Objectivity in Art: Another symptom of the Gangadeanian chauvinism.

I've written before about how Gangadean and his kin tend to make bold assertions about definitions or otherwise make equally audacious claims about analyses of concepts and the like. We saw this with respect to the meaning of the word 'knowledge' as well as Gangdean's unsupported theory of knowledge. Gangadean doesn't argue for his theory of what knowledge is, instead he just "lays down the law". He says knowledge is such and such, but never tells you why you should agree with him. The same goes for his theory of the nature of reason. The same with free will. The same with God, goodness, evil, sin and a host of other concepts, words and things. He gets a tad warmer when he tries to defend his view (the Aristotelian view) that humans are rational animals--but as I've noted in a previous post, his justification fails his own standard. Since Gangadean and his followers are always big on denying a view whenever that view means that one cannot settle disputes, perhaps we have good grounds on this consideration alone to deny their way of doing philosophy. Case in point, Anderson argues that externalism about knowledge leads to irresolvable disputes about whether a person knows or not and this is taken as a reason to deny externalism.

That is, suppose that Gangadean's way of "laying down the law" (e.g., merely asserting analyses) represents one way that he does philosophy. But if he can do it, then it seems like anybody ought to be able to merely state definitions or theories for concepts, words, or things like knowledge. But now this will lead to unresolvable disagreements whenever the definitions/theories/analyses disagree. For instance, Gangadean merely says that knowledge = maximally justified true belief, but doesn't present arguments for why he thinks that this is correct. But it turns out that most philosophers disagree with him about this. So they might also "lay down the law" with their own theories or definitions. And now we're stuck with an unresolvable disagreement. The moral that I want to draw here is that it inconsistent for Gangadean to ever merely assert a theory (of a thing) or definition (of a word) or an analysis (of a concept) because this will be in tension with his view that reason ought to settle disputes. And now this places a heavy burden for him to rationally defend each theory, each definition, each analyses as the correct theory/definition/analysis. When he fails to do so we have no reason to accept his claims. And you will notice that these theories, definitions and analyses do a lot of heavy lifting in his central arguments in the form of premises.

I first caught wind of this problem of "laying down the law" when Gangadean spoke about the "objective standards for art." If you talk to a Gangadeanian about art they will be quick to draw a distinction between mere decoration and art. Not every pretty thing that you frame and hang on the wall counts as art according to them. And different artists are objectively better than others just as certain pieces of art are objectively better than others. I found this view highly contentious and still do. But it gained currency quickly among the Gangadeanians. Now it is their view that art should express the universal (foundational messages that transcend time, gender, race, social class etc). Further it should instantiate some level of complexity and mastery of the trade. However, these details are not important for the point I'm making. The important point is why we should accept their standards as the correct ones? Gangadean merely proclaims that there are objective standards to art and then tries to spell them out. From what I can gather this is an attempt to get an intuitive reaction out of people. But this is not the same as giving a rational justification for 1) the claim that there is objective standards of art and 2) that their specific construal of these standards is correct.  Again, there are many that disagree with Gangadean on either 1) or 2). But the Gangadeanians are merely laying down the law again. Which means those that disagree should be able to as well. Which means we have an insoluble disagreement and something will have went wrong (according to Gangadean). So Gangadean is committed to the view that he is rationally obligated to defending (rather than merely stating) each of his definitions, theories, and analyses on pain of consistency with his own worldview. But since he hasn't done this it appears he's being inconsistent. 

Much of what I've said here is reminiscent of other posts. So my apologies for repeating myself. But the bit about art has not been featured on this blog yet and I think it brings out nicely how the philosophical chauvinism that I've accused Gangadean of is no isolated case. It afflicts even "less basic" matters. Indeed, it even infects his heurmeneutics. That is, I listened on more than one occasion at his interpretation of certain passages in scripture where he claimed that his was the only correct interpretation. To be fair, he was pressed on at least one occasion to prove his reading of a certain passage and he attempted to motivate his reading, but what he didn't do was give a demonstrative proof that this was the case though he certainly acted as if he had.

If a view or position fails because accepting that view and putting into practice means there will be irreconcilable disputes, then merely stating definitions/theories/analyses will not do.  If Gangadean can merely state rather than defend his definitions, theories, analyses, then anybody can. And where there are disagreements arising as a result (e.g., where people disagree about what knowledge, free will, or human nature consists in) there will be no settling such disputes via the method of merely laying down analyses or theories in the way that Gangadean does. Thus, Ganagadean ought to either stop complaining about views that lead to irresolvable differences or else he should give up his practice of merely stating definitions/theories/analyses i.e., being philosophically chauvinistic. Chauvinism leads to dogmatism, and the dogmatist is simply not in the business of settling disputes.