks of political jargon. In any event, the point of the post was moreso to ascertain you, the readers' certain affiliations rather than analyze my own.

Complicated question in a way, but a simple answer would be God and Bill W.

Complicated question in a way, but a simple answer would be God and Bill W.

God's vast philosophic presence is well known, but what of his skills as a programmer?

Like Mike, if you read some of my opinionated expressions in the Presidential Debates thread, you will see that I draw a lot from biblical figures.

Shaolin comes to mind. It takes a lifetime to master. Shaolin and Code, one never knows it all.

Marx and Lennon come to mind ... (G and J)
LOL!

Lt. Columbo LAPD

No, really. I like the fact that he uses the socratic method to get to the truth in all his investigations. ie. pretend to be stupid, annoy the hell out of everyone, then finally make them look like idiots.

Lt. Columbo LAPD

No, really. I like the fact that he uses the socratic method to get to the truth in all his investigations. ie. pretend to be stupid, annoy the hell out of everyone, then finally make them look like idiots.

And in response to socrates being an annoying old fart, they sentenced him to death.

Although both philosophy and programming require analytical ability, the gap between the two is emotion.

Although a programmer can "think outside the box" and be "creative" in their attempts to provide a solution to a real-world need (or want), they are limited to the architecture and instruction set of the platform in which they are writing their code for.

This is different from philosophy where "thinking outside the box" and "creativity" isn't governed by an architecture or limited by what core instructions are available. You can even throw the laws of physics to the wind and come up with some dandy answers to the many "What if" questions raised during philosophical debates.

Personally, philosophy doesn't play that large of a role (if any) while I'm programming. There may be debates that take place during the Feasibility, System Requirements, and System Design phases of a software project. But ultimately when it comes down to writing the code to provide the end-result, there is little time spent contemplating "Why is there air?".

And in response to socrates being an annoying old fart, they sentenced him to death.

I think what made them really angry was that he always made them look stupid when their kids were watching.

I spend a lot of time debating philosophical questions when writing code. Questions like how come everyone else seems to know what they are doing.

Although both philosophy and programming require analytical ability, the gap between the two is emotion.

Although a programmer can "think outside the box" and be "creative" in their attempts to provide a solution to a real-world need (or want), they are limited to the architecture and instruction set of the platform in which they are writing their code for.

This is different from philosophy where "thinking outside the box" and "creativity" isn't governed by an architecture or limited by what core instructions are available. You can even throw the laws of physics to the wind and come up with some dandy answers to the many "What if" questions raised during philosophical debates.

Personally, philosophy doesn't play that large of a role (if any) while I'm programming. There may be debates that take place during the Feasibility, System Requirements, and System Design phases of a software project. But ultimately when it comes down to writing the code to provide the end-result, there is little time spent contemplating "Why is there air?".

Hmmm....interestingly candid. There are indeed many different types of gears involved in any one task/event. Though in response to your noted cynicism of all things 'unpractical', I refer you to the horse and his own becomings in George Orwell's "Animal Farm". This being a complimentary comparison for at least he was lovable for his gracious ignorance of 'higher callings', or more profound, careful,...substantial considerations if you prefer. And nevertheless, he too took his instructions from the more philosophically inclined. The question in a research of the subject at all I suppose, amounts to the "real-world need (or want)" of independence, in that one might not become so polluted with bad ideas, or even disillusioned in oneself and all the possibilities from "dandy" considerations, (i.e. - "Why is there air?" And what of it's prodigal consumers?) ;)

I will have to exhibit “gracious ignorance” concerning the reference to a horse in a book that, if I did read, it was when I was in school and then only because it would have been required reading. Simply, it wasn’t (and still isn’t) from a genre of fiction that has attracted my attention.

Cynicism of "all things" impractical may be a little on the extreme side of deduction. Cynicism of delivering impractical software solutions on the other hand, would be right on the money.

The bottom line, for me, is that as a software engineer, I am expected to deliver products that satisfy a real-world need by those that are paying me to do so. My customers are not concerned with “fluff”. They are concerned about how quickly they can get the solution and will it satisfy their needs.

The debate of practicality comes into play when first approached by the business unit (the customers) with what it is they think they need. This is the event that triggers the “Feasibility Stage” of a project. Here is where the discussions take place to determine whether or not the desired end-result is worth the time, effort, and expense. Is it really a “need” or is it a “nice to have want”? Will the return on investment be worth it? Does an infrastructure exist to support the need? What will it take to get it there if it doesn’t? What are the alternatives? The answer to all of these questions, and many others, are generated within the constraints of the real world.

Here are a couple of questions that I would like to ask of you in this philosophical debate.

Where can philosophy come into play when it comes to writing code?
How does the contemplation of life, the universe, and everything allow a programmer to escape the bounds and limitations of the platform on which he/she is developing their product?
Is it really philosophy that drives the leaps and bounds of technological advancement or is it the understanding of the current physical limitations and determining what it would take to go forward another step?


This forum, I believe, provides good examples of the point that I am trying to make. Although “What If” questions are asked, the majority of the questions are “How To”. And a lot of times, those that are asking the “What If” questions are coming to the realization that, although it would be cool or neat, it’s simply impractical.

Will Rogers, Hebrew Proverbs, Zen/Tao type stuff, and the Interal Philosophical ramblings of my own head, Those are the big ones.

"Wisdom is the Principal thing; therefore get wisdom, and with all thy hath getting get understanding."

Proverbs 3:35

~~joe

I personally, live my life holistically and in accordance with the philosophy of bumber stickers and proper punctuation.

Gotta go with William of Occam (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html). He was the first widely known proponent of the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Gotta go with William of Occam (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html). He was the first widely known proponent of the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid)Occam's razor is one of my favorites. Overcomplication is one of my pet peeves.

I don't know if he's considered a philosopher, but I've read a bit of Sagan, and I really enjoyed it. I spend my day doing analytical things - a little Sagan to stretch the mind is a welcome reprieve.

I believe they are one in the same, programming is a methodical breaking down of perception and plan into its constituents, analyzing to the point of singularity for the purpose of understanding each without further question, then filing it all in order to function in harmony, a sort of reverse engineering. (A definition that could be used interchangeably with philosophy.)

"It is the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in the belief in god." Friedrich Nietzsche (Personal Favorite)

I am curious of any of your own favorite philosophical influences...
Nietzsche and Lao Tzu -- in equal measure..

Some recommended "light" reading:
Jean-Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology"

I also believe in the anonymous quote:
"Everything in moderation, including moderation"

I don't know if it's part of any philosophy, but here's some advice that I've found useful:
"Plan for the worst case scenario and you'll never be disappointed, only pleasantly surprised"

Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear :

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

--spoken by the character Paul "Muad'Dib" Atreides in the Frank Herbert's book "Dune"