Atlantis Online
December 01, 2020, 09:36:07 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ice Age blast 'ravaged America'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Talk:Atlantis


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Talk:Atlantis  (Read 348 times)
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2010, 01:29:24 am »

Plato intended to write a third book for the trilogy on Atlantis, Hermocrates.

    He then puts the reader's own judgment to a test by suddenly interrupting Critias' myth of Atlantis when he is about to have Zeus talk and come to the rescue of messed up human affairs (Critias' name comes from the Greek word krisis, which means "judgment"). Furthermore, he replaces the announced dialogue, the Hermocrates, (Critias, 108a-b) that would have staged a Syracusan general who defeated the Athenian expedition to Sicily, and whose name means "endowed with the power of Hermes, messenger of the gods," with the Laws. [8]
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2010, 01:29:57 am »

If this is any help.--Odysses 20:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if this is the same version of Proclus as in the article?

    A scholia quoted from Proclus by Humboldt and Boeckh says: 'The historians who speak of the islands of the exterior sea tell us that in their time there were seven islands consecrated, to Proserpine, and three others of immense extent, of which the first was consecrated to Pluto, the second to Ammon, and the third to Neptune. The inhabitants of the latter had preserved a recollection (transmitted to them by their ancestors) of the island of Atlantis, which was extremely large, and for a long time held sway over all the islands of the Atlantic Ocean. [9]
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2010, 01:30:24 am »

The account by Plutarch can be found in Ogygia.

    Most of these quotes seem to be bogus: forex, the name Antillia is a medieval invention so how could Greeks write about it? This whole section should be rewritten or junked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.17.149 (talk • contribs) .
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2010, 01:31:43 am »

Jules Vernes accoubt on Atlantis
Nemo Aronax Atlantis.jpg

Someone removed the account by Jules Verne on Atlantis. I wonder why? --Odysses 10:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    The appropriate place for that information was in the spin-off article Atlantis in fiction were there was already info about it. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

        Thanks Reflex Reaction,

        Ooops, I didn't see that.
        Although Jules Vernes wrote science-fiction novels, (I 've read many of his novels some years ago) most of what he has prophesised has came true. --Odysses (☜) 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2010, 01:32:26 am »



File:Nemo Aronax Atlantis.jpg
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2010, 01:32:39 am »

Nationalist and Socialist ideas of Atlantis

I think this should be changed to "Nationalist, Socialist and National Socialist ideas of [...]", since the original heading is not properly describing.

    I think it's fine as it is, because National Socialism (Nazism in this case) is a Nationalist viewpoint. -kotra 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2010, 01:32:57 am »

The "root races" template

At the bottom of the article appears the {{Epochs}} template, which stems from some Theosophic theory of human evolution/history. The template has NPOV problems, in my opinion: it's not at all clear, until you follow a link, that the idea of "root races or epochs in human evolution" is an esoteric theory. Someone might mistake it for something that's scientifically valid.

Furthermore, 19th/20th century views of Atlantis are only one part of what's covered here, Theosophic views an even smaller part, so putting the {{Epochs}} template here misrepresents the content of the article. I think it should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. Templates at the bottom of the article like that are usually reserved for widely held concepts, not one person's theory. There have been many esoteric theories about human evolution that include Atlantis, and if we were to be NPOV, we would have to include them all as similar templates, or none at all. Since including them all as templates isn't practical, I'm removing the Epochs template accordingly. I sympathize with whoever made it, it must have involved a fair amount of effort to make, but it's POV to include it here. -kotra 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2010, 01:33:23 am »

indonesia?

check this out, you think it's true? --Crazy boy 555 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    No, I really doubt it. Even if it could have possibly been Atlantis (which is doubtful because out of sheer distance the ancient Greeks wouldn't have been able to have continued contact with Indonesia, and vice versa), the other claims (the Garden of Eden, the Island of Avalon, the Garden of the Hesperides, the true location of Troy, etc) kind of make it ludicrous. The Garden of Eden, if it was an actual place, would exist somewhere in Africa if it were to be the origin of the human race, the island of Avalon is a legend only in the British isles (which is on the opposite side of the globe), and Troy's ruins are well established in northwestern Turkey. The Garden of the Hesperides is slightly more realistic because it was said to be to the far west across the water, but that would be west, not east: if you were sailing west from Greece you'd run into the Americas before you ever got to the Pacific, much less Indonesia.
    It's just another guy trying to sell a book. -kotra 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2010, 01:33:38 am »

Mythical?

Why is Atlantis described to be a "mythical" island? If it was real, it was not mythical. If it was an invention, it was not mythical either, since an invention is no real myth. I only agree that Atlantis "became" a myth during the centuries, but originally it was no myth. Do you agree? --Athenaios 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

    It's typical to speak of Plato's myths, like the Myth of Er. He (through Socrates) speaks about the purpose of these invented myths in the Timaeus. Scholars talk about the Atlantis story as one of these myths (e.g., Vidal-Naquet, "Athenes et l'Atlantide: Structure et signification d'un mythe platonicien," Revue des Etudes grecques 77 (1964): 420-444.) So I don't think calling the island "mythical" is wrong either for Plato's invention or for the the later history of Atlantis. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not valid to call a "platonic myth" just a "myth". A "platonic myth" is a "platonic myth", and not a "myth". There is a vast difference between an invented story, whose inventor is known, whose intention is known, and - on the other hand - a traditional story deriving from ancient times. So if we would accept, that it is an invention by Plato, we should not just call it a "myth". - Secondly, we cannot be sure, that it is a platonic myth, i.e. a platonic invention. What, if there is a historical kernel in the story? Let's take an example: Is the war of Troy a myth? What Homerus made of it - surely. But if a war of Troy really happend, is it a myth? No, it is reality. Is Troy itself a myth? No, it is reality. So it is wrong to call Atlantis just a "myth", independently of whether you think it is an invention or reality. Terribly wrong. --Athenaios 22:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2010, 01:33:57 am »

    Regardless of how you feel about this, it is fairly normal to speak of Plato's inventions as myths. See, for instance, this collection of Plato's Myths published by Oxford University Press. Or do a Google search for "Myth of Er".
    Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Plato refers to his inventions as muthoi (near the beginning of the Timaeus, I think). So it's true both to Plato and to modern scholarship to call Atlantis "mythical". --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First: In Plato's dialogues Atlantis is called to be not "mythos" but "logos". Of course it still could be an invention by Plato, but we have to take into account, that it is called clearly to be a "logos". Secondly: I described already the difference between a "myth in general" and a "platonic myth". I emphasize this: A "myth in general" is a story, derived from ancient times, with a long history of tradition, of which the author usually is not known. A "platonic" myth is a fully artificial story, the author ist known, the purpose is known etc. etc. - these are totally different things, and it is the duty of Wikipedia to make it clear to the readers, that Atlantis has nothing to do with a "myth in general meaning". --Athenaios 10:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2010, 01:34:12 am »

    If the word "mythical" really meant just "a traditional story deriving from ancient times", then I'd agree. But that's simply not the case. Alternative meanings include:

        * From [10]: "2. Imaginary; fictitious."
        * From WordNet 2.0: "lacking factual basis or historical validity;"
        * From [11]: "2. imaginary: not true or real, but existing only in somebody's imagination"

    Atlantis is "mythical" in these senses. Phiwum 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy with these definitions. Then every uncertain thing and every imagination is a myth. This is not a wise definition of "myth" one can clearly see. What do you think of at first if you hear "myth"? You do not think at all of an artificial story, but of something old with uncertain roots. Let us search compromises: What about using "artificial myth" or "platonic myth" to point out, that it is not a myth in general meaning? --Athenaios 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2010, 01:34:51 am »

    Well, whether you're happy with the definitions or not, they reflect common usage. Your claims about what one thinks when they read the term "mythical" are really just your own intuitions and frankly have nothing to do with my own reaction. I know what is meant by calling Atlantis "mythical" and dictionaries suggest that I'm not alone in my interpretation. On the other hand, I don't know what "artificial myth" means and "platonic myth" is more likely to confuse than to clarify.
    I don't see any particular reason to object to the word "mythical", aside from personal preference.Phiwum 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    regardless of your personal objections, Atlantis is a myth, by the ordinary definition of the word and by the usage of Platonic scholars.

    Might I suggest that we're spending a lot of effort discussing the use of one word in the article, and that we might better spend this effort on improving the body of the article? For instance, Athenaios, you think that the article needs to have Vidal-Naquet's viewpoint included. Why don't we work on that instead--seems like a better thing to be doing rather than arguing over whether we should use "mythical" in one sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2010, 01:35:04 am »

I really wonder about your perception of the word "mythical". Maybe it is a difference between German and English language. In German you would never define "mythical"/"mythisch" as you do it. Calling Atlantis "mythical" makes it equal to biblical creation stories or something like that, but indeed, the Atlantis story is clearly something very different to that. I hope we can agree on the level of the definition, if not on the level of words. --Athenaios 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2010, 01:35:22 am »

Wikipedia definition of myth

Why not taking the Wikipedia definition? I like it much more than that stuff you presented so far, which seems to be very simplistic and strange to me. Wikipedia: Myth. There are several offers: Some imply that the story is not true at all. We can dismiss these definitions, since we cannot answer the question of thruth in the Atlantis story already in the disambiguation. Left is the first one: A creation story, with gods and heroes etc. etc. - exactly what I said. Really guys, I cannot understand you. The Atlantis story is clearly no myth. --Athenaios 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    Athenaios, please stop reverting "mythical" out of the article. You've got two editors here who think the term "mythical" is fine, and the term was in the article for a long time before you initially removed it, so you're acting against the consensus of past and current editors.

    And I'll say it again: this is a trivial matter, and not worth starting an edit war over. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2010, 01:35:49 am »

Please offer your arguments on the basis of the Wikipedia definition of Myth. And please stop reverting a necessary improvement of the article. Thank you. --Athenaios 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    I don't really care about the definition of myth. All that matters here is that scholars usually refer to Atlantis as a myth; Wikipedia's role is to report the views of authoritative sources, not to establish the absolute truth. Here's an excerpt from a reliable source:

    "There are then three rules for the historian who wishes to understand the myth of Atlantis. He must not sunder the two cities that Plato has linked so closely together. He must constantly refer himself to the physics of the Timaeus. And consequently, he must relate the historical myth whose structure he is trying to explain to Plato's "idealism." The success of a properly historical interpretation depends entirely upon the extent to which this preliminary task is performed.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   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