Atlantis Online
November 24, 2020, 03:43:07 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ice Age blast 'ravaged America'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm
 
  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 1335 times)
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2008, 10:16:24 pm »

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-30-2004 08:14 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick like I said, maybe Solon might have collected all these stories and Plato interpretated through his dialogues, however I`m sure no ancient would forget of a land that sank and went beneath the waves   Smiley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #76 on: March 13, 2008, 10:17:01 pm »

dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 09:29 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, Erick, Erick....
(I apologize in advance again if this gets a little too hostile)

Right? Don't flatter yourself. You can place Atlantis anywhere in the world right now and I don't think I would believe you. As I told you before, I don't particularly care if you believe in Atlantis at all.

Having just read what you wrote to myself, Brig and Helios, it seems you've taken a page from the Maria playbook. If you can't attack the research, attack the messenger, label personal attacks, then claim everyone is attacking you so to escape the same claim:

quote:

Helios & Jiri,
"O.K., first, why don't you two just kiss and get it over with. It's a veritable 'love-fest' with you two."

Pretty low, both these guys are new members here, I've read posts from each of them and each of them has brought more to the table here than you have. Even if you were just being "funny", they don't know you that well yet (maybe they won't want to either).

quote:

Refuting Helios' quotes:

"Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text."

"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!"

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

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

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

That's how you refute the guy's comments, with your own personal opinions, your own false logic, your own erroneous comparisons and your own dumb little quips..? I hope, for your sake, your paper reads more intelligently than this" passage" just did and that there are no references to Polly in it. Maybe you can get away with that kind insult-laden, fact-bereft response here, but in the academic community, you're going to have to use actual logic, supported by real facts, to prove your case. Any fool can see that Helios did a more than credible job, one more respectful to you than you might deserve, I might add, considering your response to him, of refuting your basic premise, which is the story is some root word, snickering little linguistic, cross language exercise in eptimology. Oh, yes, we're all feeling so threatened... I think the point he is trying to make, Polly aside, was that Plato meant for the story to be taken as TRUE. I guess that two references as opposed to six make all the difference to you, right..?

All it shows to me is that your grasp of the material was pretty bad to begin with. To be honest, I think I always thought that, reading some of your previous posts. Tonight, from this perspective, it looks like you have very little respect for it as well. Also that you maybe have a pretty bad copy of the dialogues which is maybe part of your problem. Which brings me to the logical question, if you were always that interested in the Sea People, not Atlantis, why did Atlantis even have to play a part in your stillborn, ill-conceived research in the first place? To give it more commercial appeal..?

It's astounding the lengths that the human mind will go to to justify itself. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought I was back in the good old days where Maria would call someone MEDIOCORE, UNSCIENTIFIC, EVIL when they didn't agree with her rather than to address the point scientifically.

That isn't science, that is slander. You knock Brig, saying he hasn't been able to offer "a single intelligible argument to show why it is supposedly "without merit." Why should he need to? You haven't offered a "single, intelligible argument" to prove your case. (Maybe it's all in the paper). I can tell by your enthusiasm that you're eager to get this paper published...maybe a little too eager to get published..? I suppose any material about Atlantis these days has to be "new" and "cutting edge" to be published these days. Sad when that becomes more important than a sincere quest for the truth.

Erick's point for those of you who haven't got it yet:

Plato: dumb old guy tricked into writing about Atlantis.

[This message has been edited by dhill757 (edited 06-30-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #77 on: March 13, 2008, 10:17:21 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 06-30-2004 11:09 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick was certain he was right when he insisted the sea kings were where Atlantis came from. Then he was certain that Atlantis was somewhere in Turkey; now he's certain it never existed at all. Erick Wright has been a pompus *ss since he entered this site. No theory of Atlantis can possibly be right unless he is the sponsor of it. Nuts, he's been all over the place and because he can't prove anything he thinks that Plato made the whole thing up. Nuts to you Erick....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #78 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #79 on: March 13, 2008, 10:18:32 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-01-2004 03:57 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid thinking Helios. The search continues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2008, 10:19:39 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-01-2004 04:00 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid thinking Helios. The search continues. Good-bye Mr. Chips...er I mean Mr. Wright.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000901;p=3
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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2008, 10:20:14 pm »

Jiri Mruzek
Member
Member # 2016

Rate Member   posted 07-02-2004 03:23 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Helios answered Erick's complaints so comprehensively, I'll focus on just one gem from Erick.
Erick Wright said: "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?" This passage is found in Critias 111a, where Critias erroneously used the condition of the Peloppenesian Peninsula during his day (i.e., "...like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left.") as "evidence," or "strong proof," of its former goodness of soil." He then attempted to equate the condition of the whole Peloppenesian Peninsula with that of small islands bare of soil. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that you don't see the flaw in that logic? Are you honestly going to try and say that the absence of good soil during Plato's day can be considered valid "evidence," or "strong proof" (as Critias says), that good soil used to exist???"

Erick, I see that you are out to get Plato at any cost, even by resorting to absurdities. In the above quote you pick on some of the best stuff Plato brings to the table.
As if he had a crystal ball, from somewhere he knows that Greece once used to be a verdant paradise, which he calls the original primitive state. He describes, how the local ecosystem perpetuated itself, how the rich soil could soak up the annual Dios Rains, and then dispense the water evenly all year long. Dense forests were everywhere, thus these processes took place under the cover of the trees. There were numerous springs, streams and rivers.
Plato says that springs were marked by certain sacred objects. The springs had gone, but the objects marking the springs had remained. There is your proof, Erick. Of course, you must first understand how in ecosystems things are tied one to another.
Abundance of water implies lush forests, which imply uneroded soil.
You took this magnificient passage from Plato, and spat venom on it, Erick. By the way, do you deny that Greece was once such a verdant, sylvan paradise? Plato had told the truth, as it was not told again until the 20th century. Do you agree?

The 'primitive' state was succeeded by the 'cultivated' state. Part of the cultivation of land in the now desolate mountains was logging for timber, while clearing the land for cattle pastures. The logging industry was till recently attested to by logs and beams from still intact roof frames big enough to accomodate the biggest buildings.
Without being critical, Plato describes the changes in environment introduced by humans. He puts all the elements of a clear picture in one place, and leaves the logical evaluation to a critical reader. I would call this method 'gentle persuasion'  Smiley

Conclusion: This passage from Plato is flawless. Its scientific value is extraordinary.

Any ugliness is exclusively in Erick's eye.


[This message has been edited by Jiri Mruzek (edited 07-02-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 46 | From: Vancouver, BC | 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #82 on: March 13, 2008, 10:20:47 pm »

 
Tom Hebert
Member
Member # 999

  posted 07-02-2004 04:27 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios and Jiri,
I really appreciate your comments! They add a breath of fresh air to an otherwise stale forum.

Tom



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 813 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #83 on: March 13, 2008, 10:21:29 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 06:38 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far be it from me to add to your troubles, Erick…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all, Helios; responding to your postings is absolutely no trouble at all and barely adds any time to my day.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I notice you are having several disagreements with others on this site…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Nothing escapes you, does it. Yeah…uh, isn’t that sort of the whole point of the forum? It’s a place where you can go and discuss your research and/or theories, express your opinions, etc, with other people who will sometimes agree and, yes, sometimes even disagree. Why? Do you feel that every person here should agree on everything?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…but you are wrong on several key points on Plato, and your treatment of the quotes I provided was less than fair and honest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, actually, I wasn’t and it wasn’t, but let’s see if you can make your case, shall we?


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

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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
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..."

I replied:
"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."
To which you replied:
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 is invited to read the whole of the Critias and see how much weight either topic is given to either topic by comparison.


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

Helios, if you had ever bothered to crack open the book and read the entire work from cover to cover you would realize that Critias 106a IS the first paragraph of the Critias. The first paragraph (106a found on page 259) does not introduce any details of Athens or Atlantis, in fact, nothing of either city is discussed until paragraph 108e (found on page 265). What 106a-108e addresses is each group member’s individual task or assignment, as agreed to in Timaeus 27a & b. Worse yet, your ignorance of the text is exceeded by your lack of understanding of the material. Furthermore, I spoke truthfully when I said that your reference was non-contextual, and not only non-contextual, but downright incorrect. Let’s examine all of paragraphs 106a & b, in their entireties, and add to them the reference note (cf. Timaeus 92c, 27c) that I provided for you in my previous posting – which you obviously ignored and which has great relevance to the statements made in Critias 106a & b.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critias 106a & b
Timaeus: ”How gladly do I now welcome my release, Socrates, from my protracted discourse, even as a traveler who takes his rest after a long journey! And I make my prayer to that God (cf. Tim. 92c, 27c) who has recently been created by our speech (although in reality created of old), that he will grant to us the conversation of all our sayings that have been rightly said, and, if unwittingly we have spoken aught discordantly, that he will impose the fitting penalty. And the correct penalty is to bring into tune him that is out of tune. In order, then, that for the future we may declare the story of the birth of the gods aright, we pray that he will grant to us that medicine which of all medicines is the most perfect and most good, even knowledge; and having made our prayer, we deliver over to Critias, in accordance with our compact (cf. Tim. 27a, b), the task of speaking next in order.”


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

Now, reference the statements made by Timaeus in Critias 106a & b against the statements made by Timaeus in Timaeus 27c:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus 27c
Timaeus: ”Nay, as to that, Socrates, all men who possess even a small share of good sense call upon God always at the outset of every undertaking, be it small or great; we therefore who are purposing to deliver a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or haply is uncreate, must needs invoke Gods and Goddesses (if so be that we are not utterly demented), praying that all we say may be approved by them in the first place, and secondly by ourselves. Grant, then, that we have thus duly invoked the deities; ourselves we must also invoke so as to proceed, that you may most easily learn and I may most clearly expound my views regarding the subject before us.”


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

…and in Timaeus 92c:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus 92c
Timaeus: “And now at length we may say that our discourse concerning the Universe has reached its termination. For this our Cosmos has received the living creatures both mortal and immortal and been thereby fulfilled; it being itself a visible Living Creature embracing the visible creatures, a perceptible God made in the image of the Intelligible, most great and good and fair and perfect in its generation – even this one Heaven sole of its kind.”


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

All passages have been quoted from the Harvard University Press James Loeb Classical Library’s Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9, Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles. Translated by R.G. Bury. Originally published in 1929; my version being the 1989 reprint. ISBN 0-674-99257-1. It is also an extremely reputable, highly respected (as was its translator), and commonly used translation of the text, and it includes the Greek as well as the English translation. Please note, as well, that all further quotes of the text will also be from the above-listed book.

If you would prefer, I could cite Benjamin Jowett’s version, however, the basic content being discussed will be the same (as the source material is the same) even though the verbiage might be different. The point, of course, being that you have taken that passage from the Critias (106a) and attempted to use it as one example of how Plato affirmed the truthfulness of the Atlantis story. In reality, this passage is merely the introduction for the continuation of the discussion, where the Timaeus left off; specifically, that Timaeus, as the best astronomer out of the members of the group, and who had made it his special task to learn about the nature of the Universe, had met his burden of responsibility by speaking first, beginning with the origin of the Cosmos and ending with the generation of mankind, endeavoring all the while and to the best of his power to do justice to the theme Socrates had prescribed. Critias was to then follow, taking over from him mankind, as it were, already created by Timaeus’ speech, while also taking over from Socrates a select number of men superlatively well-trained, and then, in accordance with the word and law of Solon, bring those topics before the group as before a court of judges and make them citizens of the state of Athens, by regarding them as the ancient Athenians revealed to them by the record of the sacred writings (i.e., hieroglyphs). By doing so, Critias was endeavoring to do justice, to the best of his powers, to the theme Socrates had prescribed (i.e. the concept of the primeval Athens as the ideal state, realized in action through a suitable war, and exhibiting all of the qualities of the polity discussed the previous day (cf. Tim. 17a-20c). In Critias 106a, Timaeus was merely invoking the deity’s blessing of his discourse, as required, and as discussed in Timaeus 27c. It has, as I said before, absolutely no bearing as to the “truthfulness” of the Atlantis story, which should now be clear to every member of the forum, when seen in its full referential context, and for which my remark as to you having provided a non-contextual reference was not only true and accurate, but also justified.

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), I must admit that when you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About ancient Athens:
"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."


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

…and I responded by saying:


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

I was mistaken. The LCL version does actually say it, and the passage that you referred to, which is Critias 110d by the way, does, indeed, read:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critias: ”Moreover, what was related about our country was plausible and true, namely, that, in the first place, it had its boundaries at that time marked off by the Isthmus, and on the inland side reaching to the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes; and that the boundaries ran down with Oropia on the right, and on the seaward side they shut off the Asopus on the left; and that all other lands were surpassed by ours in goodness of soil, so that it was actually able at that period to support a large host which was exempt from the labors of husbandry.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this error, and misunderstanding, could have been avoided had you bothered to cite your textual references, and I am hopeful that in the future you will begin to do so, for it is much more difficult for meaningful, constructive, argumentative dialog to take place when misunderstandings such as these arise. 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, where he wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
”…Critias’ claim goes well beyond what is really the case, and his story is far from being the factually true account it claims to be: Critias’ very use of the word “true” to describe such an account is implicitly disputed by Timaeus when he begins to speak (29C).”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does Timaeus say in passage 29C? Beginning in Timaeus 29b, and following through to Timaeus 29d, Timaeus says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus: “Again, if these premises be granted, it is wholly necessary that this Cosmos should be a Copy of something. Now in regard to every matter it is most important to begin at the natural beginning. Accordingly, in dealing with a copy and its model, we must affirm that the accounts given will themselves be akin to the diverse objects which they serve to explain; those which deal with what is abiding and firm and discernable by the aid of thought will be abiding and unshakeable; and in so far as it is possible and fitting for statements to be irrefutable and invincible, they must in no wise fall short thereof; whereas the accounts of that which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess likelihood; for as Being is to Becoming, so is Truth to Belief. Wherefore, Socrates, if in our treatment of a great host of matters regarding the Gods and the generation of the Universe we prove unable to give accounts that are always in all respects self-consistent and perfectly exact, be thou not surprised; rather we should be content if we can furnish accounts that are inferior to none in likelihood, remembering that both I who speak and you who judge are but human creatures, so that it becomes us to accept the likely account of these matters and forbear to search beyond it.”
Socrates: “Excellent, Timaeus! We must by all means accept it, as you suggest; and certainly we have most cordially accepted your prelude; so now, we beg of you, proceed straight on with the main theme.”


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

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. He further states that the accounts that are copied after the likeness of the Model (for the likeness of the model cf. Tim. 17a-20c), is itself a likeness, and will be analogous thereto (i.e., an analogy of) and possess likelihood. So, here, Plato tells us that in order for an account to be considered irrefutable and invincible, it need only be analogous, likely, and believable. 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.

Moving on, you quoted the following passage as evidence suggesting that Plato was describing a real place:


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


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

…to which I responded:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then responded by saying:


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

To which I respond that your perception that “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. As the narrator of the story, however, he, nevertheless, felt an obligation to pass-on to his audience that which was related to him, regardless of its factual accuracy – just as the story of Atlantis continues to this day to be transmitted regardless of its historacy. Critias’ own disbelief, by its very nature, cannot therefore in any way be construed as evidence of the “trueness” of the story, hence, my remark regarding your false logic and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity.

Next, you wrote:


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..."


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

To which I replied:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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. It’s ridiculous!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which you then responded by saying:


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


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

There are so many errors contained in your response that I hardly know where to begin. Allow me to begin by stating that I take your remark - about how you view my remark regarding the hearsay in Critias’ statements and how it reminds me of a group of bored, gossipy, 1950’s housewives as “pedestrian” - as a compliment. 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.

First, please elucidate for us all where in the text Plato ever stated that the story of Atlantis was inscribed in writing on the pillars at the Temple of Neith, in Sais, in the Delta region of Egypt? Solon was told the story there, but it is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the text that the Temple of Neith was where the story was inscribed in Egypt.

Second, regarding the passage discussing Critias’ supposed possession of the “letters” (never, in any place, is it referred to as a manuscript!) that Solon brought back from Egypt, 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? And why did Critias earlier say that he had to recollect the story overnight, and from childhood, but, then, later change his tune and say that he had been in possession of Solon’s letters since childhood? None of Solon’s letters has ever surfaced, and nothing remains of the Temple of Neith, as it was destroyed long ago (not that the story was ever inscribed there); this means that there is still only one (not three) source for the Atlantis story – Plato. Oral tradition is certainly a possibility, but, if you support that argument you cannot then also support the argument of Critias’ supposed possession of Solon’s letters, now can you? So, which is it, Helios, letters or oral tradition, because you can’t have it both ways?

Third, I’m not sure what you consider to be “hearsay,” but Critias saying that he heard a story from his grandfather (Elder Critias), who heard it from his father (Dropides), who heard it from Solon (extended family member), who was told the story by an Egyptian priest in Egypt, is paramount to me saying that my grandfather (Robert) told me a story that his father (Michael) told him, who heard it from an extended family member (i.e., uncle, cousin), who was told the story by an Egyptian priest while on vacation in Egypt, back in 1804. So and so told me, that so and so told them, that so and so said, that someone told them that such and such happened, is hearsay. In this case it is hearsay that was put down in writing, in the form of a Greek dialogue, but it is hearsay, nonetheless. If you would rather read the dictionary’s definition of the word, I can supply it? Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition (Simon & Schuster, 1984), defines hearsay as:


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
hearsay evidence Law evidence based on something the witness has heard someone else say rather than on what he has himself seen or experienced: it is usually inadmissible as testimony


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

Hmmm. Curious how we find “gossip” included as one of the synonyms of hearsay, isn’t it? It would appear that my analogy of “gossipy women” wasn’t all that “misguided” after all, was it? If you’re shuddering, though, perhaps you should put on a jacket or turn down the air conditioner; you’re probably just cold.


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.)


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

Since I have already refuted your attempt at refuting my previous statement, that same previous statement of mine carries no less weight than it did before.


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.


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

You’re right, my comment does speak for itself, since I had already elucidated upon it earlier in the thread. Anyone not understanding that remark can therefore be directed back to my earlier postings in this thread for clarification.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 its truth, than perhaps both dialogues also simply appeared out of thin air, without the trouble of even having an author at all.


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

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.”


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


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

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.


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

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?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your own logic is quite suspect and your train of thought seems to wander, at times even towards the comic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s good stuff. No, really, you should take that act on the road.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the research I see from you also appears a bit sloppy and incomplete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can that be when, according to people like yourself, Brig, and dhill757, I haven’t revealed enough of my research for you to be able to know what it is about and/or effectively argue against it?


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

Again, Helios, turn down the air conditioner or put on a jacket. I’m sure that Andre will be able to attest as to the verbiage in my article after he is done reading it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mind you, I don’t know much about you, nor why you have engendered such hostility in others…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you don’t, and each person that feels hostility towards me will have to answer that question for their selves.


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

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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t simply assume Plato is trying to trick you…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never stated, or suggested, that Plato was trying to trick anybody. Once again, I have merely reported on the results of my most recent research. I don’t have a problem with those results. In fact, I find the results, and the possible ramifications stemming from them, infinitely more interesting than the suggestion that the story could be “true.” Each of you will have to ask yourselves why it is that the result of my most recent research engenders such hostility. I suspect that it is because you don’t like what you’re hearing, as well as, not liking the resultant ramifications of it being found to be true.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Often things are just as they appear to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet, also, all too often, they are not.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #84 on: March 13, 2008, 10:21:54 pm »

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 07-02-2004 07:31 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, I respect you for your effort, but anyone knows the ancients had no written word, only a spoken history.And that spoken history once witten down could have gotten all mixed up in the words  Smiley I suggest you jump on the bandwagon of a land that went down from earthquakes and some really new discoveries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2008, 10:22:29 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 07:56 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiri,
You might want to re-read my "little gem," and try reading it a little more carefully this time. I never said that Plato was wrong about Greece once having been more fertile in antiquity than it was during his day; what I said was:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critias erroneously used the condition of the Peloppenesian Peninsula during his day (i.e., "...like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left.") as "evidence," or "strong proof," of its former goodness of soil."
And:

Are you honestly going to try and say that the absence of good soil during Plato's day can be considered valid "evidence," or "strong proof" (as Critias says), that good soil used to exist???"


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

It is not "strong proof" or "evidence" that good soil used to exist. The absence of good soil during Plato's time can be construed as evidence that "erosion due to massive deforestation" might have occured, but it is not "evidence" that it did occur. Evidence for such a theory would have to come in the form of an observable, testable piece of data.

Furthermore, his comparison of the entire Peloppenesian Peninsula with a small island is like comparing apples to oranges. Although the same ravages can occur and be observed in both locations, an island is a much more isolated (and, as a result, usually more fragile) ecosystem. A much wider variety of plant and animal life usually exists at mainland locations that can serve to replace the old, extinct, and defunct ecosystem. Small islands, due to their isolation, take much longer to either be replaced or bounce back - if they ever do at all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance of water implies lush forests, which imply uneroded soil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An abundance of water can also imply rich grasslands and swamps & marshes; it does not necessarily imply only lush forests.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the cultivation of land in the now desolate mountains was logging for timber, while clearing the land for cattle pastures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plato clearly stated that the ancient Athenians were free from "husbandry" (i.e., animal husbandry), which really just leaves the upper-class rulers and their subordinate "serf" farmers. Overfarming usually results in the depletion of minerals in the soil, which leads to reduced crop growth and lowered yields. This would have probably resulted in the abandonment of that particular plot of land in favor of another in antiquity, which would have resulted in the replacement of the normally dominant form of plant life (domestic crop) in that plot of land with that of another, less-demanding, form of plant life - probably a grass or weed of some sort. The growth of the new grasses or weeds would have helped to prevent erosion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plato says that springs were marked by certain sacred objects. The springs had gone, but the objects marking the springs had remained. There is your proof, Erick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacred objects marking the site of once-existing sacred springs is evidence to suggest that springs once existed in those locations, but dried up in antiquity - the cause for which must still needs be found. It is not, however, "proof" that Greece once contained an abundance of good soil. A spring can dry up for a myriad of reasons; springs can, over time, lose the energy that once caused the spring to emerge from the earth, due to some outside force acting upon them (e.g., earthquake induced), as in the case of ground water, draining down from higher surrounding ground, being forced to be redirected elsewhere.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You took this magnificient passage from Plato, and spat venom on it, Erick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did no such thing; I merely pointed out that Plato overstated his argument and used what we now know to be false logic and an erroneous comparison to serve as "proof." While it may have been an acceptable argument during his day, we now know that it is not. The only venom being spat here is by you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: This passage from Plato is flawless. Its scientific value is extraordinary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really. Its more like an educated guess on Plato's part.

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 07-02-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #86 on: March 13, 2008, 10:22:59 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 08:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,
Thanks. And thank you for the invite, but I believe I'll walk this time.  Wink

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #87 on: March 13, 2008, 10:23:25 pm »

rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 08:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Erick,
This has been a facinating thread!

I would like to add something to the stew.

In HOMER IN THE BALTIC, Dr. Felice Vinci's thesis, he suggests that the Mediterranean was peopled by migrations moving south down the riverways and by sea from the far north following the period that included the events of the Iliad and Odyssey when the temperatures were dropping and crops were failing for extended periods.

This was the time of the Achaeans, pre-dating the Mycenaeans which pre-dated the Greeks (Hellenes). They renamed the southern places with the names of places where they were from. Apparently as the Achaeans were overtaken by the Mycenaeans, and they by the Greeks and others, the memory of migration was lost even as the poetry and the gods held.

For instance Peloponesse means Pelope's island. In the Mediterranean it is most definately NOT an island. The original Peloponesse in the Baltic Sea is not only an island, but conforms exactly with Homer's description.

The description of the lush growth of forests, the water ways, streams, rivers, countless springs etc. matches perfectly with the statements you mention, and also match Homer's depiction. (As does the cold weather, "wine dark sea"s" etc. etc.)

I would be glad to put you in touch with him. He will send a copy in English to interested scholars. One of the most facinating reads I've ever had.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #88 on: March 13, 2008, 10:23:45 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-02-2004 09:02 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick the more you write the less you say. Your arrogance is showing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 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..."
Helios
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1819



« Reply #89 on: March 13, 2008, 10:24:07 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 09:11 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
That's so very deep. BTW, it isn't arrogance, it's confidence.


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

"Unleash the power of mediocrity." 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 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