Atlantis Online
November 24, 2020, 04:14:53 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: ARE Search For Atlantis 2007 Results
http://mysterious-america.net/bermudatriangle0.html
 
  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 #90 on: March 13, 2008, 10:24:46 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 09:20 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
BTW, the change of my signature is in no way a reflection on you, nor is it directed at anyone in particular. I was looking at my 2004 calender from Despair, Inc. www.despair.com today; I think that particular quote is hilarious (but unfortunately a little true) and I wanted to use it as my signature. You just happened to be the first person I posted in response to after the signature had been changed. I just wanted to clarify that so that there was no misunderstanding. O.K.?


[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 #91 on: March 13, 2008, 10:25:09 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 09:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockessence,
Thank you for the offer; I'll consider it. I have read a little about Dr. Felice Vinci's thesis/theory here in the Forum and it is very interesting, but I am a little "uncomfortable" with some of the suggestions made in the thesis which would require history to be rewritten.

It should be noted, however, that the Thracians were one of the members of the Trojan alliance against the confederation of Mycenaean Greeks.

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



« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2008, 10:25:26 pm »

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 07-02-2004 10:02 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plato clearly stated that the ancient Athenians were free from "husbandry" (i.e., animal husbandry.
Erick did you happen to view the history of Stonehedge? How the northern people long for the old days of just hunting the large animals that went extint, and had to turn to seed to survive? They hated it and worship the gods of the old sun and moon circle to a return of that time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #93 on: March 13, 2008, 10:26:08 pm »

Helios

Member
Member # 2019

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

"Timaeus. How thankful I am, Socrates, that I have arrived at last, and, like a weary traveller after a long journey, may be at rest! And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right. Wishing, then, to speak truly in future concerning the generation of the gods, I pray him to give me knowledge, which of all medicines is the most perfect and best."

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

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

About the point concerning ancient Athens:

quote:

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

You in turn wrote:

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

Of that, I'll simply accept your apology.

And yet, you also wrote:

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

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

Your next quote:

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

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

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

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

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

I trust that I proved my point.

Your next quote:

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

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

About the Atlantean engineering works:

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

And which you said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Temple of Neith, from Timaeus:

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

Yet, another error on your part.

Regarding the manuscript, from Critias:

"I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child."

Yet another error on your behalf.

Your response to the manuscript:

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

(Sigh)

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

Your next quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

Warmest Regards,

Helios



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   
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 #94 on: March 13, 2008, 10:26:41 pm »

rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 01:50 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you GUYS!
I picture old Plato leaning over your shoulders as you disect and plot and grind your teeth, pecking madly at the keyboards. Does he shake his head and shrug in wonder, or twinkle and smile?

[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-03-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #95 on: March 13, 2008, 10:28:39 pm »

 
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 02:58 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A most interesting thread. But dear messenger shooters, think of one thing.
Try to envision Ericks line of thoughts. In the beginning, Erick was determined to solve the mystery of Atlantis. Now, there is always a motive to do something. If Erick would have considered that Atlantis did not exist from the beginning then why bother? Thousands of PhD's think similar, to them it's just another myth. Don't waste any time to it.

No I think that Erick's motives were twofold. He assumed that the Atlantis story could be true and that he would have a fair chance to find itwith his knowlegde and methods. The two elements together would give enough incentive to start the quest.

So based on the result of his work, Erick explained about the Sea peoples with the objective of identifying the location of the sacred city. However in that proces obviously the balance shifted to the philosophical site. What was the real objective of Plato?

And then the proverbal million volt idea probably struck at some point, but alas with some dissapoining consequences because the main motive suddenly ceased to exist.

So what do you do when you know you're chasing a ghost? I know of very many who would stall. Only the true scientific mind is capable of finishing the job like Erick did. In the history of science I don't see this happen very often. That's why paradigm shifts take usually more than 20 years.

Actually what I see here is a typical witch hunt like Gallileo for proposing that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

Erick it may comfort you that -as you know- Plato already described how it is to have accomplished a major step ahead and then what will happen when trying to convey that message.

We are all prisoners of Plato's cave:
http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/why.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if he once more had to compete with those perpetual prisoners in forming judgments about those shadows while his vision was still dim, before his eyes had recovered, and if the time needed for getting accustomed were not at all short, wouldn't he be the source of laughter, and wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW Erick did you send anything?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   
 
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 #96 on: March 13, 2008, 10:29:07 pm »

 
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-03-2004 03:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre, sloppy research is sloppy research and by any other name it remains sloppy research. I think Helios has punched enough holes into Ericks theory to seriously weaken or discredit it wholly. For an amateur Erick certainly "thinks" he's a genius. Like I've said before "he's a legend in his own mind".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #97 on: March 13, 2008, 10:29:56 pm »

Anteros

Member
Member # 1984

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 04:24 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios is the young Greek god of the sun. He is the son of Hyperion and Theia. By the Oceanid Perse, he became the father of Aeëtes, Circe, and Pasiphae. His other two daughters are Phaethusa ("radiant") and Lampetia ("shining")....Each morning at dawn he rises from the ocean in the east and rides in his chariot, pulled by four horses - Pyrois, Eos, Aethon and Phlegon -- through the sky, to descend at night in the west. He sees and knows all, and was called upon by witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude... you Rock!

That was a very restrainded yet confident response to Mr. Wright. It was obvious your temper almost got the best of you but not quite. You showed how a true gentleman conducts a debate. Impressive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 479 | From: New England | Registered: May 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 #98 on: March 13, 2008, 10:30:30 pm »

atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 07-04-2004 07:13 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios and/or Erick,
I want to interrupt your debate, to ask about an issue that was raised, but not settled in your recent posts.

Helios, using the Jowett translation, seems to say that Ancient Athens is clearly described. (We covered this in the 900 vs 9000 topic recently.)

Erick, using the Bury translation, seems to say that the geography of Ancient Athens is not decribed by Plato.

Is it true that the Jowett and Bury tranlations DISAGREE about whether Plato described the geographical borders of Ancient Athens?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2461 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   
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 #99 on: March 13, 2008, 10:30:55 pm »

 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-04-2004 02:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atalante,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, using the Bury translation, seems to say that the geography of Ancient Athens is not decribed by Plato.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said, stated, wrote, suggested, or implied any such thing. Please re-read my postings.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it true that the Jowett and Bury tranlations DISAGREE about whether Plato described the geographical borders of Ancient Athens?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not. Both translations have been performed on the exact same text and therefore cover the exact same material. The only difference between the two are the English words by which each translator chose to express that material.

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



« Reply #100 on: March 13, 2008, 10:31:21 pm »

Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-04-2004 07:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, Brig and Anteros, thank you for your kind words. I think it important that Plato's words be disseminated in an unbiased fashion, without agenda, insults or emotion.
Atalante, in answer to your inquiry, there are several variations in the text in the two most common translations, those by Jowett and Lee, apparently more still in the version that Erick seems to be using. In my view, those differences are not minor, but quite important. To this I can only say that it night be useful to do a line by line comparison of all the information pertinent to Atlantis and see how they differ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #101 on: March 13, 2008, 10:32:28 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-05-2004 08:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
This is really getting old and it is becoming very apparent to me that no amount of logic will ever reach an individual such as yourself, who clearly does not believe that they could ever be mistaken about anything, and will never admit error even when it is staring them in the face in big, bold, black and white print. Nevertheless, even though you continue to limit your responses and supposed refutations to mere conjecture and opinions, I will make an attempt, once more, to illustrate for you the failing in your logic.

In your most recent posting you wrote:


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

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


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

Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said it was not.

If you had been paying attention during this, our little exercise in futility, you would have noticed that you originally posted the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true.
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..."


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

Please notice (as I did) that you did not provide any section or paragraph reference as to where this passage is found in the Critias.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"this comment of Timaeus' was made (in Critias 106a)..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, therefore, supplied the section and parargraph reference for you (since you seem so loath to do so yourself) and (more importantly) for the other members of the Forum. You then replied by writing:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I then responded to that by writing:


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

Note the bold emphasis of the word "IS" between the phrases “Critias 106a” and “the first paragraph of the Critias”?

So, you then responded yesterday with:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first paragraph of Critias, I don't know why you implied that I said it was not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, you did not paid any attention to what I had written and erroneously assumed that I was somehow arguing with you that it was not the first paragraph of the Critias. Please take a little more time and read through my postings more carefully in the future, so that silly misunderstandings such as this can be avoided.

Now, in regards to what, specifically, Critias 106a discusses, you originally wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true.
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..."


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

So, your original point appears to have been that Critias 106a, the passage just quoted, is a passage that could be quoted to illustrate that Plato intended for the Atlantis story to be taken as true. You are clearly in error on this point, as nothing regarding Atlantis or its factuality is discussed in this passage. In fact, in the first paragraph of the Critias (i.e., 106a) Plato has Timaeus concluding his discussion on the Cosmos, and the transition from the first speaker (Timaeus) to the second speaker (Critias) is getting ready to occur. Timaeus is not doing anything but asking the "Being" (Universe) that he has just revealed (through his words) to grant that his "words endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him." In other words, Timaeus was asking the Being (Universe) to find Timaeus’ words (regarding the Being – Universe) to be true (truly spoken) and acceptable and allow those words to endure. It does not matter that the first paragraph of the Critias (i.e., 106a) is part of the preamble, or introduction, to the Atlantis story - a introduction, I might add, that runs from Critias 106a-108e. Nowhere in sections and paragraphs 106a-108e is the "truth" of the Atlantis story attested to.

So, please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

Moving on, you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 They finished the discussion of the gods the day before that, they are about to speak of the new day's stories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I’m not sure where you get the impression that another day has passed, but you are, again, in error. The only times that it is mentioned that a day has passed are in Timaeus 17a-20d, where the group’s participants discuss a summary review of the requisites of Socrates’ polity, which he stated in Timaeus 17c as “the kind of constitution which seemed to me (Socrates) likely to be the best, and the character of its citizens”, and again in Timaeus 25e-26c, where Critias relates how he vaguely recalled the story on his way home from the previous day’s discussions, and pondered it over during the night until he had recollected the whole story. He related the story to Timaeus and Critias on their way to that day’s discussion and told Solon that he was ready to relate the whole story, and all its details, to him then (at that moment). Socrates was delighted by that, but told him that they should speak in the appropriate order – that order being Timaeus first (who should begin with the origin of the Cosmos and end with the generation of mankind), then Critias (taking over from Timaeus mankind and also taking over from Socrates a select number of men superlatively trained and make them into citizens of the Athens of that bygone age – i.e., the Atlantis story), then Hermocrates last (speaking of nature versus nurture). Hermocrates, of course, never gets to speak in the dialogues, as the Critias ends with the Atlantis story abruptly being cut off. For the whole remainder of the Timaeus (27c-92c) Plato has Timaeus fulfilling his obligation, hence the name of the book - Timaeus. In the majority of the book Critias (), Plato has Critias fulfilling his speaking obligation, hence the name of the book – Critias. There probably would have been a third book entitled Hermocrates if Plato had ever finished this particular Greek dialogue, but he didn’t and so there isn’t.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Incidentally, the discussion of the day before you'll remember, was not simply about the gods but also, albeit briefly, of the war between Athens and Atlantis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have already elaborated upon, the short discussion in Timaeus took place earlier the same day as the longer, more protracted discussion. Please consult the books.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I think part of your problem with the interpretation is that you are working from a faulty copy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see, Helios; if you can’t attack my arguments, then you just attack the translation I’m working from and label it as somehow “faulty.” Interesting (but transparent) approach.

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

You in turn wrote:

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

Of that, I'll simply accept your apology.

And yet, you also wrote:

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

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


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

Hmmm. You conveniently left out:


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


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

Also, the passage Mr. Gill cited (Timaeus 29c) was not his “opinion,” but rather an observation of Plato’s own words, taken directly from the text. Once again, Plato wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus: “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.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Plato was able to justify using the word “true” in regards to Atlantis because the story was a likeness of Socrates’ model (the polity discussed the day before), it was analogous to the model of the polity discussed the day before, and it possessed likelihood (i.e., it was believable, plausible). Therefore, because the account was believable, then it could be accorded the label of “true.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Personally, I have never thought much of Mr. Gill or many of the commentators on Plato, at least how they are in a position to interpret Timaeus and Critias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him? What University is Mr. Gill associated with, Helios? The simple fact of the matter is that you’ve probably never even heard of Christopher Gill; your low opinion of him probably comes from the mere fact that he has stated a position contrary to your own.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 An argument could also be made that Plato, being a philosopher, is also a seeker of "truth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, but Philosophy and Truth do not necessarily always go hand-in-hand; Truth can be an idealized abstraction; it is therefore subjective and based, in part, upon perspective. Philosophy, on the other hand, by its very definition (i.e., logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the Universe), is objective and takes a cold, dispassionate look at the aforementioned topics. You should remember that “fact” and “truth” are not always one in the same; that is why scientists search for facts, not truth.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Your willingness to accept Gill or Taylor or any of the others who comment on them frankly speaks little for an independent mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reached my conclusions, on my own, through six years of research. The fact that the results of that research have caused me to change my mind about the reality of Atlantis should give you pause to ask yourself “why.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 There is certainly some truth in Timaeus being cosmological in nature…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you kidding me here? Sweet Moses, smell the roses! The Timaeus contains 64 sections (a full 318 paragraphs) dedicated to nothing but Timaeus’ cosmological treatises! Please, for goodness sakes, do us all a favor and pick up the book and read it!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 but Critias is given very real in it's details, dates and settings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was supposed to be. It was required to meet the burdens of being 1.) a likeness of the model of Socrates’ polity 2.) analogous to Socrates’ model of the polity 3.) likely (i.e. believable, plausible). Do you seriously consider 9,600 BC as a very “real” date? Do you seriously consider a city with a Bronze Age description existing in a Neolithic time period to be a very “real” setting? Do you seriously consider a city described as having an 1,800 foot-long tunnel through which its ships could sail as a very “real” detail?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nothing to do with the "cosmological nature of Timaeus", of course, by the time anyone had finished reading your response, they would have conveniently forgotten that there was a quote in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not if they are paying attention to what’s being said while they’re reading it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I trust that I proved my point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not at all.


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

I did not provide the definition of “true” in this instance, Plato did. The only thing Plato “intended” for us to believe is that Critias’ details of ancient Athens, the city of Atlantis, and the Athenians’ war with the Atlanteans, were put forth as an analogous, believable, likeness of Socrates’ polity in action.


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

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


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

Actually, Helios, what I said was “Your perception that ‘(my) interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in order to prove (my) point’ is exactly that – nothing but your perception.” You did not provide any evidence to support your contention that my interpretation was “reaching” in order to prove my point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 This explantation seems to reach even more than the last one in an attempt to prove your point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you have failed to provide any evidence to support that statement. Do I need to explain to you how the point/counterpoint process is supposed to work? I’ll tell you what; rather than explain the point/counterpoint process, I’ll just show it to you in action, instead, by demolishing any argument of yours to the contrary.

Critias stated that he found that particular description of Atlantis to be “incredible.” According to The Doubleday Roget’s Thesaurus in Dictionary Form (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977), the word “incredible” is synonymous with the words unbelievable, implausible, improbable, doubtful, questionable, nonsensical, absurd, and far-fetched. This means that we could supplant any one of these words in place of the word “incredible” in the text and it should basically read the same, since all of the synonyms will have basically the same meaning. So, let’s examine that passage with the words synonymous with “incredible” supplanted in its place, shall we?

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were unbelievable, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were implausible, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were improbable, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were doubtful, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were questionable, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were nonsensical, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were absurd, 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."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were far-fetched, 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."

Additionally, Plato has Critias saying that a work of such extent “could never have been artificial” (i.e., made by man and not by natural processes).

Furthermore, he ends this passage by saying “Nevertheless I must say what I was told." Words/phrases that are synonymous with “nevertheless” are “nonetheless, however, yet, in spite of, on the other hand, anyway, anyhow, notwithstanding, just the same, still, in any event, and regardless.” Would you also like to see these words supplanted in place of “nevertheless”?

Lastly, we can approach this passage in a couple of ways: 1.) Plato wrote the entire narrative and it is not based upon any actual, real, dialogue, in which case Plato wishes the reader to take notice of the far-fetched nature of that particular description of Atlantis. 2) Plato wrote the entire narrative but it is based upon an actual, real, dialogue, in which case Critias wanted Plato to take notice of the far-fetched nature of that particular description of Atlantis, and Plato wants us, the reader, to also to take notice of the far-fetched nature of that particular description of Atlantis, as expressed by Critias’ own disbelief. Otherwise, why else would he have mentioned it?

Moving on…


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bear in mind that Plato, Critias, Timaeus or Hermocrates had never beheld Atlantis or any of it's engineering works. And yet, they have a "manuscript" that holds all those details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, please illustrate for us all where in either the Timaeus or Critias Plato ever uses the word “manuscript”? In your last posting you wrote the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regarding the manuscript, from Critias:

"I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child."
Yet another error on your behalf.

Your response to the manuscript:

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

(Sigh)

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


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

Yes, I’m familiar with the passage, Helios, however, what I don’t see in evidence is the word “manuscript. Please find it for me and highlight it in bold in your next response. Writings can take many different forms, only one form of which is a manuscript. The simple fact is that Plato used the generic word “writings” indicating that he didn’t know what sort of writing it was. As evidenced from the passage just quoted above, however, it can be deduced that what was brought back from Egypt by Solon was the Egyptian forms of the names (i.e., hieroglyphic), the meanings of those names, and the Greek translation of those meanings. That is the only form of writing actually in evidence in Plato’s dialogues. There was no error on my part, and you have failed to make your case for there having been a “manuscript.”

No, I don’t study every book in my possession each night, but I do know where they all are – on my bookshelf where they belong. Books and writings were more valuable in Plato’s time than they are now, mainly because of their scarcity and the time and difficulty involved in reproducing them. Are we seriously supposed to believe that Critias simply forgot where he put it and had to go home and look for it? And if that is the case, then why did he have to call upon Mnemosyne (Memory) to remember the story and why did it take him a whole night to recall it? It is not rationale I’m offering up, it is reason. You are the only one making rationalizations.

Second, you’re right, not Plato, Socrates, Critias, Timaeus, or Hermocrates had ever laid eyes on Alantis or any of its engineering works; this would mean that all of the descriptions are based upon Critias’ hearsay testimony. This is also a point that I brought up in my last posting and, again, you have chosen to ignore it. Please address it now.


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

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?

In regards to you not seeing anything dispassionate or objective about my interpretation, this does not surprise me, considering what you apparently consider to be “objective” and “dispassionate.” Let’s examine your “dispassionate” and “objective” responses to my postings, shall we?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.”

“Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy.”
“When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.” (Note: I would love to see you try to provide evidence of this!)

“I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.”

“If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.”

“Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults.”

“Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.”


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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 quote:

hear•say (hir´sâ´) n. [ < phrase to hear say, parallel to G. hörensagen] something one has heard but does not know to be true; rumor; gossip—adj. based on hearsay
Hmm, first the insults, then the condescension. It would seem that there is a pattern wherein you always resort to bad behavior when you fail to make your case.


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

Just where, exactly, Helios, is the insult involved in quoting a dictionary? Or the condescension? Or the bad behavior? The definition of “hearsay” was posted so that everyone could see that “gossip” is a term synonymous with “hearsay”; in turn, this would allow them to see that my earlier observation about the bored, gossipy housewives was a valid observation – an observation to which, I might add, you have not returned a logical, reasonable, counter-argument.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 quote:

"Plato’s “plausible deniability” comes from his ability to deny that he ever meant it to be taken seriously, by being able to point to the fact that it is a Greek dialogue. On the other hand, should he choose to, he could also stand behind it as “truth” until such time as he is forced into some inescapable corner, at which point he can merely say “Aw, come on, its just a Greek dialogue.” He can stand behind it, but he can also deny its reality in a believable and logical manner, hence, it has “plausible deniability.”
This quote speaks to me of just how little your understanding of Greek culture is as a whole. Greek dialogues were considered important works, and Plato used his to teach, to instruct others, hardly mislead them. This, in a sense, is the whole meaning for the existence of the dialogues. Regardless of whether Atlantis exactly existed or not, he would not wish to have an "escape clause" offered to him in his work because he would, by it's very nature, wish for others to embrace it. Don't take my word on that, though, but bring this notion of an "plausible deniability" up to any scholars you know conversant in the works of the Greeks and see how far you get with it.


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

You just don’t ever seem to pay attention to what is being said. I never stated that Plato wished to have an “escape clause” or mislead anybody. If you will please examine that particular paragraph of mine you will notice the use of the following language:


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

My remark about “plausible deniability” does not presume anything. It does not presume that he would deny it and it does not presume that he wouldn’t deny it; it merely observes that the nature of the dialogue is such that it has plausible deniability. Let’s not forget that this work was not published during Plato’s lifetime; it was published posthumously and not really received all that well. Debates and arguments erupted regarding the truthfulness of the Atlantis story shortly after Plato’s death and they have continued to this day. Later Greek scholars, such as Strabo, made comments such as “if Plato invented their destruction, then he is nothing more than a maker of Achaean walls.” Plato’s own students argued against the story being true. This may be the reason that he put it aside and never finished it; then again, it might not. Only Plato will ever know the reason he didn’t finish it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Your next quote:
"The only misconceptions have been your own and I have clearly illustrated that your responses have been limited to non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator’s (i.e., Critias) own statement of incredulity. “Is that all you can come up with?” was a challenge for you to try again and (hopefully) do better."
Don't be disingenuos here, you were overestimating your own power to persuade, "pumping up" your own faulty conclusions, taking genuine debate lightly (I remember the references to Polly, even if you are backing away from them now), and doing your best to insult me. However, every one of the points I made are still valid ones and, again, your only response to them was your own non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons and, false logic (and a good deal of defensive insults). Your understanding of Plato at this point seems to be a generic one, if even that.


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

Why should I back away from the “Polly want a cracker” references? I’m not ashamed of them and the point being made in regards to those reference was that, in the dialogues, Socrates merely repeated what he had heard “like a parrot imitates a human.” Socrates can no more attest to the truthfulness of the story than you can.

I have, repeatedly, illustrated to the members of this Forum how your responses have been limited to non-contextual references (e.g., you cited Critias 106a as a reference to the “truthfulness” of the Atlantis story when, in fact, it is a request to the Being (Universe) that Timaeus’ words be found by the Being (Universe) to be true and acceptable), hearsay (e.g., you cited the hearsay testimony of Critias as evidence of the truthfulness of the Atlantis story, when hearsay, by its very nature, cannot be taken as evidence of anything other than gossip), false logic (both of the previous examples would fall into this category), and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity (I believe I covered this rather lengthily earlier in this posting). In regards to erroneous comparisons, I suppose I should have used the term erroneous conclusions, since I have shown how a great many of your conclusions have been erroneous and based in false logic.

There was no attempt to insult you in those statements, Helios; they were merely observations, nothing more, and it’s not as if I made any of those statements without providing arguments to support them. You keep making constant reference to these supposed insults. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

If your statements have been refuted through arguments based in logic and reason, then how could they still be considered valid?

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.


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

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


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

Helios, you can’t make the statement that “you can refute my research at its core” and then when invited to do so, simply disincline to look at it. Again, either “put up or shut up.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 quote:

"I find both your opinion and suggestion to be quite humorous, considering the limited understanding of the material you have evidenced in your postings. You would do well to take your own suggestion under advisement, to which I would add that you should study up on Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning."
Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults. I think it is clear to everyone who has been reading this just how little command you have of the material at hand. You seem to use Plato as "fast food," you delve in it only to find what you want, disregard the rest while often ignoring it's central truth. Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.


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

Exactly what point was offered up for debate, Helios? My response was written in response to your remark, which was the following:


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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing there but opinions and suggestions, therefore, there is nothing to debate.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I still suggest a more thorough, intuitive study of Plato. It is clear that much more work needs to be done on your behalf before you happen to get a firm grasp of the dialogues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I find this very humorous.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I trust I have shown, even to you now, that your work is quite sloppy, it's conclusions, most suspect and premature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not one iota.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I would suggest that you get other copies of the dialogues as it is also plain that that, not to mention your lack of understanding on several key points on the copies you do have, is a great part of the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume you are trying to blame my copy of the text again here, but who can tell since you didn’t finish a single thought.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I also suggest that if you continue your debates here, you try and behave in a more polite and civil manner. The truth is not to be gained by levving insults and accusations. Always remember, honest debate becomes lost when anger clouds the mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allow me to refresh you:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Let’s examine your “dispassionate” and “objective” responses to my postings, shall we?
“I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.”

“Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy.”

“When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.” (Note: I would love to see you try to provide evidence of this!)

“I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.”

“If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.”

“Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults.”

“Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.”


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

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



« Reply #102 on: March 13, 2008, 10:33:16 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-05-2004 10:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
You really like the word "boorish," don't you?  Wink


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



« Reply #103 on: March 13, 2008, 10:34:57 pm »

Aatlae
Member
Member # 1974

Rate Member   posted 07-06-2004 09:18 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK boys and girls,
It should be pointed out here that I am an impartial observer to this strain, never having posted, and certainly not wishing to commit myself to one side or another of this heated debate.
What I will say is this: Erick, what you seem to fail to understand is that you've come onto a forum where people fundamentally believe in Atlantis - so dismissing their theories and beliefs in such a sarcastic way is only going to wind them up.

As for you being 'not arrogant' - I'd look up the word if I were you. Because you seem to have confused "overbearing, presumptuous & aggresively assertive" with confidence.

It's a shame with all you've learnt about the past you couldn't learn some people skills as well.

Ben Harker
"The world is full of stories, but Erick's a rude prick"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | From: Plymouth, UK | Registered: May 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 #104 on: March 13, 2008, 10:35:38 pm »

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 11:11 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on Friends.
When a proper response is failing, the usual line of attack against new and fresh ideas is the "ad hominem" which you have been so abundant to our honest messenger of the bad news.

OK there may be a fine delicate line between Atlantis finders and Atlantis mystery solvers, but there should not be so much fuss about.

Let's try and revert to sciencific methods again. Erick has proposed a new hypothesis about Atlantis based on a new look at certain linguistic technicalities. Now, what do you do with a hypothesis, you verify the evidence and when there is more than one explanation, then there are simply more explanations. The number of explanations counts however, as well as the number of refuting evidence.

That takes presentation and discussion, giving exactly that was Plato was intending as I understand it, elaborating the relationship between believing and truth at extensio.

No need to throw mud, you all. Understand and enjoy the philosophy behind it.

BTW, the best way to debunk Erick, is finding Atlantis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   
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