The Mac-PC debate, whatever one
thinks of it, shares many elements of other debates
which fine minds have thought long and hard about.
These debates are very, very old, indeed, centuries
older than the Mac-PC debate obviously. But I
think what people have said about these old debates
is instructive for trying to understand the Mac-PC
debate. Specifically, people have throughout time
defined certain kinds of positions on the role
of reason in debate, and I think these positions
are seen in the Mac-PC debate.

Here is my strategy: First, allow
me to motivate the problem, if I can. I will then
look at the older debate, and finally draw some
similarities between it and the current Mac-PC
debate. I will not recount any “facts”
or “evidence” for the superiority of
the Mac platform. This would be getting a head
of myself, and I don’t want to enter the debate
as much as I want to stand back and talk about
it. I hope what I will say will explain the difficulty
for getting the facts and discovering the evidence
in the first place.

What’s the Problem?

As a philosopher I have developed,
through training and habit, a peculiar sensitivity:
A sensitivity to the cognitive and metaphysical
tensions in the world. Many in fact do not have
this sensitivity, but it is part of the philosopher’s
nature to cultivate it. In a word, it is a sensitivity
to how confusing and perplexing the world appears
at times. Confusion and perplexity, in fact, are
two of the engines that drive philosophy — the
confusion and perplexity philosophers have about
the world motivates them to seek clarity and reduce
the tensions they feel.

Well, I have some confusion and
am perplexed about the Mac-PC debate. Two elements
about it just don’t seem to fit together. Let
me state them succinctly:

1. There are obvious cases in which
   people change platforms. For lack of a better
   term, and to set up what I want to say, let
   me say that there are cases of converts
   out there — PC to Mac converts that is (and
   vice versa). For example, Mac
   Metamorphosis at LowEndMac details the journey
   of one such “convert.” Even our own Tom Wetzel
   has an article talking his migration to the
   Mac.
   The stories are multiple.

2. But there are those who say,
   and testify, that the debate is pointless because
   “no one will converted anyway.” To argue which
   is the better platform is a waste of time. Few,
   really, convert because of arguments and “logic”
   anyway. “You are just chasing the wind.” If
   one does convert it is not be because of reason,
   arguments, and facts (like benchmarks and such),
   but other factors.

Now one of these positions is not
right — someone is wrong, in other words. Which
is it? Who is right and who is wrong here? This
is in fact where things get interesting to me
as a philosopher. For what we have are two opposing
views about an important phenomenon in our society
(namely, debates) and both views seem to be right
because they do explain certain facts. We have
facts about true conversions and facts about the
seemingly endless nature of the debate (endless
because no one is converted). In other words,
both seem right, but one cannot be right. Time
to take the eyeglasses out and see what we can
find.

A Preliminary Question

Before I look at the classical
debate I have in mind and draw the analogies I
wish to draw, an interesting question presents
itself: Why are people debating these platforms
anyway with such vigor? Doesn’t it seem strange
that the debate exists at all? I mean we are not
talking about religion and politics here.

This is indeed an interesting
question which has several interesting answers.
Just to drop some hints at some solutions let
me list a few possible answers to this question:

The debate is not about computers
at all but rather about the corporate personalities
involved, namely, Jobs, Gates, and others, to
whom persons have found a peculiar kind of allegiance.
In fact, one could go beyond this and say that
it is not even the personalities but rather
what they represent (and we all represent
something), and this is where our loyalties
rest.

The debate is not even about corporate
personalities but even farther removed from
its content: It’s about the phenomenon that
humans seem to break down into opposing groups
quite easily. Be it political parties, football
teams, or corporate loyalties of any kind, human
beings seem to want to “takes sides” in anything
that one can sides on. That we do this may be
because of an inherent aggressive nature we
have, or due our essence as social beings.

Farther yet from the debate but
closer to the heart, the fact that this debate
exists at all is a sign of “metaphysical homelessness.”
We find ourselves in a universe which seems
unresponsive to our cares and concerns. This
causes us to feel homeless in the universe,
which in turn causes us to seek a “home” where
ever we can. By seeking a “home” I mean we desire
to feel that we “belong.” And we wish to belong
to something greater than ourselves, for only
something greater than ourselves can give us
the meaning we long for. Debates serve this
purpose because we belong to one side of debate
in question, and the heat of the debate testifies
to our importance, and the more heated the more
we feel we belong.

There might even be a simple commercial
reason: People’s livelihoods depend on these
machines and platforms, and anything which threatens
those livelihoods is a cause of anxiety. If
one position in the debate did win, say, then
one might not be able to feed his family. But
we can weaken this position and say that people
simply have a lot invested these platforms,
where by “invested” I do not mean financial
investment but maybe an emotional investment,
and investment of time and energy. They do not
what to think that this has been a waste, and
pride would be hurt to declare that one has
been beaten.

Any, and perhaps all, of
these explanations seem reasonable, though I am
sure they are not the only ones. By stating them
I do not commit myself to any of them, and neither
do I assume that there are no facts of the matter
in this debate. If any of these explanations is
sufficient that does not mean that reason has
no role to play. Quite the contrary — if humans
find themselves subject to such forces of human
nature and group-think, then reason is needed
more than ever to help us see things clearly and
move, if we can, beyond them. We struggle against
our own natures as much as anything else in any
debate.

Faith and Reason

I now come to the point of
this article. I want to draw an analogy with another,
classical debate and the Mac-PC debate. I do not
mean to buy into any superficial religious analogies
here, something many have written on either with
humor or in all seriousness. What I am doing is
applying positions from another long-standing
debate to the Mac-PC debate to see if we can learn
something about the latter along the way. I think
we can learn something, I think we can go deeper
into the debate than anyone has heretofore gone,
and I think the journey will explain elements
of this debate. Heck, we might even learn something
about ourselves along the way, and so it may not
be a waste of time to look closer.

My
suggestion is that we can learn some things about
the Mac-PC debate by looking at the philosophical
debate on faith and reason in religion.

Through the centuries people have
debated religious matters. After the rise of Christianity
theologians attempted to use what had been learned
in philosophy to explicate theism. But when philosophy
and Christianity took to the dance floor together
a problem arose: Who takes the lead? Can philosophy
(reason) be trusted in matters of faith? Or must
we start with faith? Is it Jerusalem or Athens?
Do we have faith in order to understand, or do
we understand to gain faith? This is the classical
debate over “faith and reason.”

Intellectual giants such
as Augustine, Aquinas, Zwingli, and Kierkegaard
have written on this, and two basic positions
have been defined, with all other positions being
variations on these themes. The issues present
us with a way to look at any debate, religious
or not. So positions in the Mac-PC debate will
fall into either one of these camps or their variations.
Let me briefly state them here.

Fideism

Some have said
that reason cannot be trusted. “Faith alone,”
is their cry. We can define this position as holding
that religious faith is not open to rational
evaluation. Our belief in the existence of
God is something we accept not on the basis
of reason or evidence, but on faith alone. In
fact, religious belief can not be justified
in the normal ways — faith is a movement into
truth through the will. We waste our time
trying to point the unbeliever to facts, using
arguments. His problem is a problem of the will
first and foremost and evidence and argument will
not help this — only grace can save him.

So if one does not come to faith
through reason and evidence, how does one do it?
Simply put, he commits himself to the religious
system in question. Then and only then will ‘see”
the truth, not before. He first believes and then
he will see the truth. There is no objective evidence
we can point to which is immediately convincing.

The motivation for
fideism, other than certain religious assumptions
and texts about human nature, is the appearance
that debates seem endless, that there is no universally
convincing argument or world view. Take a look
around. What do you see? Disagreements and endless
debates. Is it not obvious then that rational
means are not the way to settle disagreements?
If the truth were known then we would cease our
disagreements, after all. This holds for any world
view or position, not just religion.

Evidentialism

The opposite view is that
reason and evidence have crucial roles to play
in the birth of faith. Thus the view called “evidentialism,”
which also goes by other names such as “rationalism”
(but do not read too much into that term). This
is the view that a religious system is open
to rational justification, that it is possible,
though it does not happen all the time, to convince
an unbeliever using reasoned arguments and evidence.
But there is an important qualifier here: A belief-system
is convincing to any reasonable person who will
see the facts objectively. If an argument fails,
in other words, it might be the fault of the one
presenting the argument (he just may not have
it right), or, more importantly, the listener
may not be reasonable. He may be stubborn, subjective,
proud, and a host of other negative character
traits which rob him of full rationality.

As for me, I adopt a somewhat middle
position (one of those variations on the theme).
Because of the problems with fideism, which I
will not recount here, I think a softer kind of
rationalism is the correct view. But it is a view
in which we take responsibility for our own reasonableness,
as it were. We can not simply will to believe
something, even when presented with clear and
convincing evidence sometimes. Beliefs grow on
us; beliefs, in other words, mostly happen to
us, they are not something we do. We take responsibility
by placing ourselves in situations where evidence
is presented to us and we try, with all the strength
we have, to consider it in a fair and, as far
as possible, objective way. We try to be reasonable,
in other words, realizing that “absolute proof,”
whatever that means, is not possible, and in fact
is not required for justification in many cases.

I think this explains both
facts previously mentioned: Some do truly convert
because they take responsibility for their own
rationality, while the endless nature of the debates
hints that some are not being reasonable.

Back to the Mac-PC Debate

Now I am aware that corporate interests
drive the Mac-PC debate. That is, as long as Microsoft
and Apple continue to produce products people
will be further motivated to continue the debate.
And every keynote will flame the fires. Also,
that one platform has a majority is accidental
to the debate. Money, opportunity, and historical
accident have as much to do with this than anything
else. And as other platforms come along, say Linux,
the nature of the debate will be even more complicated.
But I want to focus on more personal elements
of the debate.

We all have read people who say
that the Mac-PC debate is pointless. This kind
of fideistic position seems to me mistaken; it
is rooted in not going deep enough into the nature
of debates. Let me put it this way: The simple
fact of disagreement puts some people off. In
what amounts to a resignation of the will and
mind, they walk away without seeking resolution.
This is too bad. For it adds to the endless nature
of the debate and keeps them from learning a great
many things which might otherwise go unlearned.

We all have also read people who
simply think that a look at the evidence is sufficient
to settle the debate. But this too is simplistic.
The nature of human nature, as it were, throws
this position into doubt. Some will be dishonest;
some will ignore facts; some will be stubborn;
some will be too filled with pride to look at
the facts in a fully rational way. We know the
sites that are dishonest and intellectually lazy,
and we may with all permissions dismiss them with
the single wave of a hand.

If what I am saying is right, then
the fact that one platform is better than another,
an assumption I make and am willing to defend,
is not what is driving this debate. But this does
not mean that evidence and facts have no place
in it. We can present facts and evidence, try
to construct reasonable arguments, and engage
others in dialogue. But we must do so with the
understanding that many will not engage us in
all seriousness and rationality. Egos are at stake,
after all.

Many others will engage us in all
seriousness. I know because I get emails from
them all the time. They are Windows users who
honestly want to talk without resorting to ridicule,
mockery, and dishonesty. They don’t write on the
‘Net, they don’t start web sites, and they don’t
make their views too public. I do enjoy talking
with them though. But it does get me to thinking
— maybe the debate is not endless for all of
us. The debate on the ‘Net only makes it
appear that way. That is, the heated nature of
‘Net writing, which I even engage in when appropriate,
makes the debate, and its interlocutors, appear
more recalcitrant and intractable than they really
are.