(Continuation from yesterday)

Furthermore, in personal circumstances, in addition to these hypotheses,

(3) I come to frequently make simulations that create a large number of people in the virtual world using object-oriented programming techniques

I feel like I can pick it up.

-----

Now, I will make a definition temporary that the purpose of the philosophy is "the operation of a social system using an object of human being".

(In addition, the ultimate purpose of philosophy is "the way of life of a happy life" from the inside, and "the way of making a happy person" from the outside.)

In fact, the design of object-oriented programming is quite similar to the way of human prescription. To tell you the truth, it is exactly the same.

Object-oriented programming consists of a blueprint called a "class" and an entity called an "instance".

I have previously described this relationship between "taiyaki molds" and "taiyaki" relationships.

For example, in the case of human class, we describe how to react (eg, accept, reject, ignore) for its attributes (eg gender, age, preferences, etc) and methods (eg signals from other objects)

Among the great books, what the philosophers are writing was a hypothesis about the interaction between the design of this "human class (attributes and methods)" and the large number of objects (human entities) generated from the "human class".

In the case of me, when I read "100 minutes de masterpiece (not original book)", a design diagram (class diagram) of "human class" floats in my head.

In other words, it seems that philosophy and object-oriented programming are well compatible, and hence, I and the (text of) recent philosophical books will be well compatible.

-----

The important thing here is to think of human being divided into "class" and "object".

If you have designed a great "class", however you cannot move a large number of the "objects", that "class" is a failure.

For example, a society consisting of only people who are kind to people (attributes) does not move at all.

Of course, the philosophers claimed their own "hypothesis", because they could not do simulation experiments using object-oriented programs.

So, in philosophy, "hypothesis" needs persuasive power for many people to understand them.

At least, "The book can not be a great book that survives over 100 years."

-----

You know, I have set up a "wild hypothesis" and carried out the process of "calculating with force".

Naturally, this is a true opposite approach to traditional philosophy and social systems research.

In other words, my hypothesis is that they are not convinced enough for many people.

At least, "my works can not be a great book that survives over 100 years."