[kdeberk]

Edit: I'm not sure if the one who posted this is the author of the post, but this is directed at the author.

It seems to be a nice idea to connect philosophy to Lisp, but it is too short, it lacks coherent arguments and it jumps from one proposition to another without finishing the previous one.

For example, when you explain what you think philosophy is, you cannot simply cast aside everything after Socrates as irrational absolutism (Descartes' "evil demon" certainly is not irrational.) You need to explain why you think it is irrational.

Also, where is your evidence for claims such as "It would follow that the greater the fidelity a programming language has to these mathematical concepts and the more it builds upon them then the more powerful the programming language will be." and "History provides the evidence in that there is no other programming language that has done this better than Lisp."

Also, "Sound philosophy demanded that these mathematical concepts be tested by evidence, logic and rigor from some very basic premises that were built up to more complex and powerful structures of thought which were proved to be true. " So how did one prove these structures of thought to be true?

[merijnv]

> Also, "Sound philosophy demanded that these mathematical concepts be tested by evidence, logic and rigor from some very basic premises that were built up to more complex and powerful structures of thought which were proved to be true. " So how did one prove these structures of thought to be true?

There is some excellent essays answering the points you raise here in some of the Less Wrong sequences. Rather then butcher them here I will just point you to the "Map and Territory" sequence going into the subject "What is truth?", "Can we determine truth?", etc. the essays are here: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory_(sequence)