# Site:talkclassical.com Elgarian



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Everyone!

Gather around!

Type the title of this thread into Google and then feast your eyes, minds, and souls on some of the most elegant, profound, beautiful, creative, and thought-provoking posts ever made by a single person on the global phenomenon that our modern time refers to as the interwebz.

But, really, in all seriousness, go and read Elgarian's posts. I have been browsing through them for a while and I've found that they're immensely informative. Quite sad that such a brilliant mind no longer shares his insight with us. Very sad.

Here's a favorite of mine:



Elgarian said:


> I don't _worry_ about [being wrong] (as you put it), but I'm simply aware that all of us, myself included, are very nearly completely wrong about very nearly everything.
> 
> Every few years I get the urge to drag out my philosophy books, and have another go, working my way from Plato through to Wittgenstein. I think I make a little progress, each time. And the lesson I learn above all concerns the limitations of reasoning. I encounter the immense attraction of certain philosophies that seem to provide a coherent answer, only to encounter its subsequent refutation. The consequence of contemplating the thinking of the greatest minds over 2,500 years is to reinforce the fact of how very little I know; how little any of us can know. You might think that makes the exercise a waste of time. Not so - it teaches me about the traps into which our thinking so easily falls: category errors, for example, which invalidate virtually every discussion about the nature of reality, whether it be based on scientism (at one end of the spectrum) or religion (at the other). It teaches me the limitations of what we can expect to learn from the application of rational thought _at all_. It teaches me that even the most fundamental of our common sense beliefs (such as the relation between cause and effect) are unprovable. And just when all the layers of the Great Onion of Knowledge seem to have been peeled away to leave nothing, it teaches me (thanks, David Hume), to shrug my shoulders at the abyss that confronts us all (whether we're aware of it or not), and go and eat my dinner.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I do like talking about music to Elgarian, we had some exchanges on the Bax thread a while back. He is a gentleman in all respects, I've never seen him lose his cool on this forum. Now that really is something (apart from his unique ways of looking at things). I believe he's more on the opera forum, I didn't come across him that much on the non-opera threads, but I don't remember that well. I didn't realise he was not posting anymore, which is indeed a pity...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_Dode_'s quote from _Elgarian_ is a beaut.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodeca, I'm really sorry to tell you this, but Elgarian left because of _you_...


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Dodeca, I'm really sorry to tell you this, but Elgarian left because of _you_...


Wait... really? I thought it was some sickness or other urgent personal matter. You're kidding, right?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Wait... really? I thought it was some sickness or other urgent personal matter. You're kidding, right?


Of course I'm kidding! *hugs*


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Of course I'm kidding! *hugs*


You really had me worried there for a second. Such a heinous crime it would have been if I had done it. I would have never forgiven myself. Never.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> You really had me worried there for a second. Such a heinous crime it would have been if I had done it. I would have never forgiven myself. Never.


Elgarian is wonderful, and I could understand your remorse, but such a little sweetie like you could never rile him. :tiphat:


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Elgarian is wonderful, and I could understand your remorse, but such a little sweetie like you could never rile him. :tiphat:


:angel:

. . .

I still have the odd feeling that I've caused something. . .


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

And so, Polednice had spread the seeds of doubt. He returned to his master, where they awaited news of Talk Classical's undoing.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> :angel:
> 
> . . .
> 
> I still have the odd feeling that I've caused something. . .


Oh, you may have. _Elgarian_'s post is a good 'short version' observation of the limits of reason, and of the importance of the 'attack' step in Scientific Method, stated with eloquence and passion. If your quote elevates the understanding of anyone reading it, you have caused something.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Dodeca, I'm really sorry to tell you this, but Elgarian left because of _you_...


...and here I thought it was because of something I said...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Science doesn't give us perfect knowledge and therefore we know more by pretending to know nothing at all. 

I've read all these books, I'm old, I'm intelligent and deeply thoughtful, and therefore if you disagree with me you're wrong.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> Science doesn't give us perfect knowledge and therefore we know more by pretending to know nothing at all.
> 
> I've read all these books, I'm old, I'm intelligent and deeply thoughtful, and therefore if you disagree with me you're wrong.


I think Elgarian was a good, thought-provoking poster, but - if this is what science is getting at - I would agree that we have to always beware of setting up authority figures and appealing to authority. No matter how well-spoken and well-read a person is, we have to be equally critical of the actual content of everyone's statements.

This leads me to have an issue with people who rely on quotations from philosophers as support for an argument, or who suggest that I need to read a certain philosopher before I can have a valid opinion. Reading philosophy is mind-stretching and useful, but when I have a discussion with someone I prefer for them to use their own words and talk in a way relevant to contemporary experience and norms.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Science doesn't give us perfect knowledge and therefore we know more by pretending to know nothing at all.
> 
> I've read all these books, I'm old, I'm intelligent and deeply thoughtful, and therefore if you disagree with me you're wrong.




This is an excellent example of what happens when someone mentions the limits of reason. I'm pretty sure that _Elgarian_ was referring to the Aristotelian form (observation followed by an educated guess), else why would he be so explicit about the testing step in scientific method? He also alluded to the concept of each theory resulting from the application of scientific method being 'written on a wax tablet, not engraved in stone'. You disagree with that? I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about chucking the tablet.

:tiphat:


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I've got quite a few of Elgarian's posts saved. He's so witty & eloquent.



Elgarian said:


> The playing field isn't level though, thankfully. When you're _there_, there's a buzz before it all starts, and in the intervals; and the people around you are buzzing too; and some young kids are asking their parents if this is the one with Nessun Dorma in it and their parents are trying not to disappoint them when they say 'no'; and then everything starts and this is a real orchestra and these are real people, and there's this amazing sound that's wafting up to your ears ('up' for me because we're nearly always way up there in the cheap seats) that makes your expensive hifi sound so hopelessly inadequate at conveying what it's like actually to _be_ here.
> 
> And there's this amazing thing going on down there on the stage, and it's a piece of _real life_ because nobody actually knows what the next moment will bring because _This Is Not a Recording_ and there's no safety net.
> 
> ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> This is an excellent example of what happens when someone mentions the limits of reason. I'm pretty sure that _Elgarian_ was referring to the Aristotelian form (observation followed by an educated guess), else why would he be so explicit about the testing step in scientific method? He also alluded to the concept of each theory resulting from the application of scientific method being 'written on a wax tablet, not engraved in stone'. You disagree with *that?* I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about chucking the tablet.
> 
> :tiphat:


I really don't know; I'm not sure what you've said. We're in metaphor land with wax tablets and maps and all, and if we backpedal subtly no one will notice that the key point - that because of scientific values and methods we "know" (in a practical sense) a lot more than we would otherwise - might be being conceded.

Edit: I'd like to add a couple of things. The fact that science can't tell us, say, what a nuclear particle really is (the thing in itself and such) does not in itself legitimize _any sort of_ supernatural speculations about souls or spirits or deities. A silence of evidence no longer constitutes a cue for arbitrary noise, even if the latter is eminently traditional.

And, I left out of my post one of the best claims (because I'd forgotten that it had been made): I really am right, even though I'm unable to explain it to _you_. Only if you get older enough, smarter enough, wiser enough, and educated enough, will you be able to see the truth of these claims that I'm unable to communicate to you in your present, intellectually larval form. Eat your leaves, caterpillar.

Finally, it is to his credit that when he decided he was superior to the conversation, he left it.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

science said:


> Science doesn't give us perfect knowledge and therefore we know more by pretending to know nothing at all.
> 
> I've read all these books, I'm old, I'm intelligent and deeply thoughtful, and therefore if you disagree with me you're wrong.


Perhaps if you actually spent some time reading the philosophy of science instead of complaining about it and hoping you would get educated by reading posts on a classical music forum, then you wouldn't have had such a primitive view of what science is (and by primitive, I mean more primitive than Kant).

I would disagree with Elgarian too if I still lived in the 18th century.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ _science_

1) I'm pretty sure you understand the metaphors, they are commonplace rather than some of my strange ones.

2) I equivocally agree with the 1st paragraph in your edit. [equivocation>] A 'silence of evidence' is not a cue for arbitrary claims, but it may leave room for them.

3) I was unaware of your personal antagonism toward _Elgarian_ No salting of wounds was intended.

4) _Elgarian_'s farewell post strongly suggested that he expected to, ah, leave this mortal coil soon, and was leaving TC to take care of business. Your version of motive is _untested_.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Perhaps if you actually spent some time reading the philosophy of science instead of complaining about it and hoping you would get educated by reading posts on a classical music forum, then you wouldn't have had such a primitive view of what science is (and by primitive, I mean more primitive than Kant).
> 
> I would disagree with Elgarian too if I still lived in the 18th century.


From my discussions with _science_, I think he is actually a very well-read, thoughtful individual - if that matters.

When considering the philosophy of science, we must not be so conscious of propelling ourselves so far out of the 18th century that we land in the pseudo-mystical tripe of post-modernism where nothing means anything, everything means nothing, and anything and everything is nonsensical and pointless.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> From my discussions with _science_, I think he is actually a very well-read, thoughtful individual - if that matters.
> 
> When considering the philosophy of science, we must not be so conscious of propelling ourselves so far out of the 18th century that we land in the pseudo-mystical tripe of post-modernism where nothing means anything, everything means nothing, and anything and everything is nonsensical and pointless.


Where we propel ourselves is debatable.

Also, since when did the philosophy of science become about "nothing meaning everything and everything being nonsensical and pointless"? Are you conscious that you're muddling and mixing up various areas of study in philosophy without making much sense?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Where we propel ourselves is debatable.
> 
> Also, since when did the philosophy of science become about "nothing meaning everything and everything being nonsensical and pointless"? Are you conscious that you're muddling and mixing up various areas of study in philosophy without making much sense?


The philosophy of science is no one particular thing because we have much greater plurality now than we used to. I was just summarising one particular pernicious strain of 'philosophy' which does exist.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> The philosophy of science is no one particular thing because we have much greater plurality now than we used to. I was just summarising one particular pernicious strain of 'philosophy' which does exist.


A summary such as "nothing is everything and everything is anything and everything is pointless" is so vague that it barely conveys any idea. In fact, it doesn't summarise anything other than the great number of misconceptions people have about philosophy.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> A summary such as "nothing is everything and everything is anything and everything is pointless" is so vague that it barely conveys any idea. In fact, it doesn't summarise anything other than the great number of misconceptions people have about philosophy.


It's not a misconception about "philosophy"; it was a satirical remark about a small slice of philosophy. I have no issue with philosophy. Philosophy is good. But some philosophy is crack-pot crap.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

I googled "Site:talkclassical.com Elgarian", but it leads me back to this thread... i don't know how i got out, but i was stuck in an infinite recursive loop for a while (get it, for, a, while... programmers?)

Anyway, let me be the antithesis here... the only reason why MY posts aren't as eloquent or meaningful as Elgarian's is because i try to condense them into a concise, single sentence, if possible, so that other members actually read them! seriously, does anybody read 1000+ word posts unless they're a direct reply to your own comment?

And to anyone who has read a philosophy book or taken PHI101 in their life, the phrase "the more i learn, the more i realize i don't know" is perhaps the cheesiest thing anyone could ever utter... Socrates said that a million years ago, not quite as thought provoking now.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> It's not a misconception about "philosophy"; it was a satirical remark about a small slice of philosophy.


And not a very thoughtful remark, to be frank. You could have spent more time on it, adding more generalizations and what not.

Anyway, I thought this was a serious discussion, since it has the name of Elgarian in it. So, be careful what you say; indeed, you're the presence of divinity, mortal.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> And not a very thoughtful remark, to be frank. You could have spent more time on it, adding more generalizations and what not.
> 
> Anyway, I thought this was a serious discussion, since it has the name of Elgarian in it. So, be careful what you say; indeed, you're the presence of divinity, mortal.


Yeah, I really wanted to spend my time crafting a serious critique of a particular brand of philosophy to give weight to what I always intended to be a throw-away comment that one other person would read on a classical music forum. 

Insincere as you may be, again, Elgarian was insightful, but I won't bow to anyone, god or man.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> Anyway, let me be the antithesis here... the only reason why MY posts aren't as eloquent or meaningful as Elgarian's is because i try to condense them into a concise, single sentence, if possible, so that other members actually read them!


I guess it's the reputation Elgarian has. Once you make a good point, people start reading what you say, despite how lengthy your point may be.



Philip said:


> And to anyone who has read a philosophy book or taken PHI101 in their life, the phrase "the more i learn, the more i realize i don't know" is perhaps the cheesiest thing anyone could ever utter... Socrates said that a million years ago, not quite as thought provoking now.


Come on, can't you see Elgarian's post discusses a little more than just that?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> I guess it's the reputation Elgarian has. Once you make a good point, people start reading what you say, despite how lengthy your point may be.


I don't think that's true. I mean, I like Stlukes and I like Sid James, but I mean, really, do you think I've read half of what they've said?!


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I don't think that's true. I mean, I like Stlukes and I like Sid James, but I mean, really, do you think I've read half of what they've said?!


Well, again, it depends on the reputation, which, in turn, depends on who is doing the reputing (not sure if that word makes any sense here). The thing with Elgarian, the way I see it, is that he made more good points.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, again, it depends on the reputation, which, in turn, depends on who is doing the reputing (not sure if that word makes any sense here). The thing with Elgarian, the way I see it, is that he made more good points.


Stlukes and Sid James make good points too; I just don't find that a forum is a place for me to devote reading time (my puny brain makes reading difficult so this probably isn't actually an issue for others).


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Honestly, I found Elgarian's posts rather bitter and pessimistic, especially considering all of the progress philosophy and science have made over the past 3000 years. 

I'm familiar with Kant vs. Hume debates about reality and the limits of our understanding. Yes, our knowledge is limited to our conceptions of things; yes, regular successions of things do not absolutely prove something 100%. But why is that such a terrible thing? We are the most advanced species on the planet; we have the most powerful brains, and we know far more than any other living creature. Take comfort in the fact that we, the human race, have established complete domination.

(although we may also be responsible for the slow death of the Earth because we exploit its resources so much, but that's another story)


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I just don't find that a forum is a place for me to devote reading time


You know, you're right. Let us go back to our responsibilites, folks. There's work to be done.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> Honestly, I found Elgarian's posts rather bitter and pessimistic, especially considering all of the progress philosophy and science have made over the past 3000 years.
> 
> I'm familiar with Kant vs. Hume debates about reality and the limits of our understanding. Yes, our knowledge is limited to our conceptions of things; yes, regular successions of things does not absolutely prove something 100%. But why is that such a terrible thing? We are the most advanced species on the planet; we know far more than any other living creature. Take comfort in the fact that we, the human race, have established complete domination.
> 
> (although we may also be responsible for the slow death of the Earth because we exploit its resources so much, but that's another story)


Whence pessimism? Is recognizing your limitations a pessimistic thing?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

His attitude is pessimistic. As I said, he's basically throwing out all the achievements of 3000 years of human history by saying that none of it means very much. Would he rather that we still live in caves and speak in grunts?

He seems to have been disappointed that great philosophers like Aristotle and Kant and Wittgenstein were not GOD, i.e., that they couldn't provide profound enlightenment about things beyond human understanding.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> His attitude is pessimistic. As I said, he's basically throwing out all the achievements of 3000 years of human history by saying that none of it means very much. Would he rather that we still live in caves and speak in grunts?


Indeed, his attitude is definitely pessimistic, which is why he said that his "life has been in many ways enormously rich." Yup, you can't get any more pessimistic than that.

Also, if you read his post more carefully, you'll see that all he is against is the primitive thinking that science gives us 'the truth'.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> He seems to have been disappointed that great philosophers like Aristotle and Kant and Wittgenstein were not GOD, i.e., that they couldn't provide profound enlightenment about things beyond human understanding.


Whence god now? Whence disappointment? How do you people make these kinds of inference? :lol:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Also, if you read his post more carefully, you'll see that all he is against is the primitive thinking that science gives us 'the truth'.


That's a very questionable, potentially pernicious endeavour. First of all, we have to assess whether any truth exists in the first place. Second, we have to assess whether other methods fare better than science. Whatever we value as truth, or as truth-like truthiness that helps human endeavours but is nevertheless not Absolute, science trumps all. So you have to be careful of giving the impression that by making people aware that science doesn't offer revealed wisdom, that doesn't mean you can then fill in the hole with religious or spiritual pseudoscience.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> That's a very questionable, potentially pernicious endeavour. First of all, we have to assess whether any truth exists in the first place. Second, we have to assess whether other methods fare better than science. Whatever we value as truth, or as truth-like truthiness that helps human endeavours but is nevertheless not Absolute, science trumps all. So you have to be careful of giving the impression that by making people aware that science doesn't offer revealed wisdom, that doesn't mean you can then fill in the hole with religious or spiritual pseudoscience.


Whence religion? How did it even come into the discussion?

Obviously, we're speaking different languages, or so it seems. After all, in the context of the philosophy of science, as well as scientific methodology itself, religious belief has no place. I don't see why you should even mention it. And I don't see why we shouldn't make people aware of the limitations of science, unless you're implying that certain individuals would abuse this and turn it into a science-bashing opportunity for themselves, in which case I'd say that I have no clue how such a problem could be solved.

As for our good friend whom we call 'truth', there are many methods for seeking it. A combination of empiricism and rationalism would be my preferred method. This combination, as we've seen, can give us _some_ insight into _some_ things that are _probably_ more '_true_' than _some_ other things. We must not think of this very limited _some_ as if it's any bigger than what it actually is.

Finally, regarding the Absolute, there's this interesting thing Wittgy nicely articulated: that it makes no sense to speak of any piece of knowledge if we can't doubt it. And I agree with that to a certain degree.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Wow. Is this contretemps about the limits of reason, or the proper conduct of scientific method, or the significance of the ineffable, or whether _Elgarian_ is a gerbil who can type?

Focus, please.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Wow. Is this contretemps about the limits of reason, or the proper conduct of scientific method, or the significance of the ineffable, or whether _Elgarian_ is a gerbil who can type?
> 
> Focus, please.


Well, Zoroaster, my dear friend, we (the whippersnappers) find it a bit too difficult to digest these concepts one at a time, so we simply wolf down the whole plate.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, Zoroaster, my dear friend, we (the whippersnappers) find it a bit too difficult to digest these concepts one at a time, so we simply wolf down the whole plate.


Ah well, alright then. I'll mosey back to my chimney corner.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Whence god now? Whence disappointment? How do you people make these kinds of inference? :lol:


You don't get overwhelming vibes of disappointment when reading his posts? He expects the impossible (more truth than science could ever possibly discover), so he is disappointed.

And we're obviously not talking about how he feels about his life. It's what he feels about science.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

Thread closed.


----------

