Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 03:00:15 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Giant crater may lie under Antarctic ice
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9268
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Worst theories & books on Atlantis

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Worst theories & books on Atlantis  (Read 5403 times)
0 Members and 148 Guests are viewing this topic.
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2008, 10:17:54 pm »

Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-01-2004 07:59 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far be it from me to add to your troubles, Erick, I notice you are having several disagreements with others on this site, but you are wrong on several key points on Plato, and your treatment of the quotes I provided was less than fair and honest. In the interest of clarity, and so as not to mislead the others who come here who have come her to honestly study of Atlantis, I think I had best work to correct them.
From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

You said:

"this comment of Timaeus' was made (in Critias 106a) in reference to the God who represents the Universe (cf.Tim. 92c, 27c), and has absolutely nothing to do with the Atlantis story."

Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact, introducing the various details of both ancient Athens and Atlantis. The dialogue deals almost exclusively with Athens and Atlantis, the gods are only mentioned passing, the universe not at all. Anyone is invited to read the whole of the Critias and see how much weight either topic is given to either topic by comparison.

quote:

About ancient Athens:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

You wrote:

"Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text. What my version, translated by R.G. Bury says is "How, then, is this statement plausible, and what residue of the land then existing serves to confirm its truth?"

The quote comes from the Jowett translation. If you aren’t familiar with it, perhaps you should be as it is perhaps the most respected and commonly used of all the translations. The full quote reads as follows:

“Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true, that the boundaries were in those days fixed by the Isthmus, and that in the direction of the continent they extended as far as the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes; the boundary line came down in the direction of the sea, having the district of Oropus on the right, and with the river Asopus as the limit on the left.”

We can mince words as we like, but the mere fact that the narrator is giving details to support his claim can be taken as proof that he believes it to be taken as “true.”

About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

You wrote:

"In other words, even Critias (or Plato?)wasn't buying Solon's description of Atlantis, but decided, nevertheless, to pass on what he overheard his grandfather (the Elder Critias) telling Amynandes! Here, in Critias' own words, Plato has Critias himself - the narrator of the story - casting doubt on the voracity of the description of Atlantis!"

Your interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove your point. I take it that Plato is simply realizing that he is describing a spectacular engineering feat (the ditch around the flat, rectangular plain) as a man of his era might well do. Perhaps in your day, you might use the words, “geewhiz!” or “gosh!” or “golly!” to express yourself about a similar object you found incredible.

From Timaeus:

Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Of this you wrote:

"There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. Its ridiculous!"

A rather pedestrian approach for someone who purports to be a scholar to take, don’t you think? Conveniently, you left out the part this part from the dialogues, if you were even aware of it at all:

from Critias:

“My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced. The tale, which was of great length, began as follows:”

Apparently, your point on “hearsay” was a bit misguided, it was not hearsay, but a story in writing. I'll spend more time on this point since it seems central to your basic logic - a manuscript. Three times, the Atlantis tale saw writing, that we know - the pillars at the Temple of Neith where Solon got the original story, the manuscript in Critias’ possession, and, of course, Plato’s dialogues. But even if there was no manuscript at all, and the story was passed down sheerly from oral tradition, this would not have been uncommon among the ancient people. If memory serves, many of the early books of the Bible were passed down in the same way. Before writing, this was a common practice.

quote:

Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:

Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

Of which, you wrote:

"Just to save time, refer to my previous comment."

Which, I remind you, carries even less weight now.
(See my previous statement.)

quote:

Again concerning the war:

Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Of which, you so articulately wrote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I believe that quote speaks for itself.

And then, my own quote:

Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true.

And then, you wrote:

"Really? Where? Plato never once said it himself. Instead, he created a dialogue between 4 people and has one of those 4 people saying its true. I believe this is what's called "plausible deniability.""

No, it isn’t, it’s called a “Greek dialogue.” Perhaps you’ve heard of one, they were common in their day. Where does Plato say that the story is true..? I count six times, I could perhaps I find more less obvious references if I dug even even more deeply into it. Critias, being the narrator, will naturally speak of the truth of the tale more than those he cares to enlighten. Indeed, he would also be the one to do most of the talking, as, in fact, he does. If you truly believe Plato is not attesting to it’s truth, than perhaps both dialogues also simply appeared out of thin air, without the trouble of even having an author at all.

And then, you kindly wrote to me:

"Is that all you can come up with, Helios? Noncontextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator's own statement of incredulity?"

Mind you, I don’t view this as some sort of a competition, I merely wanted to clear up some misconceptions among those who read your material and might become misled by it. Having said that, however, I fully believe that I could disect each of your theories, premises and conclusions with an equal success if they are presented as badly as this one was. Your own logic is quite suspect and your train of thought seems to wander, at times even towards the comic. Additionally, the research I see from you also appears a bit sloppy and incomplete. I shudder to think of you in an academic environment if you bring up things like "parrots" and “bored 1950’s housewives” in order to make your points.

Mind you, I don’t know much about you, nor why you have engendered such hostility in others, but in my opinion you have yet to gain a proper command of the material at hand. It is clear now as well why there is some confusion here about the dialogues if this is how you disseminated this information. I suggest returning to the material and this time a more thorough, intuitive study. Don’t simply assume Plato is trying to trick you, try to “feel” the words, their basic truth. Often things are just as they appear to be. The story of Atlantis is hardly new, but as old as antiquity.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   
Report Spam   Logged

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together..."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12   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