Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 12:21:37 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Has the Location of the Center City of Atlantis Been Identified?
http://www.mysterious-america.net/hasatlantisbeenf.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Opinions FOR and AGAINST Athens Existing At Time Of Atlantis 9000 BCE

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Opinions FOR and AGAINST Athens Existing At Time Of Atlantis 9000 BCE  (Read 9877 times)
0 Members and 27 Guests are viewing this topic.
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #90 on: September 20, 2015, 07:33:58 pm »

Ian,

Timaeus 27a,b explains and clarifies the two opposing groups (in regard to 9500 BC) for the story which Critias is telling to Socrates.

One group is "mankind" as a whole, in accordance with Timaeus's presentation to Socrates in the Timaeus dialogue.

And the other group is the hypothetical ideal society that Socrates analyzed in Plato's Republic dialogue. 
Critias even declares that Socrates has encouraged Critias to imagine that idealized people were living near the physical location of Athens for the extremely ancient era (8000 or 9000 years earlier) that had been mentioned in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Therefore the primary group, meaning Atlantean society, represents mankind as a whole, starting ca. 9500 BC,[/B] which was reported to Solon from Egyptian hieroglyphics

Real Athenians had been in Solon's original story of Atlantis, for the time of the war between Athens and Atlantis.
Critias merely adds a layer about 9500 BC pseudo-Athens, to please Socrates.



Bury translation

27a  ....it seemed good to us that he [Timaeus] should speak first, beginning with the origin of the Cosmos and ending with the generation of mankind. After him, I [Critias] am to follow, taking over from him [Timaeus] mankind, already as it were created by his speech,
 
and taking over from you [Socrates, in the Republic dialogue]
[27b] a select number of men superlatively well trained.
 
Then, in accordance with the word and law of Solon, I am to bring these before ourselves,
as before a court of judges, and make them citizens of this State of ours, regarding them as Athenians of that bygone age whose existence, so long forgotten, has been revealed to us by the record of the [Egyptian] sacred writings; and thenceforward I am to proceed with my discourse as if I were speaking of men who already are citizens and men of Athens.




Atalante,

I have underlined part of the quote, to point out that inspirational thought of yours, as you have found a diamond in the rough. But it needs some specialist, preferably a "knowledgeable" diamond cutter, to cut your gem, and then polish it properly to make it shine. Pink Floyd has a nice song that correlates to this, and it is titled, "SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMOND." But then you and others will also need to, seriously and carefully, listen to their "SORROW" and “BACK TO LIFE" and a slew of other Pink Floyd songs to get the complete picture. And I'm not kidding. I mean you really have run across something special. Perhaps you, without knowing, are giving us something of "High Hopes," and it is just "Another Brick in The Wall" in this search for Atlantis.  All serious seekers need to unite, and have a special motto of their own, like the Musketeers' motto, "All for one, and one for all." Your Gem, dear Atalante, is alluding to the prophecy of the battle of Armageddon, where all the world comes up against tiny Israel, or as Plato would have it, Atlantis against the tiny, just and holy kingdom of Socrates' Republic. Hell, I'm just "LEARNING TO FLY" around this site unlike some other "wise" grounded birds, that spend most of their time on silly things like The Da Vinci Code. Has not someone told him that Mr. Brown has gotten way past that? Our nightingale should be perching on Brown' other novels, especially his Inferno, if he likes to debate so much. There are plenty of circles there that will gladly take him, except perhaps in Limbo; I know a lot of those learned men there would not associate with pure ignorance, and for sure I know Plato would not like him around either, or would he, since he is also a "Pagan?" And to that particular nightingale that will not sing for us, I dedicate these songs to it; because we are "POLES APART," his "LOST FOR WORDS," but  its “TIME," to speak up, and "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME," "HEY YOU" "BREATHE" air you oyster, not brine, and "RUN LIKE HELL," and as for "MONEY," keep you hands off my stash, but if you won't, I'm "COMFORTABLY NUMB" with your slandering, because I'm “WEARING MY INSIDE OUT” and anyone of reason will see. And of course, you will “TAKE IT BACK.”  So then it will be “A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM” for me.

But to many of the others here, the real seekers, I seek in earnest, and that is why I will "KEEP TALKING,” which is necessary to get to the “Bottom” of this Atlantis story, which, although we are going all over the surface of the waters, and earth, and underneath them too, we are going nowhere near it. And because we know that Plato spoke truly, we bare all the ridicule from the general public for this belief, and also for all those embarrassing false cries of “Wolf Wolf, than it must be "US AND THEM," and I AM, Definitely, "COMING BACK TO LIFE."

I looked up, and He opened one the seals, perhaps the sixth, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place (You should like that last part, Senator Bam; you see I am your friend and thinking of you). And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the mighty men, every slave of the earth hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and pillars, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! "For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

Without quoting further, you get the picture, those true seekers, I mean. Let us die in Honor, fighting injustice and protecting our fair state, men and women of the Republic. For our foe, Atlantis, is indeed a vast, mighty, and corrupt, evil Empire, and is lurking in every nook and cranny, just waiting, by stealth, to suddenly pounce on us. And which, this Empire, although it has much, it wants to take away that little that we posses. And not only that, it wants to take our dearest of possession, our FREEDOM and mind! Is it not glorious to die and sink into the earth for what we believe and cherish most? Well, Freedom is not free! We must be willing to accept insults on top of injury, if we are to be free to think as we do about our dear enemy, Atlantis. Those for Athens, come to me, and those for Atlantis; if you will not live by the law of logic, and in accordance of Plato's details, you shall sink by them. 

Let us search for the true Atlantis, but not by sight, nor by Bianca's heart, but with the MIND'S EYE. And if anyone does not believe that with this particular EYE we can, finally, find Atlantis, then I will meet those skeptics on the DARK SIDE of THE MOON, because they, definitely, have "BRAIN DAMAGE." 
Report Spam   Logged
atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #91 on: January 24, 2016, 10:16:40 am »

Hermocrates,

I see you are somewhat new on this board; and you post prolifically, in many topics.  Thanks for your kind words about my previous inputs to this topic.

Bury translation --
27a  ....it seemed good to us that he [Timaeus] should speak first, beginning with the origin of the Cosmos and ending with the generation of mankind. After him, I [Critias] am to follow, taking over from him [Timaeus] mankind, already as it were created by his speech,

Leading up to the above statement (27a), a chronology had been stated in 23d,e -- which mentions 1000, 8000 and 9000 years (before Solon). 

In this chronology, Tim 23e specifically ties the Atlantis story to the origin of "the Cosmos".   

Tim 23e tells us that Solon's Egyptian priest talked to Solon about "setting the Cosmos in order" in Tim. 23e.  (Unfortunately, both the Jowett translation and the Bury translation for Tim 23e have mis-identified the Cosmos.)       



The Tim 23e sentence in Greek is:
"tes de enthade diakosmeseos par' hemin en tois hierois grammasin oktakiskhilion eton arithmos gegraptai"

A literal translation would be,
[23e]  And-supplemenally (de), in the case (enthade) of setting "the Cosmos" in order (tes diakosmeseos) among us (par' hemin) the number (arithmos) of eight thousand (oktakiskhilion) years (eton) is prescribed (gegraptai) in (en) the sacred (tois hierois) writings (grammasin). 
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #92 on: January 24, 2016, 01:54:47 pm »

My dear Atalante,

First of all, you are late in "time." Second, you did not apprehend my meaning. Third, you are losing yourself in "translation." Fourth, you may not understand the connection I was attempting to make with the music of Pink Floyd. Since there are only "four" dimensions in our tale of Atlantis, I have given you the four tangible reasons. Now I give you the fifth, which is not one of the physical; I was definitely complementing you, although you have no idea why? But I could be wrong, but only if you make your meaning clearer to me, as to what you are making a point about with the 1000, 8000, and 9,000 figures? I already see that you are using what you claim is a translation error, but how does it effect, one way or another, in proving Atlantis? 

And since you seem to be entangled in translation, what is the connection and just what is the meaning of Solon's "law" in the sentence you quoted? "Then, in accordance with the word and law of Solon, I am to bring these before ourselves, as before a court of judges, and make them citizens of this State of ours, regarding them as Athenians of that bygone age whose existence, so long forgotten, has been revealed to us by the record of the [Egyptian] sacred writings; and thenceforward I am to proceed with my discourse as if I were speaking of men who already are citizens and men of Athens.

Just what is/are Solon's law(s) in your opinion, as historically we already know those laws that he made to avoid a civil war. But more importantly, just what did Plato mean to do with Solon's law to make the tale more "palpable" to his readers? 

In the dialogue, the general consensus, in all translations, is that Solon is receiving the story from the Egyptian priests, and as far as anyone can make out is that Solon only added to the story the "translation" of the Atlanteans' names, already translated by the Egyptians into their language, back into Greek.   
Report Spam   Logged
Arcturus
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2633



« Reply #93 on: January 24, 2016, 03:58:05 pm »

Translation is actually the most important piece when it comes to Atlantis, with the versions of Bury, Jowett and Lee all varying somewhat, an, depending on which one we prefer, so I would not diminish its importance. In his essay, "the Life of Solon," the Roman historian Plutarch also sheds more detail on Plato's writings on Atlantis (a story he was said to come upon from Solon himself:

Now Solon, having begun the great work in verse, the history or fable of the Atlantic Island, which he had learned from the wise men in Sais, and thought convenient for the Athenians to know, abandoned it; not, as Plato says, by reason of want of time, but because of his age, and being discouraged at the greatness of the task; for that he had leisure enough, such verses testify, as-

"Each day grow older, and learn something new;" and again-

"But now the Powers, of Beauty, Song, and Wine,
Which are most men's delights, are also mine."

Plato, willing to improve the story of the Atlantic Island, as if it were a fair estate that wanted an heir and came with some title to him, formed, indeed, stately entrances, noble enclosures, large courts, such as never yet introduced any story, fable, or poetic fiction; but, beginning it late, ended his life before his work; and the reader's regret for the unfinished part is the greater, as the satisfaction he takes in that which is complete is extraordinary. For as the city of Athens left only the temple of Jupiter Olympius unfinished, so Plato, amongst all his excellent works, left this only piece about the Atlantic Island imperfect.


http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/solon.html

So, we can take from this, that, although Solon did indeed learn of Atlantis from his time in Sais (sister city to Athens), he gave the story some embellishments. Which ones? Well, perhaps the age Atlantis was set in: 9000 years before Solon's trip to Egypt. At the time, 9,000 was simply the largest number the Greeks had then, so it might have simply been akin to stating, 'it was a very long time ago.' For that reason, I don't believe it to be fair to hold Plato to the 9,000-10,000 BC time frame, just say it was long ago in the past.
Report Spam   Logged
atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #94 on: January 24, 2016, 04:54:58 pm »

Arcturus and Hermocrates,

The problem that arises from Bury's translation of Tim 23e (in regard to the Greek word diakosmeseos) is whether-or-not Egyptian "civilization" was "8000 years old" at the time Solon visited Egypt.  ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Ddiako%2Fsmhsis )

The Bury translation reads:   [23e] ...And the duration of our civilization as set down in our sacred writings is 8000 years.

That translating concept for 23e was a defective viewpoint, but it was influenced by centuries of previous translations.  For example, the Jowett translation was 75 years earlier than Bury (and functioned as a model for Bury).  Jowett's translation for 23e says the Egyptian "constitution" was 8000 years old, at that time.   


But what Plato and Critias (and Solon's Egyptian priest) are saying in Tim 23e is that the entire "world-cosmos" was organized 8000 years before Athens had been founded -- and thus the world-cosmos was organized 9000 years before Solon. 

As a corollary, the Atlantean war would not have occured 9500 years before Solon. 

(to Hermocrates:  The above comments do not affect "the law of Solon" -- which is also a matter of translation.) 
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2016, 10:14:25 am »

Atalante,

You are not only lost in translation, but you are lost in time and space. Will you not tell me, by translating the meaning of Solon's law and how it applies to the priests' account being told to Solon? And although Solon, as far as history we can rely on, did visit Egypt, please remember that we are talking about Plato's dialogues, and not a real event when it comes to Solon and the Egyptian priests' discussion of Atlantis. Anyway, as far as time goes, apparently you have not read the entire Timaeus, or if you have, then you have missed the point. What point? The point in Eternity when the Father and Creator caused the ever-changing physical cosmos to come into existence as a moving image of the Creator's Eternal Cosmos. One, to understand Plato, has to keep this in perspective when it comes to the dates of the story, as also as to the "sources" that founded Athens, Sais, and above all, Atlantis. 

It is clearly alluded to in the Timaeus, where in the conversation between Solon and the priests, Solon is attempting to draw out the priests to tell him more about his ancient Athens, that Plato is, indirectly and silently, referring to the Jewish old testament mode of determining the age of the "world," which Solon was, likewise, in error, using the known Greek genealogy to impress the priests about the knowledge of antiquity. Clearly Plato was ridiculing the method of recalling genealogy to date the age of the world to its beginning. Most devout Christian theologians of today teach and argue on the same basis of Biblical genealogy to arrive at the famous 6,000 years old earth, to which science ridicules this, just as the Egyptian priests ridiculed Solon. See OT Genesis.

If you want to understand what those numbers you are stuck on really mean, you need to look deeper and wider into Plato, and many other references. Plutarch would not help anyone understand the truth, nor the purpose of the tale of Atlantis, even though Plutarch was a devout Platonist, and a priest at the Delphic Oracle, he lived too many centuries after Solon to have given us anything reliable from the perspective of a true historian. He relied on much hand-me-down hearsay. And besides, we cannot even rely on this hearsay, even if there may have been anything to that, since Plutarch's extant work has been, as we are told, extensively edited by others, and also Plutarch forgeries abound in no mean numbers. 

All I can tell you right now is that I've been there too. One has to wake up, and leave the space of the cave we are in, our physical body, to truly understand, or as Socrates tells us, picture this;

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he now
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death........... But those that they killed, are coming back; here they come!


Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2016, 03:04:08 pm »

Arcturus,

Your point is well taken; "So, we can take from this, that, although Solon did indeed learn of Atlantis from his time in Sais (sister city to Athens), he gave the story some embellishments. Which ones? Well, perhaps the age Atlantis was set in: 9000 years before Solon's trip to Egypt. At the time, 9,000 was simply the largest number the Greeks had then, so it might have simply been akin to stating, 'it was a very long time ago.' For that reason, I don't believe it to be fair to hold Plato to the 9,000-10,000 BC time frame, just say it was long ago in the past."

I say well taken as many others before have pointed that out, both scholars and buffs alike. And on the same token of embellishment, did Solon embellish? What about the priests that told him, did they too embellish? And whomever told the original priests and the many in succession, did they embellish? What of the translations by the priests and Solon himself, what is lost or gained in the account? Just what are we to hold to as being true? Is it not like someone talking about a mole hill, and after many thousands of recounts about it being passed on, and on, through the many centuries the mole hill becomes 10 times higher than Mount Everest.

However, I say it is not a point at all, since Solon never had that conversation with the priests; how could he, and not be known to anyone, except Plato? It is just impossible, especially since we had Herodotus, the historian, tell us nothing whatsoever about it, although he, specifically, relates Solon's travels and his wise escapades in flaunting his wisdom. Herodotus himself having visited and talked with many Egyptian priests, especially the ones in Sais and of the temple of Neith, and yet, no Atlantis? Besides, what are we to make of it when Herodotus also tells us of the Egyptians' quest of trying to find out who, of all people, were the eldest on earth; the oldest civilization, and yet nothing of Solon's Atlantis?

"Plato eagerly took in hand the scheme of the 'Atlantis,' as though it were a fine site for a palace, which had come to be his by inheritance, still unbuilt on. He placed in the beginning of it such splendid entrance-halls and vestibules as we find in no other tale or legend or poem, but, as he began the work too late, he died before he was able to finish it; so that the more we enjoy what he has written, the more we grieve over what is lost."

What did Plutarch say, if the above are really his words, as to what sources, or literal writings, he was using in asserting that Plato used his own imagination to "beautify" and heavily enrich the land of Atlantis? And what of his statement that nowhere to be found is such a splendid tale, legend, or poem? Meaning that there is only one source for such an account; similar, or about Atlantis specifically, as given by Plato. What of Solon's notes that he must have taken as the priests told their tale? Did Plutarch have Solon's original version? How could Plutarch have, when no one else before, or after him, claims this?  Not even Plato himself alludes to possessing such a writing belonging to Solon. Although Plato alludes to certain translation notes, belonging to Solon, being in the hands of the Critias engaged in the discussion with Socrates, no one ever reported this very point, nor reference it. Although one can make a point of having Plato being a descendant of Dropides, he never, publically, ever mentions that he has Solon's notes to anyone, not even to any of his students/pupils at his Academy.  As these, at times, assisted Plato with his dialogues, as we are told. Besides, the record shows that Plato died before fully completing/publishing his last work, the Laws, and not the Critias. But I do fully agree that "we grieve over what is lost." But it's not Atlantis that is lost, I say! It is Plutarch who is lost in all that hearsay he wants to pass on as "history." Any Greek that gives up their citizenship to become Roman citizens can only be classified as flatterers at heart and mind, as they will say and do anything to give pleasure to their audience.  But then again, how can a priest of the most holy shrine of Apollo himself, ever utter what is not true? Perhaps he too had to tell what he was told, just like Herodotus, and Critias. I know it's unbelievable, but I too must tell you what I have been told. However, only a little at a time.   

Therefore, dear Plutarch, although we enjoy your life of Solon, made up of both some facts and fiction from hearsay, we don't much care for you speculative opinions you have thrown in there, especially about Atlantis. Plutarch should have also given Herodotus, the historian, credit for some of the contents about Solon's travel and his wise advice to king Croesus. But let us not fault such great men, they are only following a script written long, long ago, for it existed in oblivion before being "unearthed" from the depth of a Godlike man's mind.

And believe it or not, although plainly stated as such in the dialogue, Plato is not meaning his "Athens" and "Sais" as being the sister cities, because founded by the same goddess, Athena, alias Egyptian Neith. No, one has to look deeper into the Republic to understand just what Plato is making out to be "family" and what Sais and "religion" has to do with it.
 

Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #97 on: January 30, 2016, 10:43:21 am »

To continue the "thread" on the cave "allegory," let us see what it is, and what it's not.

It is not an allegory, although it appears as such, and accepted as such by en-large.
It is not to be taken as mere "talk" on and about Plato's "ideas," as taken by the philosophical "experts."
It is not "philosophical" in the sense of what is now taken as philosophy; e.g. it's not Schopenhauer, nor Nietzsche, nor Sartre, nor any other such thinking.
It is not a thing that contradicts truth, nor anything else that some clever thinker will make of it, other than truth!

It is just what Socrates said it was, in his "humble" "belief," and "opinion." And anyone that really understands Plato knows what Socrates' opinions and beliefs amount to.

"This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed."

Finding Atlantis requires anyone, seriously, seeking it to take the last sentence above as a "signpost" directing one in the right direction. Miss the signpost and one will, endlessly, wonder from place to place, whether it's 50, nearly 50, 3,000, 10,000, or any other stadia, and from one time to other time, whether it's 8,000, 9,000, 1,600 years, or any other time.

One must look to the "Universal Author of everything," including time, as He is the ""visible" signpost"" of our true being, and our search for the Atlantis that truly exists in this physical world of ours, this cave we are all prisoners in. The Atlantis we seek is just as Plato describes it, and not the one in the imagination of any petty mind that twists and bends, and stretches, shrinks, and mixes and matches to no end. 

One must get to and stand on "Higher Ground" and when the Signpost is seen, as Socrates tells in the above, then one knows just where to look for Atlantis.   

Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #98 on: January 30, 2016, 12:10:45 pm »

Translation is actually the most important piece when it comes to Atlantis
So, we can take from this, that, although Solon did indeed learn of Atlantis from his time in Sais (sister city to Athens), he gave the story some embellishments. Which ones? Well, perhaps the age Atlantis was set in: 9000 years before Solon's trip to Egypt. At the time, 9,000 was simply the largest number the Greeks had then, so it might have simply been akin to stating, 'it was a very long time ago.' For that reason, I don't believe it to be fair to hold Plato to the 9,000-10,000 BC time frame, just say it was long ago in the past.

Apart from the fact that you do not take the "time" and stand your ground on what you claim and cite, you have a poor opinion of the wise Greeks and what they did and did not know about numbers. I mean to limit such wise sages as Solon and Herodotus, and most of all, Plato. Do you really think that you are much wiser than these, when it comes to arithmetic? I mean it is just a matter of simple arithmetic coming up to 8,000, or 9,000, or 100,000. How do you determine that the wise classical Greeks were that ignorant of numbers? Please cite your sources and the rationale used by them; your loved ones that you look up to. Or if you have come to that conclusion all on your little old self, please to indulge me with your "logic."

Just to let you know; I have heard rumors about those cutting some of Plato's numbers by ten, or interpreting years as months in order to push their Santorini/Crete Minoan theory of Atlantis, or for some other schemes to make "sense" of their nonsense, and I'm inclined to believe that you are relying on these for your superiority complex in arithmetic knowledge.

When Solon had thus assigned these youths the second place, Croesus broke in angrily, "What, stranger of Athens, is my happiness, then, so utterly set at nought by thee, that thou dost not even put me on a level with private men?"

"Oh! Arcturus," replied the other, "thou asked a question concerning the condition of man, of one who knows that the "power" of ten above us is full of jealousy, and fond of troubling our "lot" of long numbers and life. A long life gives one to witness much, and experience much oneself, that one would not choose. Seventy years I regard as the limit of the life of man. In these seventy years are contained, without reckoning intercalary months, twenty-five thousand and two hundred days. Add an intercalary month to every other year, that the seasons may come round at the right time, and there will be, besides the seventy years, thirty-five such months, making an addition of one thousand and fifty days. The whole number of the days contained in the seventy years will thus be twenty-six thousand two hundred and fifty, whereof not one but will produce events unlike the rest. Hence man is wholly accident. For thyself, oh! Arcturus, I see that thou art wonderfully rich, and art the lord of many numbers; but with respect to that whereon thou questionest me, I have no answer to give, until I hear that thou hast closed thy life happily. For assuredly he who possesses great store of numerical riches is no nearer happiness than he who has what suffices for his daily needs, unless it so hap that luck attend upon him, and so he continue in the enjoyment of counting all his good things to the end of life, but only up to 9,000.

Perhaps King Croesus had a point for being upset with Solon's opinion of not making him the happiest of all men. But of course, Solon could not reckon past the number 9,000, and therefore all the millions of pieces of gold and silver that Croesus had did not impress Solon, as he stopped counting at 9,000, and that was as far as poor wise Solon was able to go. And a mere 9,000 does not make a King the happiest and wealthiest one on earth, but a mere one who has his daily needs. There are fifty ways to be able to count up to 100,000. Listen to your soul, she will make it clear to you. Or just listen to the music, then just sleep on it, and it will become clear to you when you wake up. It's all in the "translation."

Report Spam   Logged
Rennes-le-Chβteau
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3588



« Reply #99 on: January 30, 2016, 06:30:56 pm »

Quote
Apart from the fact that you do not take the "time" and stand your ground on what you claim and cite, you have a poor opinion of the wise Greeks and what they did and did not know about numbers. I mean to limit such wise sages as Solon and Herodotus, and most of all, Plato. Do you really think that you are much wiser than these, when it comes to arithmetic?

Dude, I hate to tell you, but you don't know anymore than he or she does about the Greeks either. Are you living in Ancient Greece right now? Nope. Do you know any Ancient Greeks? Nope. All we have are their writings, which bring about 50% of the picture in view, if that. Your problem is that, when you don't know stuff, you have a tendency to make crap up then get all defensive when people don't buy into your insane crap.

Start posting real evidence here instead of resorting to your typical snarkiness. You have a pretty lame starting point to begin with, that Plato was sharing the delusions of John the Revelator. The lame music videos and the insults and snarky comments don't add much to your case. Since the lunatic asylum you post from apparently allows for extra hours on Sunday, I'll be expecting all four of my replies  to you (yep, count them four since no one else has bothered with you!), and, of course, answer them with your typical catty insults to mask your lack of knowledge on anything we study here.
Report Spam   Logged
Arcturus
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2633



« Reply #100 on: January 30, 2016, 07:55:44 pm »

I would "stand my ground," as you put it, but since you are apparently a skeptic who has come here with the express purpose of insulting people, I don't see the point.
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #101 on: January 31, 2016, 01:19:32 pm »

I would "stand my ground," as you put it, but since you are apparently a skeptic who has come here with the express purpose of insulting people, I don't see the point.

Insulting people you claim? When is it an insult to attempt to correct someone's mistaken impressions? It is obvious, logically, that you have not approached the problem from the right direction; one from sense. Did your soul give you the impression that you are correct? And did you listen to the music and slept on it, or were you just listening to birds' chirping?

Were you not the one that quoted Plutarch to me? Yes! And do you not see that Plutarch, if it is really Plutarch's work, is playing a double game? One time he seems to affirm that Solon was the first to tell of Atlantis, and then later, Plutarch clearly indicates that Plato was. But that is a moot point when it comes to numbers and the Ancient Greeks' knowledge of the "highest" number being only up to 9,000, as you wanted to tell me.

You stated: "At the time, 9,000 was simply the largest number the Greeks had then."

But is that not rather silly for anyone to think that, even independently of any suggestions from others, scholars or not? I referenced from Herodotus and his History, albeit, with a little twist to it, to show you one of the many ways, at least fifty, in how to get above 9,000. Not only Solon, but even a man of 50 years can reckon the number of days he has lived. But if he cannot, he has wasted about 18,250 of them, depending on which calendar is used. Why Herodotus makes Solon tell you himself. Solon could "reckon" the number of days in a man's average life of 70 years, and yet, you and others support such a silly notion as the sum of 9,000 as being the limit which Solon could count up to? Where and when I was in elementary school, way back in the days of old, and way before calculators, if I had reckoned like you, my 2nd grade teacher would not only have had me wear the dunce cap for a week, but would have also slapped me at least twice, once on each cheek, and on top of that, would have made me eat a whole bar of soap, to washout such insolence coming from my mouth, directed at such a wise man. Poor Solon, if he had not been cremated, he would be, violently, turning over in his grave, if he heard you and others slandering him on this level. Only fools would ever think that of such a wise man as Solon. You must, besides insulting him, know very little about him, obviously. However, I was only trying to show you that Solon was much better at math than you think, and if you feel that I have insulted you, then I took the liberty to do so, on Solon's behalf. I will not even discuss Plato's mathematical abilities with you, then. That would be too much for you to bear, if there would be need to set you straight, as you may need to remain a prisoner of the cave a "number" of years that you could not even imagine, let alone know!

Regarding your other statement, that I am a skeptic, there too you must be relying on others; birdbrains, no doubt. Hell, I'm no skeptic! If you have not gotten my drift, I can truthfully tell you, or any other, that I'm the most ardent advocate of the truth of it. And don't mistake the truth for what all those others have been telling humanity all these many years after Plato wrote of Atlantis. 

I will further tell you that I'm not even a skeptic of what anyone has had to say on Atlantis, and I mean anyone, anywhere, and any time. Because, how can I be a skeptic about them when I know they are all wrong? Therefore, on that premise of knowing, I'm not a skeptic of their accounts; pro or con. But when it comes to Socrates/Plato truth about Atlantis, I'm no skeptic at all; Hell, I know! Therefore why would I be a skeptic? A little mad, perhaps, but not locked up in the "cave" anymore! But the correct term for my kind of madness is as Socrates called it, "divine madness," the one madness that is able to relate prophecy! And I will prophesize that certain birdbrains will, no doubt, come forward to show off their variegated, colorful plumage, seeking to impress the senseless, and profane this high ground of "philosophical" discourse! 

Therefore, stand your lower ground! No excuses, please! Or are you just another birdbrain in this sacred aviary, like Rennes? Besides, they say that he, who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword. Fight fire with fire, and ridicule me in turn, and prove that Solon, or any other Greek of his time, was so limited in numbers. I too will defend Solon's ground, besides attacking from it. He is of my stock and heritage; my reckoning roots of long ago are Athenian, too. Brother always comes to the aid of brother, in our country and customs.

And do you, Atalante, also stand your ground; you are a bird of a feather too, when it comes to your feelings about Solon's poor reckoning abilities. Let us see if that old proverb is true, and see how many birds one can get with one number, 9000?   
Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #102 on: January 31, 2016, 03:08:37 pm »

Let me be clear. I believe that I have said something similar, before. I do not post on this site to win over anyone, nor am I seeking "playing pals" in what some make out this Atlantis business to be. I'm not selling anything, or expecting to be compensated, materialistically, for anything I may state here; whether or not it is interpreted as nonsense, or sarcasm. I tell you it's irony! It is irony to find so many uninformed and uninitiated in the "mysteries" of Plato's works, and yet, claim to be ardent and dedicated seekers and believers of Atlantis. But not the one belonging to Plato's mind, as it is the Atlantis that is only in the windmill of their minds; endlessly spinning and turning, like a wheel, going round and round, but never to go straight to the truth. And not only these, but we also find some scrapings from the bottom of the barrel, like those that have no business with any kind of Atlantis, especially the ones that have problems with distinguishing the meaning of time, as to Before Christ, or after; Anno Dominus.

I could care less if any of those, undesirable ignoramus, remain such, as I'm not an educator able to do miraculous deeds! In fact, I'm not an educator at all, unless one is simply an educator just by "speaking" their mind!

But I am an observer, and a commentator. But perhaps too blunt and too obvious! I welcome the same degree, or even more, towards me, if I seem to be foolishly holding on to rash and nonsensical notions, whether mine or of others' minds. But I do object, and do plainly, and openly state my mind towards a certain birdbrain, or a flock of them, especially if it happens to be the same one, but only with many heads. But if it were not the case, then it's those that flock together, as they are of the same plumage.

I don't expect many here, or perhaps not even one, to understand me completely, yet. And it does not matter, as I said, if anyone that is registered on this site comments on my posts, or even on my posts to their posts. But I do care about having a footprint registered here for anyone to see, whether visiting or registered.

If I seem sarcastic or insulting, it is only your perception, unless it's directed in response to a few very dense minds profaning common sense, and launching attacks, unprovoked.  To these very few, or just the one, as the case may be, it's pretty clear what my intentions are. Just like a certain Nikas, a very common profaner around here, attempting to foolishly pass as a king, when he was just the "court jester" with all the nonsense he was claiming, and a very poor one, too.

Anyway, before I ever placed my first post on this site, I had noticed that there were/are some very heated and rude exchanges in asserting/tearing down the many different ideas about Atlantis, and even many other subjects. Therefore, both for my defense, and also for custom, I "played" along; when in Rome, do like the Romans! But this division and animosity towards each other will never aid in discovering whether Atlantis is real, nor when and where! But I will not "break bread" with certain birds flying around here.

Therefore those that mean to fly around this site and spread all their nonsense about me, like Rennes, who knows nothing of Plato, but also is one of those "great debaters" who cannot even do the math nor tell time, as to Plato's time period, in relation to the arrow of time, and Christ's disciples authoring the New Testament, those I exclude, categorically! 

Report Spam   Logged
Hermocrates
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 206


« Reply #103 on: January 31, 2016, 08:23:50 pm »

On this business of 9,000, which is sidetracked not only by making poor Solon stupid, but also slightly blind. Now it seems that Dr. Galanopoulus, a seismologist by trade, but no longer living, wrote in a book about Atlantis, putting forth the Santorini Atlantis back in the 60s, although it seems that some other Greek, an archeologist, presumably, had ideas about the connection back in the 1930s. And the main key evidence, to fabricate this other version of an Atlantis inside the Mediterranean, and of the going down under, coincides with the big eruption that blew off most of the Santorini island/volcano, circa 1,500 B.C.  The key that unlocked it? Translation, translation, and more translation. However, Solon and/or Plato have to take injury on top of insult, or is it the other way around, insult on top of injury? It's the first, since our dumb Solon has to be now, also injured by having his eyesight slighted too!

Many want to make this the most believable theory about Atlantis, as Mr. Angelos Galanopoulos, along with a partner co-writing the book, theorized that this massive eruption from the volcano ripped apart the island of Santorini and probably wiped out most of the civilization on the Greek islands and regions of Greece. Mr. Galanopoulos suggested this disaster is the one that sank Atlantis. If this is so, then some here, who hold firm the priests' 9,000 figure (11,600 B.C., as time flies), must scream that he must have his dates wrong.  He reckons that when the story was being translated, the Egyptian symbol for 100 (a coiled rope) was mistaken for the symbol for 1000 (a lotus flower). Apparently this mistake, by Solon, most likely, changes the date from 9000 years ago to 900 years ago, as the priests spoke. Others may also argue about, without noticing anything else about this explanation, is Plato's specifics about Atlantis being placed outside the Med, in the Atlantic. Although there are others that will further argue that the Pillars of Hercules are nowhere near modern day Gibraltar, but much closer to Greece, besides the translation errors of exchanging sea for ocean.
 
Just for the record, lotus eaters were people described in the Odyssey who lived in a drugged, indolent state from feeding on the lotus. And as a side track and diversion to amuse ourselves on translations, apparently Solon ate all the lotus, became addicted, and therefore he was left only with the rope. And having contemplated suicide, rather than continue as a worthless junkie and dumb head, since back then there were no rehab places to go to, he proceed his travels out of Egypt, and away from the lotus flowers, leaving all those thousands of years to those other indolent thinkers, drugged with that most addictive substance, ignorance.

Further, I should cite someone else that quickly noticed that possibly, Solon's addiction must have been transmitted through his contact with close family members on his return to Athens, and passed down the generations. But fortunately, as this person also, astutely, noted that our dear Plato was very sensible and put all in the correct perspective, although this person seems to also admonish our great hero, and wonderful story teller, as it is noted in the following quote below.

"There are several discrepancies in Plato's account." The most glaring inconsistency is that the Bronze Age began only 5,000 or so years ago; 9,000 years before Solon's time would have been 11,500 years ago, just at the end of the Ice Age, and definitely in the Stone Age so far as culture is concerned. Then, the dimensions are incredibly large."

"Galanopoulos suggested that Solon, or some interpreter or translator, was guilty of a translation error and mistook the Egyptian for one hundred to mean one thousand."

"When all Plato's figures are divided by ten, not only does the time come out to be about 1500 b.c., but the Metropolis of Atlantis fits rather neatly into the Santorin caldera and the plain of the Royal State is exactly the size of the Neogene basin of Crete! Having an unusually extensive experience with this business of translation, as user, producer, and editor, I can say that this explanation is thoroughly convincing to me, particularly as it disposes of two discrepancies, in time and in space, at once. Reducing the size of Atlantis by a factor of ten also makes it more credible that it could have vanished in a night and a day. There is no internal geologic mechanism that could cause the abrupt disappearance of a region as large as Plato's Atlantis, whereas there is no problem at all in the case of a volcanic island the size of Santorin. As for location, Galanopoulos suggests that Plato, who knew his geography well, realized that the kingdom described could not possibly fit into the Mediterranean, so he transferred the Pillars of Hercules from the Peloponnesus, which was Hercules' sphere of activity, to the Straits of Gibraltar, and Atlantis to the relatively unexplored ocean beyond. As we learn more and more about the Atlantic Ocean floor, however -and our knowledge has been increasing by leaps and bounds in the last decade or so -places once considered possible sites for Atlantis are being eliminated one by one, while no new possibilities have been discovered."

"It seems doubtful that the Athenians would have been engaged in a struggle with a great nation out in the Atlantic Ocean, whereas the Minoans were their neighbors. Also, the worship of Poseidon is not known to have extended beyond the Greek sphere of influence, which certainly did not extend far out into the Atlantic Ocean, if at all. On the other hand, there is as yet no evidence that the Minoans worshiped Poseidon, although it would have been logical for a sea power to have honored the sea god above others. A possible link between Poseidon and the Minoans is the bull motif, for the bull was the animal sacred to the sea god."


Without addressing Poseidon and bulls, I say the "bull" motif is representative of these people's nonsense. And thinking that by making Atlantis smaller, they can swallow it easier. But at least we can thank the woman for praising Plato in knowing something well, geography, after all, even though a dummy in math. But then if Plato knows geography well, someone should ask this person, what did Plato mean, in the Timaeus, by telling us that Atlantis was larger than Asia and Libya, combined? And further reemphasizing it in the Critias? Who is eating lotus flowers around here, and who is using the coiled rope to hang themselves on this nonsense?

If Plato was coming back to life, to tell all these butchers of his beautiful prose how he feels, he would simply let the music do the talking.

Report Spam   Logged
Arcturus
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2633



« Reply #104 on: February 13, 2016, 07:29:39 pm »

Hermocrates, I have to wonder what you are even doing at this site when your knowledge of Greek history is sketchy at best, and you make up for what you don't know with insults and bad jokes (not to mention, apparently, irrelevant music videos), and the only interest you seem to have in Atlantis is to simply disprove its existence. By all means, get serious for a moment (if you can even do that) and pleas enlighten us. I just find it perplexing to see someone like you here when yours is apparently a religious agenda with not much to do with the topics at hand.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy