Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

daddymodern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#41

Post by calibraxis »

Tichy wrote: post #33

To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…

Actually, philosophers do seem to be interested in questions of existence. For example, Bertrand Russell probably mentioned that "I think, therefore I am" is wrong — what does "I" mean? Particularly if the mind is a collection of things, and the notion of "I" is a useful illusion, an oversimplification. Maybe an improvement is, "Something thinks, therefore it is."

I think that there's various parts of philosophy, and not all topics will interest any given person, nor will the work of all philosophers. Maybe various institutions (like universities and priesthoods of professional philosophers) promote practices one doesn't like, like big software companies enforcing only Java-the-language. But I think the subject naturally attracts people who ask themselves why they're doing what they're doing, and other such questions.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#42

Post by danenania »

Tichy wrote: post #33

To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…

"What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested."

Seriously? A monumentally vast number of volumes have been written by philosophers on what it means to exist.

I find this sort of academic partisanship bizarre. There are no rigid distinctions between philosophy and science. They are both attempts to gain knowledge and insight about the universe, and their methods largely overlap. It could be argued that science is a subset of philosophy.

By the way, your critique of philosophy is itself a piece of philosophy. Critiquing philosophy is one of philosophy's favorite pastimes.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#43

Post by Tichy »

danenania wrote: post #42
Tichy wrote: post #33

To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…

"What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested." Seriously? A monumentally vast number of volumes have been written by philosophers on what it means to exist. I find this sort of academic partisanship bizarre. There are no rigid distinctions between philosophy and science. They are both attempts to gain knowledge and insight about the universe, and their methods largely overlap. It coul…

But they all start with the premise that they exist.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#44

Post by danenania »

Tichy wrote: post #43
danenania wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested." Seriously? A monumentally vast number of volumes have been written by philosophers on what it means to exist. I find this sort of academic partisanship bizarre. There are no rigid distinctions between philosophy and science. They are both attempts to gain knowledge and insight about the universe, and their methods largely overlap. It coul…

But they all start with the premise that they exist.

That's false.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#46

Post by rfrey »

Tichy wrote: post #39
thrdOriginal wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize it is easy to pick on philosphy, but if you're going to write off one of our oldest disciplines it should at least come from an informed place: "I think therefore I am" is not Descartes' premise, but one of his conclusions. Even as a conclusion, it is mostly misunderstood. The point is not that it is the thinking that brings one into being, but that there is something there that must exist in order to do th…

Still, he dodges the question as to what it means that something exists. But I admit I haven't really read him. It is just that whenever I pick up a philosophy book (very rarely), I tend to hit upon false premises immediately.

Whenever I pick up a maths book, I read all these symbols that have no explanation whatsoever - it's obviously self-indulgent wanking. I admit I don't actually read the book, though, I just open it. But I can tell the symbols aren't english, or any other language I learned before my mind closed, so I can tell it's dross.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#47

Post by Tichy »

rfrey wrote: post #46
Tichy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, he dodges the question as to what it means that something exists. But I admit I haven't really read him. It is just that whenever I pick up a philosophy book (very rarely), I tend to hit upon false premises immediately.

Whenever I pick up a maths book, I read all these symbols that have no explanation whatsoever - it's obviously self-indulgent wanking. I admit I don't actually read the book, though, I just open it. But I can tell the symbols aren't english, or any other language I learned before my mind closed, so I can tell it's dross.

Well name a philosophy book that is worth reading.

Maths books don't claim to be anything but self-indulgent.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#49

Post by yters »

araneae wrote: post #12

Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.

Does neuroethology tell us whether neuroethology can account for all of the human mind? Probably not, and if we just assume that is the case, then we waste a whole bunch of time if we're wrong.

Philosophy has only been displaced if physics can account for all of reality, but whether it can or cannot is a philosophical problem. So, since you can't appeal to physics to determine whether physics is a comprehensive answer, it isn't.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#50

Post by telemachos »

Tichy wrote: post #47
rfrey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I pick up a maths book, I read all these symbols that have no explanation whatsoever - it's obviously self-indulgent wanking. I admit I don't actually read the book, though, I just open it. But I can tell the symbols aren't english, or any other language I learned before my mind closed, so I can tell it's dross.

Well name a philosophy book that is worth reading. Maths books don't claim to be anything but self-indulgent.

Given your comments, I'm would recommend W.V. Quine (staunchly realist, writes wonderfully clearly, very rigorous, a logician at heart). A good collection of basic essays is Quintessence, and a good first essay might be 'On What There Is'[1][2]. (Arguably his most important book-length work is Word and Object, but I wouldn't recommend starting there.) Here's the first paragraph (complete) to give you a sense of how well he writes:

>> A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: ‘What is there?’ It can be answered, moreover, in a word—‘Everything’—and everyone will accept this answer as true. However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. There remains room for disagreement over cases; and so the issue has stayed alive down the centuries.

[1] Online: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is

[2] Original source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20123117

Post reply on HN