153 replies to this topic

[CuriousGreek]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

Just as a couple of examples, there's not a shred of evidence for the existance of either triremes or chariots circa 9600 BC. Pretty much everything that Plato mentions in regards to Atlantis are Bronze Age technologies at best.

cormac

Maybe some of that evidence was destroyed. We can't really know for sure!

[Proclus]

CuriousGreek, on 31 December 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Maybe some of that evidence was destroyed. We can't really know for sure!

I would say this is the more unlikely possibility.
See above my answer on cormac's posting,
it provides the more reasonable way of interpretation.

[cormac mac airt]

CuriousGreek, on 31 December 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Maybe some of that evidence was destroyed. We can't really know for sure!

I wouldn't count on it considering the earliest evidence for boats even remotely near the area, in the form of canoes, doesn't occur until circa 6000 BC and the earliest evidence for domesticated horses coming later at circa 3500 BC. Both post-date the claim for Atlantis by several thousand years.

cormac

[kampz]

Imaginarynumber1, on 30 December 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

It doesn't matter what Aristotle thought of Atlantis. It doesn't exist.

Edit: And welcome to the forums. Brace yourself...

We assume since nothing we found that we're seeing is screaming the name "Atlantis" on it. If it doesn't matter what Aristotle thinks it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. I'm unsure Platos Atlantis existed, but I don't think it did. I'm pretty sure it didn't. Things "disappear" and Humans always forget history no matter how important you and me would take it.\

Using the word "Trireme" to talk about a warship is true. Definitions do not always help. The thesaurus will help a lot more.

Edited by kampz, 31 December 2012 - 01:14 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

kampz, on 31 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

We assume since nothing we found that we're seeing is screaming the name "Atlantis" on it. If it doesn't matter what Aristotle thinks it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. I'm unsure Platos Atlantis existed, but I don't think it did. I'm pretty sure it didn't. Things "disappear" and Humans always forget history no matter how important you and me would take it.

We don't have to assume anything. Whether one looks at the claim archaeologically, geologically, technologically or genetically all four avenues support each other in saying Atlantis didn't exist.

cormac

[kampz]

We assume and there's a way that time will never tell us. Unless I assume which I do that an extra-terrestrial, something and/or someone can tell me. I agree with you, but it's one of those 99.9% things.

Edited by kampz, 31 December 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

kampz, on 31 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

We assume since nothing we found that we're seeing is screaming the name "Atlantis" on it. If it doesn't matter what Aristotle thinks it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. I'm unsure Platos Atlantis existed, but I don't think it did. I'm pretty sure it didn't. Things "disappear" and Humans always forget history no matter how important you and me would take it.\

Using the word "Trireme" to talk about a warship is true. Definitions do not always help. The thesaurus will help a lot more.

Nothing about Atlantis is supported in history nor has ever been found. There is no reason to assume that it was ever real. A giant advanced civilization exists yet is only mention twice by a Greek 9000 years later? They exist in no myth, no art, no nothing.

[kampz]

I agree and I still stand by everything else I said in this thread.

[the L]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

I wouldn't count on it considering the earliest evidence for boats even remotely near the area, in the form of canoes, doesn't occur until circa 6000 BC and the earliest evidence for domesticated horses coming later at circa 3500 BC. Both post-date the claim for Atlantis by several thousand years.

cormac

Thats why we in history say earliest evidence we have. That doesnt mean that horse wasnt domesticated earlier then we have evidence.

[the L]

Proclus, on 30 December 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Good question, the L!
The argument is basically the following: Since there is no explicit statement by Aristotle (Strabo 2.3.6 is disproved, see above), there are only indirect ways to find out. Aristotle talks of land west of Gibraltar, he talks of Elephants at the extreme west and east suggesting a land bridge not existing any more. He talks of the mud west of Gibraltar. He never disproves Plato's Atlantis. Aristotle's disciples talk positivley of Plato's Atlantis. So all in all there is a very good chance that Aristotle was more in favour of an existence of Atlantis.

Can you give link about land west of Gibraltar and elephants?

Maybe he didnt say nothing against it and nothing which confirm it because most of Arisotele work is lost. We have just notes of him. Not works as books.

Edited by the L, 31 December 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[Proclus]

Oh, I like this multi-quote facility in this forum! :-)

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

I wouldn't count on it considering the earliest evidence for boats even remotely near the area, in the form of canoes, doesn't occur until circa 6000 BC and the earliest evidence for domesticated horses coming later at circa 3500 BC. Both post-date the claim for Atlantis by several thousand years.

Right, but even more convincing is to look on Plato's philosophy of cyclical time and the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history.
Then it becomes clear: It is meant to be real, but the Greeks simply screw up the knowledge on far-away history.

kampz, on 31 December 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Using the word "Trireme" to talk about a warship is true. Definitions do not always help. The thesaurus will help a lot more.

Thanks. It may surprise Atlantis skeptics, but the "Trireme" thing is no objection against the existence of Atlantis.

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Whether one looks at the claim archaeologically, geologically, technologically or genetically all four avenues support each other in saying Atlantis didn't exist.

Hm, not only Atlantis searchers, also Atlantis skeptics should apply historical-critical thinking.
And then your skeptical list becomes ... empty.
There are not only Atlantis searcher crackpots, there are also Atlantis denier crackpots, aren't there?

Imaginarynumber1, on 31 December 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

There is no reason to assume that it was ever real.
A giant advanced civilization exists yet is only mention twice by a Greek 9000 years later?

Well, there is MUCH reason to assume that Plato speaks seriously when it comes to Atlantis,
but maybe you search for the wrong thing? I suggest considering the historical context.
Like with the Triremes. Looking 9000 years before is simply missing the point.
Only crackpots do this.

the L, on 31 December 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Can you give link about land west of Gibraltar and elephants?
Maybe he didnt say nothing against it and nothing which confirm it because most of Arisotele work is lost. We have just notes of him. Not works as books.

I like most the L's comments, they are so constructive!
There is e.g. the "Columbus passage" (my naming): De caelo II 14 297b-298a.
http://classics.mit.... On the heavens
(You have to scroll down to 14 and a bit farther)
And you are right: In contrary to Plato's works, much of Aristotle's works are lost.

Edited by Proclus, 31 December 2012 - 11:43 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Oh, I like this multi-quote facility in this forum! :-)



Right, but even more convincing is to look on Plato's philosophy of cyclical time and the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history.
Then it becomes clear: It is meant to be real, but the Greeks simply screw up the knowledge on far-away history.



Thanks. It may surprise Atlantis skeptics, but the "Trireme" thing is no objection against the existence of Atlantis.



Hm, not only Atlantis searchers, also Atlantis skeptics should apply historical-critical thinking.
And then your skeptical list becomes ... empty.
There are not only Atlantis searcher crackpots, there are also Atlantis denier crackpots, aren't there?



Well, there is MUCH reason to assume that Plato speaks seriously when it comes to Atlantis,
but maybe you search for the wrong thing? I suggest considering the historical context.
Like with the Triremes. Looking 9000 years before is simply missing the point.
Only crackpots do this.



I like most the L's comments, they are so constructive!
There is e.g. the "Columbus passage" (my naming): De caelo II 14 297b-298a.
http://classics.mit.... On the heavens
(You have to scroll down to 14 and a bit farther)
And you are right: In contrary to Plato's works, much of Aristotle's works are lost.

The story as told has a specific location with a specific timeframe and a specific level of technology. Changing any of these is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize Atlantis into existance. Such attempts of which have placed its existance in many locations around the world.

Literalists do this, which is what the debate is about.

cormac

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

The story as told has a specific location with a specific timeframe and a specific level of technology. Changing any of these is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize Atlantis into existance. Such attempts of which have placed its existance in many locations around the world.
Literalists do this, which is what the debate is about.

Unfortunately, your argumentation is not scientific.
With the very same argumentation you could declare Herodotus' Egypt as an unreal country.
Egypt is not 11340 years old, as Herodotus stated. The Nile is not as long as Herodotus stated.
The Egyptian king list of Herodotus is partially screwed up. Etc. etc.
But Egypt is real. There are understandable reasons why Herodotus got it wrong unintentionally.

And the same applies to Plato and Atlantis.

Plato's notion of 9000 years is not just any fabled number of years, it fits into Plato's view of cyclical history and the alleged age of Egypt. It is not meant to be fiction, phantasy, an invention, unreal. Modern researchers have the task to interprete these 9000 years to modern chronologies, like the 11340 years of Herodotus (they correspond to approx. 3000 BC).

Atlantis searchers who do not consider the context are searching on a wrong way.
Atlantis skeptics who deny Atlantis not considering the context are denying in a wrong way.

Insisting on the Atlantic Ocean 9600 BC is not scientific.
It is scientific to understand why Plato and the Egyptians screwed up this or that.
And with this understanding (not without it!) you are enabled to search for the real Atlantis.
You cannot just "change" and "bend" anything as you like.
You must have an understanding why something is distorted by tradition.

This, then, is not a "rationalization of Atlantis into existance", this is the real Atlantis.
Not a fabled country, but a most likely disappointingly unimportant culture and city, such as Troy, e.g.

As the real Egypt is related to the Egypt described by Herodotus.
Maybe you should try to find Egypt on a map? It is there!
Although some things changed compared to Herodotus :-)

Edited by Proclus, 31 December 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[Abramelin]

The problem is that Herodotus' stories and accounts could be checked by going to Egypt because its location was known, but we cannot go to Atlantis to check what was right and what was wrong in Platos story and that's because we don't know where (or when) it was.

If it was.

[Proclus]

Abramelin, on 31 December 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

The problem is that Herodotus' stories and accounts could be checked by going to Egypt because its location was known, but we cannot go to Atlantis to check what was right and what was wrong in Platos story and that's because we don't know where (or when) it was.

If it was.

Thank you, Abramelin, this is a most scientific attitude!