Re: Gods of perl

I have always viewed programming, like all creative endavors, as an act of creation.

And if you take that a little further (with maybe a few bong hits to help you along), you could reason that as programmers/painters/writers/musicians we are all trying to become god in some way.

But, are we gods? I doubt it, when was the last time you wrote a 'perfect' program?

-stvn

NOTE: I no way do I mean to imply that god's creation (if you believe that to be the truth), and in particular humanity, are 'perfect'. One only needs to look back to yesterdays US election to see the obvious flaws ;-)

Comment on Re: Gods of perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Gods of perl by Ytrew (Pilgrim) on Nov 04, 2004 at 23:20 UTC
I have always viewed programming, like all creative endavors, as an act of creation. And if you take that a little further (with maybe a few bong hits to help you along), you could reason that as programmers/painters/writers/musicians we are all trying to become god in some way. Sure, but there's fundamental differences between wanting to be something, trying to be something, and being something. Note that the two arguments below both rely on the same logical fallacy. The following is clearly false. "I am mortal." "Socrates is mortal." "Therefore, I'm Socrates!" The next one is also false, and for the same reason. It seems to be the unstated argument that sparked this meditation "God creates things" "I create things". "Therefore, I am God! Oh, wow! I'm so cool!". Unfortunately, to actually be a god, you need to possess all of the defining attributes of a diety. These traits vary depending upon who you ask, but usually include one or all of omnipotence, omniscience, and immortality. I really doubt any or even all of us really meet those divine standards, combined threelite perl haxor skills notwithstanding. :-) -- Ytrew	[reply]
Re^3: Gods of perl by throttle (Beadle) on Nov 05, 2004 at 12:51 UTC
Your syllogisms are wrong. A correct one would be<br Everyone who creates things is a God I create things Therefore, I'm a God or All men are mortal. Socrates is a men Socrates is a mortal You syllogisms don't follow Aristotele's teachings.	[reply]
Re^4: Gods of perl by kelan (Deacon) on Nov 05, 2004 at 19:33 UTC
Your syllogisms are wrong. He meant for them to be wrong, which is why he said: Note that the two arguments below both rely on the same logical fallacy. The following is clearly false.	[reply]
Re^2: Gods of perl by radiantmatrix (Parson) on Nov 05, 2004 at 15:09 UTC
> But, are we gods? I doubt it, when was the last time you wrote a 'perfect' program? Your premise assumes that whatever your `$ENV{DIETY}` is, it created a 'perfect' world. Think about that carefully for a while, before continuing that line of reasoning. Of course, this whole argument suffers from the usual deficiency: it lacks a common definition of "god". What one believes "god" to be depends largely on their options to `use Diety`. For example, `use Diety qw/Christian/;` results in an infallible father-diety, while `use Diety qw/Greek_pantheon/;` results in many fallible entities. I believe combinations like `use qw/Christian Greek_pantheon Native_american/;` cause segfaults. Perhaps this is a bug, but it might be by design. It's a shame the module author is so hard to contact... radiantmatrix `require General::Disclaimer;` "Users are evil. All users are evil. Do not trust them. Perl specifically offers the -T switch because it knows users are evil." - japhy	[reply]