Message #70521

[Helios]

Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 01:15 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, well if anything else it appears I made you open your copies of the dialogues again, Erick, I do take some satisfaction in that. Bear in mind that the point of this little exercise originally was that you said that Plato makes two references to the truth of the dialogue, whilst I said there were several. It would seem that I have already proven my point since you didn't even bother continuing to address those points in your latest reply, which, I might add read like a red-faced rant worthy of a gentleman like Howard Dean. I can just imagine you as you wrote this, fingers banging frantically on your keyboard, perspiring away...
It's clear you still don't have proper command of the material. This time, however,instead of using ill-timed humor to cover up your inadequacies,your main weapons were sarcasm and insults.

quote:

"Whew! Thank God you’re here to defend those poor souls from the likes of me. We wouldn’t want them getting a taste of the truth, now, would we? Excuse me for a second, I have to wipe off the sarcasm that’s dripping from my words. I just love it when someone like yourself suddenly feels (or, at least, uses verbiage that expresses) the need to become the next, and newest, self-appointed, savior to those whom you feel might be more weak-minded than yourself verbiage which, by its very nature, is insulting to the newer members of the forum. Well, let’s see what kind of savior you really are."

Actually, that is almost exactly how I see my role in this. You have disseminated the information improperly, drawn many false conclusions, taken only what you need from the material to support your, ah, "research," then work frantically to tell everyone that Plato meant this or Plato meant that. Sickening, it's almost like a car salesman trying to pawn off one of his "lemons." Incidentally, the implied insults you say I have levied to the new members are nothing like the very real insults you have levied against myself and Jiri, both new members here. Good thing we both appear to have thick hides else we would perhaps not feel so "welcome."

quote:

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..."

This is the first paragraph of Critias, I don't know why you implied that I said it was not when I clearly wrote:

"Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact, introducing the various details of both ancient Athens and Atlantis."

My original point actually point is actually made twofold by the full quote:

"Timaeus. How thankful I am, Socrates, that I have arrived at last, and, like a weary traveller after a long journey, may be at rest! 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 unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right. Wishing, then, to speak truly in future concerning the generation of the gods, I pray him to give me knowledge, which of all medicines is the most perfect and best."

They finished the discussion of the gods the day before that, they are about to speak of the new day's stories. Again, I invite anyone to read Critias and see in what context this is used. Incidentally, the discussion of the day before you'll remember, was not simply about the gods but also, albeit briefly, of the war between Athens and Atlantis. This quote says nothing in particular of the discussion of the gods at all except for the wish that they impose a just retribution if they spoke falsely. It is you and you alone who draw that inference. Your very real ignorance of the text, and lack of understanding of the material leads to much over-generalizing on your part. From this viewpoint it looks as if you "skimmed" Timaeus and Critias" then bought the Cliff Notes version to borrow your interpretaion from it.

Then again, to be perfectly fair, after comparing your quote with mine, you'll notice they do differ. I think part of your problem with the interpretation is that you are working from a faulty copy. I would appreciate it if you worked from the Jowett translation in the future, if only so we could both be speaking the same "language."

About the point concerning ancient Athens:

quote:

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

You in turn wrote:

"I’m sure dhill757 and Brig will probably take great joy and revel in this, my following admission of a mistake. I would point out, however, that this mistake and misunderstanding could have been avoided altogether if you would have cited your textual references. Nevertheless, because I am an honorable man (who admits his mistakes when he realizes them),"

Of that, I'll simply accept your apology.

And yet, you also wrote:

"This error, and misunderstanding, of mine does not, however, negate any of my previous arguments regarding the voracity of the truthfulness of Critias’ statements; for, when examining this aspect of the text, one must also take into account Plato’s definition of “true.” Plato gives us his definition of the word “true,” as Christopher Gill so eloquently pointed out in his October 1977 Classical Philology article The Genre of the Atlantis Story"

Personally, I have never thought much of Mr. Gill or many of the commentators on Plato, at least how they are in a position to interpret Timaeus and Critias. An argument could also be made that Plato, being a philosopher, is also a seeker of "truth." It is simply one man's opinion, as it happens, it need not be the correct one. Your willingness to accept Gill or Taylor or any of the others who coment on them frankly speaks little for an independent mind.

Your next quote:

"While the main theme being discussed by Timaeus is cosmological in nature, Plato provides us with the framework in which the word "true” is to be construed. He states that as Becoming leads to Being, so, too, does Belief lead to Truth..."

There is certainly some truth in Timaeus being cosmological in nature, but Critias is given very real in it's details, dates and settings. It is as "earthbound" as Timaeus might well be considered "cosmological." Both cannot be dismissed in a similar fashion. Like a lazy policeman eager for his donuts, you accept what is most apparent to you rather than dig for any real evidence.

In addition, it still manages to neatly skirt the issue of what the quote actually said, which was this and which you didn't even bother to newly address:

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

Nothing to do with the "cosmological nature of Timaeus", of course, by the time anyone had finished reading your response, they would have conveniently forgotten that there was a quote in the first place. I think you missed your true calling, perhaps, Erick, with your skill at confusing others here, you should have perhaps become a politician.

I trust that I proved my point.

Your next quote:

"I would have to say that, on these accounts, Plato has succeeded, since, after 2,300 years, people like you still believe that Atlantis was a real place and that the war between the Atlanteans and the ancient Athenians actually occurred. Your belief in its truthfulness does not, however, constitute any real “truth,” as Timaeus has suggested. "

I never said that I believed, verbatim, in all the material in the dialogues, merely that Plato intended for us to believe it to be true. "True" may be "false" to you, but to most of us it remains "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."

And which you said:

“my interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove (my) point” is exactly that – nothing but your perception. You perceive such because you view the Atlantis story as true and factual, whereas I have taken an objective and dispassionate look at the Atlantis story, as a scientist would, and have therefore been able to see the contradictions contained within. Logic dictates, however, through the very nature of the word incredible (i.e., unbelievable), that we should observe Critias’ own disbelief in that particular description of Atlantis..."

"...hence, my remark regarding your false logic and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity."

This explantation seems to reach even more than the last one in an attempt to prove your point. Just my own opinion here, but I still believe you are reading far more into this than is there. Bear in mind that Plato, Critias, Timaeus or Hermocrates had never beheld Atlantis or any of it's engineering works. And yet, they have a "manuscript" that holds all those details. In what way would you have them describe it..."it was darn big??"

Incidentally, I don't see anything dispassionate or objective about your interpretation, you seem to have an agenda, to use both dialogues to support your point. There is no "code" in Plato, you seem to take what you need from it to support your viewpoint, then disregard the rest.

I'll go onto the next point, but first your kind response to me needs to be addressed:

"You have already demonstrated, in your arguments, your low comprehension of the subjects being discussed in the text, your unfamiliarity with the text’s layout, and your ignorance of, and complete absence of, Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning. I suppose I might be offended if the remark had come from someone that was actually justified (and qualified) in making that assessment."

I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.

Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy. As has been said here, you don't seem to have a great deal of respect for the material. If you don't respect it, how can you possibly comprehend it, let alone find it's subtleties..?

A true "scholar" would have known about the errors, indeed all the passages I cited to you before I even gave them to you. Indeed, you are the one that seems most unfamiliar with text's layout and verbage as evidenced by your groping around for the words, or quibbling about what the words meant, or where exactly in the text they were. A true scholar might have even have compared all the available translations (especially if they are working from one as obscure as yours), to see it there are any inconsistencies among them (and there are). Indeed, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if you were as familiar with the text as you pretend to be.

Again, I have to say, I can just imagine you in an academic setting. As for the science, there is no "Scientific Methodology" that I have seen involved in any of your points, merely a great deal of desperate reaching in order to prove a "new" point and many long-winded opinions. When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.

Regarding the Temple of Neith, from Timaeus:

"Tell us, said the other, the whole story, and how and from whom Solon heard this veritable tradition.
He replied:-In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith..."

Yet, another error on your part.

Regarding the manuscript, from Critias:

"I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. 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."

Yet another error on your behalf.

Your response to the manuscript:

" of course I was aware of it and why on earth would you ever think that I would bring up a passage that would seemingly support a position contrary to my own? You did not bring it up, therefore, I felt no need to address it, having limited my responses to arguing only the points that you have attempted to make. Additionally, the supposed possession of Solon’s “letters” necessitates the question “If he had been in possession of the letters since childhood, then why would he have needed nearly an entire night to recall the tale from memory?” Are we supposed to believe that Critias never once, in all the intervening years since his childhood, pulled the letters out and read them again."

(Sigh)

I've heard this type of rationale for this before. I suppose that you study each book (excuse me, "work of writing") in your possession, without ever forgetting where one is each night you before you go to bed at night. Perhaps, just perhaps, Critias had to look for the book, excuse me, writing..?

quote:

hear•say (hir´sâ´) n. [ < phrase to hear say, parallel to G. hörensagen] something one has heard but does not know to be true; rumor; gossip—adj. based on hearsay

Hmm, first the insults, then the condescension. It would seem that there is a pattern wherein you always resort to bad behavior when you fail to make your case. I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.

quote:

"Plato’s “plausible deniability” comes from his ability to deny that he ever meant it to be taken seriously, by being able to point to the fact that it is a Greek dialogue. On the other hand, should he choose to, he could also stand behind it as “truth” until such time as he is forced into some inescapable corner, at which point he can merely say “Aw, come on, its just a Greek dialogue.” He can stand behind it, but he can also deny its reality in a believable and logical manner, hence, it has “plausible deniability.”

This quote speaks to me of just how little your understanding of Greek culture is as a whole. Greek dialogues were considered important works, and Plato used his to teach, to instruct others, hardly mislead them. This, in a sense, is the whole meaning for the existence of the dialogues. Regardless of whether Atlantis exactly existed or not, he would not wish to have an "escape clause" offered to him in his work because he would, by it's very nature, wish for others to embrace it. Don't take my word on that, though, but bring this notion of an "plausible deniability" up to any scholars you know conversant in the works of the Greeks and see how far you get with it.

Your next quote:

"The only misconceptions have been your own and I have clearly illustrated that your responses have been limited to non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator’s (i.e., Critias) own statement of incredulity. “Is that all you can come up with?” was a challenge for you to try again and (hopefully) do better."

Don't be disingenuos here, you were overestimating your own power to persuade, "pumping up" your own faulty conclusions, taking genuine debate lightly (I remember the references to Polly, even if you are backing away from them now), and doing your best to insult me. However, every one of the points I made are still valid ones and, again, your only response to them was your own non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons and, false logic (and a good deal of defensive insults). Your understanding of Plato at this point seems to be a generic one, if even that.

quote:

"Enough information, from the results of my most recent research, exists in this forum that you should be able to attempt to refute it at its core, and, yet, you haven’t. What, exactly, are you waiting for?"

Honestly, being new to this forum, I haven't seen enough of your work to even comment on it. All I know of it from others is that it seems to change all the time and that some of it involves the Sea People. If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.

quote:

"I find both your opinion and suggestion to be quite humorous, considering the limited understanding of the material you have evidenced in your postings. You would do well to take your own suggestion under advisement, to which I would add that you should study up on Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning."

Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults. I think it is clear to everyone who has been reading this just how little command you have of the material at hand. You seem to use Plato as "fast food," you delve in it only to find what you want, disregard the rest while often ignoring it's central truth. Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.

I still suggest a more thorough, intuitive study of Plato. It is clear that much more work needs to be done on your behalf before you happen to get a firm grasp of the dialogues. I trust I have shown, even to you now, that your work is quite sloppy, it's conclusions, most suspect and premature. I would suggest that you get other copies of the dialogues as it is also plain that that, not to mention your lack of understanding on several key points on the copies you do have, is a great part of the problem. I also suggest that if you continue your debates here, you try and behave in a more polite and civil manner. The truth is not to be gained by levving insults and accusations. Always remember, honest debate becomes lost when anger clouds the mind.

Warmest Regards,

Helios



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