|
Helios
|
Helios
Member
Member # 2019
Member Rated:
posted 07-09-2004 11:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
You'll forgive me if I don't answer each of your points word by word this time. Whilst during the course of reading them, I realized that they were simply the same old arguments, that you weren't repetant of anything and simply fell asleep... I got up later, made myself a cup of coffee, tried honestly to give you a more fair hearing, to little success, I'm afraid, for I fell asleep again...
You'll be assured to know that you are right in one of your statements, at least, Plato does not say "manuscript", but neither does he say "letters" as you say either, but rather "writing." (Jowett translation) The word "manuscript" is my mere description of the writing, for, in my own language, what would such a volume of collected material be called if not "manuscript." "Letters" incidentally is even more of a poorly chosen word, for to most, it implies correspondence, such as a "letter" written from me to you...This should be apparent to you of yet another weakness involved in the particular translation you are working from. Had I known that you would have taken not only Plato's words but my own so literally, I would have taken more care in the choosing of my own descriptions. I make this point simply because, as one who fancies himself an expert in "eptimology", I can see how important this is to you.
I remind you, however, that the whole "manuscript" tangent was simply a debating tactic on your behalf in order to divert attention escape reponsibility for disproving the point at hand, the exact verbiage had very little to do with what we were discussing. Then again, that seems to be a tactic used frequently by you. I've noticed you often tend to draw on points that haven't much pertinence to the material we are discussing, try to broaden the discourse into a much broader discussion, at times, even try to move it wholly away from the original topic. As I said in the past, with your skill at endeavoring to confuse others, I think you might be better suited as a politician. Ah, the tactics of the desperate...
Since I am growing weary of this little exercise, and for the sake of the others who may be reading this, I will sum up the conclusions of our little discourse, both yours and mine, and simply leave them for others to decide. During the debate, I believe I gathered enough of your opinions and theories, at least enough that are pertinent, that make a reasonable amount of sense, to also make the case on your behalf. (Don't worry, I'll do my best to do justice to you.)
My own position is really quite simple, I believe when Plato says "true," he means "true."
The debate started like this, that you said that there were only two mentions during the dialogues of their truthfulness, while I said there were several, I found six, to be perfectly accurate. I believe at the start of this little exercise, you said something, about your attack on the dialogues, something along the lines of “let’s see what type of savior you are.” I remind you, though, that since Plato uses the word “true” in the better part of the mentions, it was incumbent on you to prove to us all that when he said “true”, he really meant “false.”
your quote:
Helios,
"As far as I know, there is only two references to the story being true, and that is in Timaeus 20d-e,"
my quote:
"Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true. "
From this point on, I'll remind you, whatever hostility that arose through our discourse was something of your making, and I simply responded in kind. Of course, just like the dialogues themselves, simply believe what you wish. It is the others here who may or may not have become confused by your rather self-serving interpretation that I care to enlighten, your own confusion seems to be quite apparent.
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 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..."
I simply presented this point as the narrators saying that they spoke truth the say before and intended, under the threat of divine retribution, that they would speak also speak truth this day as well.
You defended this point to saying that the speakers were confining their speech about the gods. In addition, you also raised the diversion of the first paragraph.
About ancient Athens:
"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."
Of course, on this I said that "true" meant "true."
While you, in turn, after first stating that the line nowhere appeared in your copy, then repented and apologized, also cast doubt that the land of Athens was ever anything other than it appears now, again something Plato does not say. Later, switching tactics, of course, much discussion on the "cosmological" nature of Timaeus, then, of course, further sarcasm to underline your point.
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."
Ah, here we had all the varied definitions of the word "incredible." I said that you were reading too much into the line, you opened a dictionary and proceeded to read even more. Ah, the joys, and triumphs of eptimology.
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..."
Again, I said that "true" was "true."
And, of course, hear was where we had, initially, at least, the definition of the word "hearsay" as your key arguing point. Friends, remember the discussion of the "bored, 1950's housewives..?" I believe here also arose the discussion of "plausible deniability" as Erick later reached for a more respectable metaphor in order to prove his "point." Presumably, a built-in method for Plato to "bob and weave" and escape the story's credibility, should it, perhaps, be received poorly, I imagine.
I trust I paid that point the proper consideration, Erick?
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?"
This was one of the most obvious references by Socrates concerning the story's truth, which, I believed best attested to it's truth.
Erick's response?
quote:
"To save time, see my previous point. "
Of that, I'll simply rest my case.
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?"
Erick viewed this as merely an "echo" of the earlier point and called on his pet parrots to assist him. He chose various other ways to explain himself, but I believe that this one sums up his position most perectly:
quote:
"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"
I trust, if we explored this again, we would be treated to further explanations of the word "hearsay."
I, in turn, wrote:
"Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true. It is only those that wish to claim it as an allegory of some type that wish to insist it's a fiction."
All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."
So when I say that you are a crude debator and a sloppy researcher, I am, perhaps, being kind, Erick. I submit that you are the one with a truly low comprehension of the material, for, had you really been as aware of the material as you pretend to be, you would have been aware of each of these quotes before I even told them to you. Indeed, as I have also told you, I wouldn't have even had to inform you of them at all. The long and short of it is that only someone who happens to be desperate to support his own perculiar idea on Atlantis would resort to such vague and short-sighted arguments to plead his case, in terms of this material. You would have done well to embrace these points, rather than to try so earnestly to escape them with points like "false logic", "erroneous comparisons", and, of course, my own personal favorite, "hearsay," all of which, I would submit, apply far more ably to your arguments than mine.
I am not coming up with any new line of logic here, I am simply applying a logic that has been in force since as long as mankind knew the value of writing which is that "true" means "true." It is only to those with your particular grasp of Scientific Methodology wherein "true" really means "false. " A most faulty, even obtuse, line of defense if I have ever heard one.
Indeed there are several variations of the text between all three translations, but since they are too numerous and that would be a much longer exercise, I will not illustrate the examples. If you are as interested in the material as you claim to be, you will feel free to investigate themselves. Be assured, they are there, and they are not minor ones either.
Then again, I have always maintained that you need to return to the dialogues in order to have a better grasp of the material at hand. You have resisted this suggestion, it seems, at your own peril and because of your own faulty pride. To further resist it would be even more at your own peril, for it will put you at a further disadvantage when it comes to true comprehension of the points at hand, not the ones that you simply wish to be there, but aren't.
"True" means "true", it seems to be the one word in the dialogue who's definition you have yet to quote. Fast food - take what you need to from the material to support your own faulty conclusions whilst ignoring it's central "truth."
The dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have taken quite a beating.
I do not see this so much as a victory for me, but rather Plato, who has been vindicated once again, after yet another ill-informed amateur has tried to "take him down."
Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.
Perhaps somewhere tonight, the ghosts of those who once dwelled in Atlantis are also celebrating.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."
Not to be rude, but I believe we have just seen a perfect example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004
|
