|
Helios
|
Helios
Member
Member # 2019
Member Rated:
posted 07-12-2004 01:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig, Anteros, thank you for the kind words. Not to worry, I'll handle this, gentlemen...
Erick,
I suggest you use your vast knowledge of eptimology, not to mention your Webster's dictionary, to look up the words "true", "truly" and, of course, "fact." I note, with interest, that those seem to be of the few words of Plato's who's meanings you do not supply. My position has remained consistent in this throughout, I merely say that when Plato says "true", he means "true." It is only to those with particularly obtuse minds wherein "true" actually means "false." Any other issues besides that, your "list", for instance, is a mere sidebar meant to divert attention from the central "truth" of the dialogue. I need no diversionary tactics on my side, for "truth", it seems, is on my side.
Ah, Erick, wih each passage you write, your explanation vary a little more to suit the situation, your tone seems a little more desperate. I think that you are finally beginning to see the flaws in some of your arguments, though you are, as yet, loathe to admit them to any of us. I say this, not meaning to demean you, did I detect a tear in your voice behind some of your comments of today..?
First let me address this little kernel of wisdom of yours concering my use of the word "manuscript":
"As one who fancies himself an expert in eptimology," you'll be interested to know that R.G. Bury's translation also uses the word "writings."
And yet, on your quote of 07/02, you also said:
"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?"
Why? Why to find the truth, Erick, then again, I keep forgetting, you seem more interested in being "right" than in finding the truth. The quote continues:
"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?"
In all six uses by you of the word "letters" even though you claim that the Bury translation calls them "writings." Next, you'll tell me that you were paraphrasizing. Of course, my use of the word "manuscript" (two times) was simple paraphrasing, too. I was intending to let your usage of the word "slide" yet you made such a grand deal out of my own usage of "manuscript" that I must now say:
Yet another error on your part. Even if you now claim, as it seems you were that there is little difference between "writings" and "letters"I think we can all see you true "scientific methodology" at work here: spend voluminous amounts of time upon petty details that have little to do with the gist of the material in order to deflect attention from logic on your part when it is at it's weakest and most suspect.
Concerning this little pearl of today:
"My attack on the dialogues? Where do you come up with these cheesy lines? My arguments are less an attack on the dialogues, than your arguments are an attack on logic and common sense!"
Ah yes, Erick, far be it from you to have ever been insulting to anyone here, ever the victim.
Concering your attack on the dialogues, I refer you to your now infamous comments of 06/30:
" 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!
I trust that that was attack enough for both of us, though, of course now you'll no doubt simply say you were being "facetious." Again, I ask you, how can you ever hope to comprehend the dialogues if you don't even respect them?
"Propaganda
- Fear Mongering, Hate Mongering,
Scare Tactics
- Ridicule
Logical Fallacies - Circular Reasoning
- Non-Sequitur
- Shifting the Burden of Proof
Smokescreen - Ad Hominem
- Side-stepping
- Bluffing
- Subjectivity"
Honestly, this proves what I have been saying a thousandfold,for they each apply far more ably to your arguments than mine. My stated position has not changed, never wavered. I simply imply that "truth" means "truth". Why would I need to employ any such tactics when "truth" is on my side? "Truth" it seems only means "false" if one happens to be desperate to prove a vain new theory upon Atlantis. I invite anyone to read, even re-read the discussion, only yourself or one who happens to be a good friend of yours could even remotely see the logic in such ill-formed, mal-nourished arguments as yours. A shame upon you to even try to deflect these items upon me when each happened to be a method of your employ at almost every posting.
quote:
"I have lived in these texts for the past six years. How can I return to something I never left?"
I find that statement most comical considering the lack of knowledge you have displayed upon the topic. It is quite plain to myself and anyone just how much work needs to be done on your behalf. Again, I suggest a return to the dialogues, yet this time, perhaps try a version other than the "Bury" version. The versions by either Jowett or Lee first come to mind. Jowett's, perhaps first for it does seem to be the most enlightened of them all. At any rate, please do not return to the "writings" of Mr. Gill, as has been known to also confuse, rather than enlighten, those who happen to embark upon an honest quest for Plato.
Your quote regarding Brig:
"Yes, but only that you are consistently angry, hateful, and bitter."
Again, it would seem that anyone who agrees with you is subject to this same kind of treatment.
Regarding Anteros:
"Anteros, Please feel free to elaborate, at any time, as to how Helios has succeeded in making me look like a "ranting buffoon."
"Hmmmm, "ranting buffoon," I guess that would fall under "Propaganda: Ridicule."
"Perhaps you should re-read the site a third time?
Please don't wish that upon them. Actually, it is you that might do well to re-read your comments of the last few postings, Erick, for it is plain that they are becoming increasingly more bitter and hostile. I realize that you now see long-cherished theories of yours currently unravelling before your eyes, but that is the way of things, especially if they are faulty to begin with. Bring them only to friends or family if you wish consistent encouragement. Now, of course, we'll all be in for another long-winded diatribe of yours in response. Please do not confuse the quantity of your material wih the quality, however. I think that others are "onto" you when I hear comments like "the more you write, the less you say." The sad truth of the matter, for you, that is, is that, to me, your "writings" seem very much long on opinions even "hearsay", yet they sadly bereft of any actual "proof" to support your, at times, ill-formed conclusions.
Again, sadly, Plato himself is also no longer here to validate any new theories, all we have is his writings, one of which was:
"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?"
All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."
As I said, the dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have indeed taken quite a beating.
Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.
As I have said, I don't see this so much as my own victory, Erick, but one on behalf of Plato, the Academy, perhaps even those who once may have dwelt in Atlantis. I am hoping that, if they really existed, their ghosts are at rest this night.
[This message has been edited by Helios (edited 07-12-2004).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004
|
