The Dissolution of a Debate: Mac vs PC

Many have squabbled over which computer 'operating system' has superiority over all. But I think with a little application of philosophical thought one can feel rather abash in the revelation that such an argument has no grounds for objective application.

Firstly, let us consider what it is that the two schools of thought have found contention in: Stability, security, simplicity, to name a few. But what does this tell us about the nature of the argument? One would hope that an advocator of either side would have considered all of the computational technology as means rather than ends in and of themselves. With this in mind, surely any argument for superiority of either system must be grounded in the implication that it is a more effective 'means' to a desired end.

So it begins to seem that the matter of superiority is objective after all! One could say:

"Look as my PC completes this task in half the time it took your Macintosh! This argument is settleable objectively, we just did it!"

O RLY?

Regardless of what the given attribute of the system was in the example, or what task was being completed, the reply is always one of two things "No. I disagree." or, "yes, but [insert arbitrary benefit that the opposition lacks here]." and thus is begins to unravel. In the latter response the subject has actually accepted the argument presented but then given a counter argument to try and demonstrate the same thing (superiority) in their choice. This approach can only ever end at loggerheads and tells us, as observers of this debate, that the subject, although accepting 'feature A' of 'system X', simply prefers 'feature B' of 'system Y'. What this means we shall return to shortly.

In the former case of a flat out denial of a presented argument I think it must be only the exact same preferential stance at work. For example one would usually see this method employed in the aesthetics of the thing. "X is more attractive" I say, "No it's not, Y is" you say, and thus we are at loggerheads again, simply expressing a preference of one thing over another rather than actually demonstrating it's superiority.

But, say I (unique to this case of warring OS's): if superiority is merely preference and preference is subjective, then by transivity 'superiority is subjective' and to impose ones sphere of preferences on another is futile to the point of despair. Just as I might try to convince you that the work of the composer Verdi is pleasing (not in the sense of stale appreciation, but in that it stimulates active pleasure within the mind), you will only agree if your sphere of preference is identical with mine prior to engagement in the discussion. Either you find pleasure in it or you don't!

With that point cleared up I return to the more ambiguous case of 'efficient means'. But yet again we can demonstrate that it is down to preference again, albeit of a slightly different type. If a subject accepts 'feature A' of 'system X', but prefers 'feature B' of 'system Y' we have to ask ourselves, why? The answer is simple, Feature A does not apply to the subjects sphere of preference whereas feature B does, therefore system Y was selected. But now I think that the word 'preference' is slightly misleading and 'sphere of existence' might be more appropriate to this entire model that I have constructed. Where within existence I place preference, lifestyle, wants, needs and the plenitude of attributes that form our identity.

So to impose ones own sphere of existence on another is futile because if the spheres are not identical prior to the argument, then by the very definition of the arguments nature, no objective resolution can ever be reached; you cant alter what someone wants and needs. It is a case of an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force, and the clashing of spheres of existence will not make one conform to another, but will collide for eternity (for example, it doesn't matter how secure OS X is, if this does not apply to another's sphere of existence then it is therefore irrelevant. And the same applies to all arguments in the 'debate' in all camps). Thus it is only logical, sensible and rational for both sides to accept the argument's dissolution.

- S. L. E. Thomas

Let there be light!

Philosophy at university scorns the continental tradition!

Fact? Fiction? A blur of both?...

Even defining the two traditions is a perilous task. Factions war within the schools themselves. But i'll just dive in an grab the stereotypes by the Qualia!

Analytic philosophy is said to be the systematic study of concepts. While Continental can be portrayed as an equally rigorous, yet less formalised under the banner of rationality... ''convoluted coffee shop art" erring towards literature and critical theory ( (grossly misrepresented) quote, Dr Jones of the Leeds Philosophy Department).

Here's a metaphor to consider. the lone lamp light and the candelabra. Which one sheds more light and fulfils its purpose best? The lamp is unassuming, basic, pretty boring if you think about it. Jejune?
Perhaps not. It does its job efficiently with stoic resolve. You may not see the whole room illuminated; but the small part the lamp rays focus on will be brought to glaring attention.

How about the candelabra? It is commonly thought to be aesthetically pleasing. Sculpted. Gymnastics with a rod of brass. It casts its light across the whole room. But often the roaming glow will leave you in twilight. The device seems to seek to illuminate a vast expanse at the cost of focus.


Does the continental tradition still strive for system building? Trying to understand the entire human condition. Romantic perhaps, yet such a task is bound to be forever unfinished. Or at least broadly superficial. This author is well aware the whole metaphor is biased rhetoric. Dogmatically sculpted in the same fashion as the accused continental position. And the seeming lack of obvious argument leaves this post precariously teetering with a foot in both camps.

As aforementioned, this is just an thought. A simple analogy to get us wondering. I don't claim to endorse either position. If in fact there be a position at all... Perhaps the divide is unreal. Or simply a crossroads of methodology and purpose without conflict.

Maybe there is no analytic and continental. Just good and bad philosophy?...

- T. R. Firth-Jones