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.

Think about it ...

Email David Schultz

David's "Infinite Loop" page here at Applelust.com