Atlantis Online
November 26, 2020, 07:16:32 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Satellite images 'show Atlantis'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3766863.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 #30 on: June 09, 2010, 01:36:20 am »

    "Although for Plato it is proto-Athens that is the paradigm, Atlantis has attracted enormously greater attention thanks to the simultaneously circumstantial and imaginative character of the myth." (emphasis mine. This quote is from Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "Athens and Atlantis: Structure and Meaning of a Platonic Myth," in The Black Hunter, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986, p. 264. Translation by Andrew Szegedy-Maszak.)

    --Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

            Your citation stems from Vidal-Naquet, "Athens and Atlantis: Structure and Meaning of a Platonic Myth" - the title already shows, that it is not a "myth in general" but a "platonic myth". The context makes it clear, that V-N is NOT just talking about a myth, but about a platonic myth. So your source supports my point of view. --Athenaios 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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



« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2010, 01:36:35 am »

No. V-N consistently writes "myth" in the article, not "Platonic myth" (or, in the French, "mythe" vs. "mythe platonicien"). Your argument is that the phrase should always appear as "Platonic myth", "artificial myth" vel sim. V-N does not support your suggestion.

                Yes, this is my argument and Vidal-Naquet supports it, why shouldn't he, I cannot see it? --Athenaios 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

                    Because his text never contains the phrase "Platonic myth", that's why. He simply writes "myth". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

                        Besides the title, and besides other phrases, that show, in which sense V-N talks of a "myth", but that could be too complicated for you to understand ... :-))) - Let me say another thing frankly: In a certain sense you are right. V-N uses words not very precisly. I don't like his works very much, also because of this. --Athenaios 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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



« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2010, 01:37:50 am »

            At any rate, here's another source (P. Y. Forsyth, review of Zangger, The Flood from Heaven, in American Historical Review 98.5 (1993), p. 1565):

                "...thus Eberhard Zangger concludes his novel attempt to decipher the Atlantis myth of Plato's Timaeus and Critias...
                "To reach this conclusion, Zangger first accepts Plato's word that the tale is true without attempting any analysis of his use of myth...
                "More interesting is how Zangger came to consider Troy as the possible origin of the Atlantis myth..."

            The phrase "Platonic myth" does not occur anywhere in Forsyth's review. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

                    I cite your citation of Forsyth: "... his use of myth" - Yes his use of myth. Plato's myths are vastly different from "usual" myths. And this we have to make clear. Besides the question, whether Atlantis is a platonic myth, I am heavy in doubt about this. This Forsyth seems to be one of those, who haven't read Zangger carefully (or didn't want it?), since it is simply wrong that Zangger has no idea of the "platonic myth". But that is another thing. --Athenaios 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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



« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2010, 01:38:12 am »

Athenaios, if you want the article to speak about the nature of Plato's myths, I don't think that's a bad idea at all. But that discussion would be a section of the main text. This dispute over whether we can use the word "mythical" is something different. And the quotes I've given show that writers call Atlantis a "myth" without any qualification. We can do the same. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    Your quotes show confusion even in the mainstream of science. We can do the same, but should we? Anyway, I stop my resistance here. --Athenaios 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2010, 01:38:26 am »

    Another point to make: most of this article is not about Plato's Atlantis, but what later writers did with it. To say that "This article is about Plato's island" is therefore inaccurate. Also, many people who come to this page will have no idea who Plato was, so it is not very helpful for many Wikipedia users to describe Atlantis as "Plato's island" in the disambiguation line. On the other hand, "mythical island" means something most users will understand. And at any rate, Plato is mentioned in the second sentence of the article; do you really think people are unable to read that far? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

            Atlantis is an island first mentioned by Plato. He gave the name to the baby, and - maybe - he even invented the story. It is Plato's Atlantis. But in this case, we can omit it in the disambiguation, if you want. --Athenaios 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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



« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2010, 01:39:10 am »

The agenda behind ...

One last time: The English word "mythical" does not always mean "comes from a myth". Wikipedia's definition of "myth" is not particularly relevant here, since "mythical" has well-established meanings including "fanciful" or "imaginary". These meanings are perfectly standard and acceptable. Let us leave the article as it is, since acknowledging the fictional character of Atlantis is perfectly appropriate (and substituting "fictional" for "mythical" would not convey the same meaning). Phiwum 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, now you show what you really think, we come to the nitty gritty: The real reason, why you want to keep the word "myth" is not, that you consider Atlantis to be a myth in the sense of "comes from a myth", but you simply consider it to be not true! This means, you want to imply from the beginning by using the word "myth", that Atlantis is an invention made by Plato. You reject a priori the possibility, that the Atlantis story is based on history. Again I have to disagree: This question is an open question. A good article about Atlantis should not be written from the view of certain scholars excluding other scholars' opinions. --Athenaios 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2010, 01:39:25 am »

        It is not my opinion that NPOV requires we pretend the existence of a historical Atlantis is just as plausible as its non-existence. Sorry. Phiwum 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    See the last edit comment of Phiwum: "This is really a bit ridiculous. Because there is no island of Atlantis, it is misleading to say that this is about "the" island of Atlantis!"
    This is not the same as the introductory sentences of the article: "Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed ... the vast majority of scientists concludes that Atlantis never existed, ...".
    The introductory sentences are ok, the Phiwum comment not at all.
    Phiwum, if you are so sure about your opinion, why do you not try to equalize the introduction to your opinion, that Atlantis has been an invention of Plato without any doubt?
    --Athenaios 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2010, 01:39:47 am »

The view that Plato's Atlantis is an invention (though one that perhaps draws upon historical events) is the standard one in classical scholarship. It's a pretty good "agenda" to represent mainstream scholarly opinion.

And note, Athenaios, calling Atlantis a myth does not eliminate the possibility that it's based upon historical events. This is the difference that Phiwum sees between "fictional" and "mythical"--"fictional" means that it's an invention like Islandia or Erewhon, "mythical" means that there may be a core of history in Plato's depiction of Atlantis.

If you think Zangger's work is so important, why don't you work on including his views in the article? I think that would be more profitable for us all, rather than continuing this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

                                            Thank you Phiwum and Akhilleus, that you made clear your opinion, that the article should be based on the mainstream in classical scholarship, which means considering Atlantis an invention of Plato. This is your agenda. --Athenaios 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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



« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2010, 01:40:27 am »

Yeah, whatever. Golly, you found us out. Anyway, you still seem to think that if Atlantis didn't exist, then Plato must have invented it. That's a false dichotomy. Plato may well have been reporting what he believed to be true. Hence use of the term "mythical".Phiwum 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    No no, also in this case, it is not valid to talk of a myth. But let's stop the discussion, I simply surrender, since the case seems to be not suitable to find consensus, ok? --Athenaios 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2010, 01:40:50 am »

Atlanteans

Atlanteans have a power source of some kind that keeps them alive. Each Atlantean has a crystal that keeps him or her alive for thousands of years. Each time there is a disaster the power source will choose a person of royal blood to protect it. The Atlanteans also have a religon with many gods and a language. They combine different languages from England to Afracia. Sort of like the tower of bable. The Atlanteans have a writing that they can't read because the knolage was lost when the sea swalowed the City of Atlantis. Alot of this information was writen in a book called the shepords journal. It is one of the only books that have not been copied. This book is found in Iceland. The Atlanteans were so greedy that thier gods punished them by swalowing them in the ocean over 11,000 years ago. Fact, or Fony? We night not ever know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.164.163 (talk • contribs) .
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2010, 01:41:10 am »

    Cool, thanks for the information. -kotra 07:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

        Yeah, "cool". Thanks for the Synopsis of the DISNEY movie...
        VigilancePrime 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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



« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2010, 01:42:47 am »

Scepticism

In the section about more recent opinions, I have added a quote by Dr Julia Annas, a leading Plato scholar, which I feel goes some way to restoring the balance of the article by explicating more clearly the context of the account of Atlantis in Plato and his thought. Seeing as Annas is not on Wikipedia, I added a link to her profile at the University of Arizona to confrim her credibility.

Anyone questioning her point about using historicity to flag up fiction need only read some Michael Crichton to see how the technique can be employed and misunderstood. --Ajcee7 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2010, 01:42:55 am »

Other Greek accounts

Ok, I'm going to try to clean the "Other Greek accounts" section up a bit. It would be very helpful if anyone who's added material to this section could supply more precise references. For example, it's not enough to say that Plutarch said something; we need to know which specific passage the quoted or cited material comes from.

Most of the material in this section seems to be included on the principle that any report of an island in the Atlantic Ocean is relevant to Atlantis. This is a pretty questionable idea. Most of the authors quoted, as far as I can tell, say nothing to us about Atlantis at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2010, 01:43:28 am »

All right. I've taken an initial stab at re-writing. I tried to put the sources in chronological order, and tried also to supply some context for each writer. This is definitely a work in progress, and is by no means finished! Here's some of the stuff I removed, and why:

    * Aristotle Meteorology 354a22 and Ps.-Aristotle On Marvelous Things Heard (no passage cited). Neither of these have to do with Atlantis.
    * anything about Ogygia or Scheria. These aren't Atlantis.
    * Plutarch on "islands of Cronus" (no passage cited). Not Atlantis.

Stuff that needs better sourcing (some marked with a {{fact}} tag):

    * Proclus' report that Crantor had seen the Egyptian columns recording the Atlantis story--where does Proclus say this?
          o FGrHist 665, F 31 --Bender235 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    * Theophrastus, Pliny the Elder, and Scylax. Where did they talk about Atlantis?
    * "The historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century AD, recorded that the Atlanteans did not know the fruits of Ceres." Where did Diodorus say this?
    * "Marcellinus further records that the intelligentsia of Alexandria considered the destruction of Atlantis a historical fact..." Where did Marcellinus say this?
    * Cosmas Indicopleustes--what passage(s) is this material from?

I would also note that whoever added the big quote from Proclus got the quote from Nesselrath's article, and even preserved some hyphenation from Nesselrath that's unnecessary here. Seems a bit sloppy—it's generally a good idea to go back to the original source, if you're going to be quoting a passage. Of course, I haven't had a chance to do that yet—I don't keep a copy of Proclus on my shelf. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Report Spam   Logged
Angels & Demons
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 71



« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2010, 01:44:01 am »

Nesselrath? - Vidal-Naquet! Zangger!

The article now is hijacked by someone who is in favour of Nesselrath's invention hypothesis. But where is the hypothesis of Vidal-Naquet, who is much more known than Nesselrath? And where is the hypothesis of Zangger e.g.? --Athenaios 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

    Feel free to add Vidal-Naquet and Zangger, but could you please provide full citations? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

        Anyway, here's a quote from Vidal-Naquet: "With a perversity that was to ensure him great success, Plato had laid the foundations for the historical novel, that is to say, the novel set in a particular place and a particular time." (Critical Inquiry 18 [1992] p. 302) Sounds like an invention hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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