Frank Sommers
Posts: 2642
Nickname: fsommers
Registered: Jan, 2002
|
|
Re: Worse is worse
|
Posted: Dec 20, 2003 9:43 AM
|
|
The essay just shows that "good" or "bad," and, by the same token "better" or "worse," are contextual. In other words, there is no such thing as "good" in absolute terms, but only "good" in relation to a specific objetive. Thus, these adjectives are telelogical in nature. The best poison may not be the best food.
The problem with Dick's article's title is that it takes these adjectives out of context. While it makes the title catchier, and thus "better" for the purpose of making someone want to read it, that title is not good for the purpose of clearly stating the writer's position. While a reader's purpose is almost always to gain some enlightenment, a writer's primary purpose is often to entice his readers to read what he has to say. It's easy to forget that, even in an age when all sorts of media clamor for our precarious attention spans. The lesson: One must read the article, and not be deceived by its title alone.
I'm truly amazed how, on many online technical discussions forums, folks apparently do not read in entirety the subject of what one posts about. While that makes for lively discussion, the discussion often diverges so far from its original subject matter as to fade into irrelevance. Jim Waldo's essay clearly points this out, at least to me, more than the relative merits of programming languages: That the title of Dick's article took on a life of its own, a head detached from its body, and with similarly bizarre results.
I cannot believe that a person would claim that "worse is better" in any circumstance, without reference to a specific context in which some "worse" can, indeed, be better. That would amount to stating that white is dark, or that bitter is sweet. To discuss why some better may not be all that good in some situation, or why some worse may turn out more advantageous in another, requires that we examine the details, that we consider these statements in their full context.
|
|