Atlantis Online
August 10, 2022, 03:58:55 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Worst theories & books on Atlantis

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Worst theories & books on Atlantis  (Read 2156 times)
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #120 on: March 13, 2008, 10:48:04 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 05:17 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
I see that, once again, when you cannot argue your case sufficiently you resort to assigning blame...but never to yourself, of course.

I also see that, once again, you are accusing me of employing tactics designed to "divert attention and escape responsibility." Why is it, do you suppose, that you can never seem to just limit yourself to the arguments that would support your contentions and accusations? Why is it, do you suppose, that you always have to resort to insults, accusations, and attacks of a personal nature? Could it possibly be that you know your arguments are weak and that the text does not support your position?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, only two of them have any pertinence in regards to the Atlantis story, since 2 or 3 of them were Socrates merely repeating what he had just heard (i.e., that it was a true story; Socrates hadn't even heard the story yet at the point his remarks were made about it being true), and 1 of them was Timaeus praying that his words be found truly spoken and acceptable to the Being (Universe) - about whom he had just finished speaking. Furthermore, Critias could not attest to the truth of the story because he was not there when it happened. Again, Critias' statements regarding the "truth" of the story is nothing more than the "hearsay" testimony of a man 5 times removed from the event.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My attack on the dialogues? Where do you come up with these cheesy lines? My arguments are less an attack on the dialogues, than your arguments are an attack on logic and common sense!

Yes, I said "let's see what kind of saviour you are" because you insinuated that you had to "save" everyone from the likes of me. Apparently, you're not a very good "saviour" because, so far, you've failed to effectively argue a single point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has never been incumbent upon me to prove that when Plato wrote "true" he actually meant "false," because that has never been my position. My position has always been that Plato laid the framework for the manner in which "true" is to be construed in relation to the likeness of a Model, which is 1.) that it must be analogous to the Model and 2.) possess likelihood - and this position is supported by the text and by the 4 members of the dialogue having agreed to such a condition. You have yet to prove otherwise.

You have based your position on "belief" and "a feeling" and you want me to abandon all logic and reason and come "feel the text" and "believe" in its "truthfulness" right along with you, but that is not how the argumentative process works. You must first establish your case with such ironclad logic and reason that I could never hope to argue otherwise, and Helios, you have quite simply failed to do so.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assigning blame to anyone but yourself again, I see.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again with the saviour nonsense, eh? Your brand of "enlightenment" is rather like a burnt-out lightbulb in a dark room. Oops! There you go again. Now you have to argue how my confusion is supposedly "apparent."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet again with the blame (anyone but yourself, of course). First of all, once again, Timaeus is the only person speaking in Critias 106a, and he is ending his discussion. Critias will speak in just a few, short, paragraphs later, and he will speak for the remainder of the book. So, I ask you again, how could Timaeus be swearing to tell the truth in his discussions that day, when his discussion was coming to an end and he would not be speaking at all any more in the whole rest of the Critias? Your argument makes no sense in the hard, cold, light of reason, and in the face of the evidence.

And, once again, this was still the same day; another day had not passed, otherwise, Plato would have noted so in the Critias, just as he did in the Timaeus.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's trying to confuse who here? I suggest you re-read my postings. You are mixing my postings to you and my posting to Jiri together. There was, indeed, much discussion as to the Cosmological treatices discussed in the Timaeus, but not in response to the quote about the Egyptian priests and what they told Solon about ancient Athens! You really are a piece of work! Do you know that?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh..where, exactly, was your triumph, Helios?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all, and I would never, in a million years, trust you to pay proper consideration to any of my points. As usual, you were either not paying attention to what you were reading, or you failed to understand the point, which was that the fact that he could deny it, or he could embrace it is what gives it plausible deniability. Whether or not Plato would or would not do anything is never addressed or surmised; the fact that it has plausible deniability stands irrespective of what Plato would or would not do.

Once again, Critias could not attest to the fact that Solon attested to the truth of the story; he was merely going off of what his grandfather told him and who, in turn, went off of what Dropides told him. It is hearsay, plain and simple, any way you cut it.


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?"

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You never really ever respond to anything, do you? Once again, Socrates is merely repeating (like a parrot does) what he has just heard Critias tell him. He cannot, therefore, be used to attest to the truthfulness of the story.


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?"

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."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, Socrates is merely repeating (like a parrot does) what he has just heard Critias tell him. He cannot, therefore, be used to attest to the truthfulness of the story.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, Plato never said it; he didn't even include himself as one of the members of the group; he left the fifth member up to the imagination of the reader.

The Bible contains the word "true" and "truth" and "verily" countless times; should we take everything that is written in it as "true" also?

All of your arguments completely ignore what the whole point of the dialogue was; to put forth a suitable model of Socrates' ideal polity in action, in a suitable war. In order for the war to be suitable, the opponent must, too, be suitable - hence, the Atlanteans.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was perfectly aware of them, Helios, I just knew that they weren't applicable because they were either non-contextual or hearsay. You presume a great deal too much for such a "newbie." By the way, you still have not proven, nor shown, in any way shape or form, how I am a "crude debator, sloppy researcher, or have a low comprehension of the material." When are you planning on doing that? Are you ever?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh oh, there you go again! Now you have to argue how my arguments have been "vague" and/or "short-sighted," and in what manner I have displayed any "desperation." A person would think that you would learn to quit sticking your foot in your mouth, but apparently not.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently, you believe everything that you read. Its a good thing that Plato didn't write that the Atlanteans had big, long, pointy teeth and hair all over the bodies, because you probably would have thought that was "true" also! Herodotus wrote that there was men in Libya "that had eyes in the middle of their chests" - do you believe that was "true" also? He used the word "verily" (i.e., in truth)?

Give it a rest, Helios. You know just as well as I do that just because someone says or writes that something is "true," doesn't necessarily make it "true." It isn't a faulty, obtuse, line of defense, its just reality.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O.K., so, first there are three, and then there are so many it would take too long to list them? I didn't ask for all of them, I only asked for three. Please list those three. Remember, you have stated several times that my text is somehow faulty, so now you must defend that position by supplying the evidence to support it. I already know that there aren't any major differences or variations between the different versions; you are the one who has said that there is, therefore it is now "incumbent" upon you to prove that there are variations between the different translations.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have lived in these texts for the past six years. How can I return to something I never left?

You have yet to prove a single one of your contentions and that is why I find your suggestions so laughable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have taken quite a beating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What theory? We haven't discussed any "theory" of mine.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victory? (chuckle) You have to actually win a point in order to claim "victory." Heck, the only point you even responded to was the one about "manuscript," and on that point you admitted defeat! Victory? Not quite.

Uh, how, exactly, have I tried to "take Plato down?"

"Ill-informed amateur?" Well, I guess you'll have to defend this one too, now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your conclusion presumes to know what Plato believed and what he wished for others to believe, fixates on the appearance of the word "true," but disregards all of Plato's words in the dialogues as to how "true" is to be construed.[/quote]

My conclusion rests squarely on all of Plato's words and pays close attention to what they actually say as to how "true" is to be construed. It presumes nothing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Not to be rude?" You don't consider that to be rude?

Now, please focus yourself on the 10 requests I made in my previous posting, and make an honest attempt to address them. To refresh your memory, those were:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias.
2. Please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

You chose to demonstrate that Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story in Critias 106a by quoting the phrases “spoken truly and acceptably by him” and “just retribution if he errs” from Critias 106a. You have failed, however, to demonstrate that Plato’s use of these phrases was for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the Atlantis story, because you did not demonstrate that these phrases were said in regards to the Atlantis story. Again, please demonstrate that the aforementioned phrases were written in regards to the Atlantis story.

3. Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

4. To inform us all as to just what articles of Mr. Gill’s you have ever read, what journal(s) it/they appeared in, and what about it/them caused you to have such a low opinion of him?

5. Demonstrate your familiarity with Christopher Gill by telling us all what university Mr. Gill is associated with?

6. Provide evidence that supports your contention that my conclusion, that Plato wishes us to observe Critias’ disbelief due to his use of the word “incredible,” is “reaching” in order to prove my point.

The evidence for my conclusion was provided in the form of:

A. A list of words synonymous with “incredible” (i.e., not credible) that illustrate the negative aspects of the word “incredible” in relation to that topic (e.g., unbelievable (i.e., not believable), implausible (i.e., not plausible), improbable (i.e., not probable), doubtful (i.e., full of doubt), questionable(i.e., causing one to question), nonsensical (i.e., not making any sense), not to mention absurd and far-fetched)
B. Plato’s own statement that “a work of such extent (in addition to others) could never have been artificial.” The logical inference to be drawn from this is that either the writer - Plato, the speaker - Critias, or both, believed that particular detail in the description of Atlantis to be either naturally occurring (i.e., not man-made) or fictional (i.e., not occurring at all).
C. Two different ways that the passage could be approached based on the available evidence, both of which necessitate the observance of Critias’ own incredulity regarding that particular detail in the description of Atlantis.
D. A list of words & phrases synonymous with the word “nevertheless” that illustrate that Critias’ use of the word “nevertheless” indicates that he felt obliged to say what he was told regardless of its incredulous nature.

Please respond to the evidence listed above.

8. Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

9. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

10. Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.

11. Either “put up or shut up” regarding being able to refute my research at its core.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
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 ... 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