153 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

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 :-)

There is no scientific foundation involved in support of Plato's story of Atlantis.

While Egypt does exist, Herodotus' understanding of Egypt does not. The difference between the two does not make Herodotus' understanding equal to the real thing.

The whole story was meant to be an allegorical tale. Outside of mythical origins Egypt didn't have an existance prior to c.3100 BC. So any alleged age for Egypt prior to this is irrelevant.

It is the story that we have though. And yet, in all of Egypt there is no mention of anything that could be remotely understood as Atlantis. So the Egyptians didn't screw up anything. If anyone did, it was Plato. As to changing things as you like, that's exactly what you're doing. The story, as a place, doesn't exist prior to Plato and exists nowhere in Ancient Egyptian myths or legends. Plato is its start and finish.

cormac

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

There is no scientific foundation involved in support of Plato's story of Atlantis.

This is just a statement, very dogmatic.

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

While Egypt does exist, Herodotus' understanding of Egypt does not. The difference between the two does not make Herodotus' understanding equal to the real thing.

Yes, exactly. It is not equal, but there is a correspondance.
The real Egypt is meant.

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

The whole story was meant to be an allegorical tale.

Again a dogmatic statement. Any proof for this?
Why does Plato call it a "logos", then?

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Outside of mythical origins Egypt didn't have an existance prior to c.3100 BC. So any alleged age for Egypt prior to this is irrelevant.

Yes, exactly. Or to be precise: The alleged date for king Menes has to be mapped to the real date of king Menes.
And it's most probably the same with Atlantis.
You have begun to understand!

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

And yet, in all of Egypt there is no mention of anything that could be remotely understood as Atlantis.

Don't we?
What about the Hyksos  who introduced the chariot and had  a capital city on a hill surrounded by rings of Nile water?
PS: The Hyksos capital had also Minoan freskoes ...!
What about the Sea Peoples who came from islands in the sea?
There are enough possibilities.
You are too quick in denying.

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

So the Egyptians didn't screw up anything. If anyone did, it was Plato.

Ah well, and what about the so many known stories from Egyptian hieroglyphs which we know are surely screwed up?
Such as the report that "the people of Israel is no more". Am I mistaken or does this people still exist today?

Edited by Proclus, 31 December 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[Abramelin]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

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

Please tell me if I am wrong, but is it correct when I say  I smelled some sarcasm here? Lol.

If it is, it's ok, if it's not, sorry.

[Proclus]

Abramelin, on 31 December 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Please tell me if I am wrong, but is it correct when I say  I smelled some sarcasm here? Lol.

If it is, it's ok, if it's not, sorry.

No sarcasm at all! The problem with Atlantis is indeed that we have to re-construct the historical distortions without knowing where this path will lead us. Maybe to nowhere. But before we tried we cannot say. Premature denial of Atlantis is as wrong as premature literal interpretation of Plato's text.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

This is just a statement, very dogmatic.



Yes, exactly. It is not equal, but there is a correspondance.
The real Egypt is meant.



Again a dogmatic statement. Any proof for this?
Why does Plato call it a "logos", then?



Yes, exactly. Or to be precise: The alleged date for king Menes has to be mapped to the real date of king Menes.
And it's most probably the same with Atlantis.
You have begun to understand!



Don't we?
What about the Hyksos  who introduced the chariot and had  a capital city on a hill surrounded by rings of Nile water?
PS: The Hyksos capital had also Minoan freskoes ...!
What about the Sea Peoples who came from islands in the sea?
There are enough possibilities.
You are too quick in denying.


Ah well, and what about the so many known stories from Egyptian hieroglyphs which we know are surely screwed up?
Such as the report that "the people of Israel is no more". Am I mistaken or does this people still exist today?

And your evidence for the use of the name Atlantis for any location and timeframe, other than where Plato locates it, would be what?

cormac

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

And your evidence for the use of the name Atlantis for any location and timeframe, other than where Plato locates it, would be what?

But it's clear: Research ist still ongoing! Atlantis is not found, yet. No evidence, yet. The described way still has to be walked. The Aristotle-not-against theme of this Thread (first posting) is one step of many to go. Science has to live with I-do-not-know-yet situations.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

But it's clear: Research ist still ongoing! Atlantis is not found, yet. No evidence, yet. The described way still has to be walked. The Aristotle-not-against theme of this Thread (first posting) is one step of many to go. Science has to live with I-do-not-know-yet situations.

Science has already shown that Atlantis, as described and where located by Plato, has never existed. It has also shown that the story of Atlantis has never been found in Ancient Egypt at any point in its 3000+ year existance. Those are the only points that really matter. Trying to remove Atlantis from it's alleged time and place in order to claim relevancy to the original story are disingenuous at best, if not an outright fabrication.

The above doesn't mean that Plato's tale couldn't have been influenced by peoples or events more contemporary to his time, but that doesn't make them "Atlantis".

cormac

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

It has also shown that the story of Atlantis has never been found in Ancient Egypt at any point in its 3000+ year existance.

Here I would say that science never tried to search with serious intention.
You just avoided to mention my above mentioned examples of Egyptian history.
Or to be precise: Science did search, until a certain point of time, then it stopped,
and only few scientists went on.

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

Those are the only points that really matter.
Trying to remove Atlantis from it's alleged time and place in order to claim relevancy to the original story
are disingenuous at best, if not an outright fabrication.

Sorry, but this is a totally unscientific dogmatism which I clearly have to reject.
This simply meant to put a ban on searching before you know whether something can be found or not.
And again I have to emphasize: To avoid applying historical-critical method to Plato's Atlantis is an outrageous unscientifc dogmatism. It is totally unacceptable for science to ignore Plato's theory of cyclical history and to ignore the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history. It is totally unacceptable to treat the Atlantis account disregarding its context.

You love the 9000 year dogma because it is so easy for you to use it as an argument against Atlantis searchers, do you? But look: You  and many professional scientists are wrong. You have to see this in the context of the time. The Greeks - all Greeks - really thought that the history of Egypt (and all what is connected with it) went back over 10000 years. You cannot just say that because Plato wrote of 9000 years it is all bull****. There are more reasonable scientists who say that Plato meant a point of time in the early Egyptian history, so in modern terms e.g. 2500 BC, just as an example. The world is not cracking down if you dare to accept such a view. Look, it seems that there is something to learn for you.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Here I would say that science never tried to search with serious intention.
You just avoided to mention my above mentioned examples of Egyptian history.
Or to be precise: Science did search, until a certain point of time, then it stopped,
and only few scientists went on.



Sorry, but this is a totally unscientific dogmatism which I clearly have to reject.
This simply meant to put a ban on searching before you know whether something can be found or not.
And again I have to emphasize: To avoid applying historical-critical method to Plato's Atlantis is an outrageous unscientifc dogmatism. It is totally unacceptable for science to ignore Plato's theory of cyclical history and to ignore the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history. It is totally unacceptable to treat the Atlantis account disregarding its context.

You love the 9000 year dogma because it is so easy for you to use it as an argument against Atlantis searchers, do you? But look: You  and many professional scientists are wrong. You have to see this in the context of the time. The Greeks - all Greeks - really thought that the history of Egypt (and all what is connected with it) went back over 10000 years. You cannot just say that because Plato wrote of 9000 years it is all bull****. There are more reasonable scientists who say that Plato meant a point of time in the early Egyptian history, so in modern terms e.g. 2500 BC, just as an example. The world is not cracking down if you dare to accept such a view. Look, it seems that there is something to learn for you.

The story is what it is. Your attempt to validate it as something else is irrelevant. And your "more reasonable scientists" have done nothing to validate its existance within the archaeological or textual evidence that is extant to us. Wanting it to be true does not make it true.

cormac

[Imaginarynumber1]

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

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.

Missing the point is assuming that a couple parables are a factual account. Is it possible that Plato's story of Atlantis is based off an actual event or civilization? Absolutely. The Minoans, perhaps, or the island of Santorini(Thera).
But to assume that there was a great continent in the Atlantic that was sunken, no, it's not possible.

Even if the timeline that Plato used was wrong, it still doesn't add up. Atlantis seekers always use Troy as an example of a lost civilization that was found. This is a false equivalency.  The story of the fall of Troy was ingrained in the Greek culture. It was in art and literature. It had evidence. Atlantis has no such evidence anywhere in any culture at all.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 31 December 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 31 December 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

The story is what it is. Your attempt to validate it as something else is irrelevant. And your "more reasonable scientists" have done nothing to validate its existance within the archaeological or textual evidence that is extant to us. Wanting it to be true does not make it true. cormac

I see that you do not want to follow scientific considerations.
You prefer to stay with your known simple beliefs.
Wanting it to be not true does not make it untrue.

Imaginarynumber1, on 31 December 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

Missing the point is assuming that a couple parables are a factual account. Is it possible that Plato's story of Atlantis is based off an actual event or civilization? Absolutely. The Minoans, perhaps, or the island of Santorini(Thera). But to assume that there was a great continent in the Atlantic that was sunken, no, it's not possible. Even if the timeline that Plato used was wrong, it still doesn't add up. Atlantis seekers always use Troy as an example of a lost civilization that was found. This is a false equivalency. The story of the fall of Troy was ingrained in the Greek culture. It was in art and literature. It had evidence. Atlantis has no such evidence anywhere in any culture at all.

First, Atlantis is not presented as a "couple of parables" but as plain truth.
Sorry, but it's not presented as a tale. It's presented as logos, a high-quality standard of proven truth.
Then, it depends on how close the distorted historical traditon comes to the point Plato wants to make or not.
If yes, then we can talk of the real Atlantis.

I do not want anybody to "believe" in Atlantis. Just to accept that it is an open question.

(Where are all the Atlantis believers? I see a lot of stubborn skeptics here!)

Edited by Proclus, 31 December 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[kampz]

Proclus are you just saying the time of when Atlantis existed is incorrect and we should almost completely ignore Platos account? What parts in your opinion hold truth in to Platos story?

With that said I don't know what to think and I don't know how Atlantis ever became into existence.

Minoans traveled to Turkey, Egypt and Jerusalem. There's not a lot about Minoans traveling out west. How can it be Minoan if it is? How do I know what Platos North, West, South and East was for sure when explaining Atlantis? Ignoring the Pillars of Hercules comment from him. If it's the Straits of Gibraltar then I'm stuck. I assume. How are hominids found on Crete by the way? Can they build boats? I saw that when looking.

If I go farther West of Malta, Tunis, Sicily and Rome there's not a lot of money I assume. It's all based off time. The odd guys out are the people of Northern Europe and England.

Atlantis is like Lord of the Rings in a way. There's a battle at Minas Tirith then yada yada Mordor sinks into the Earth.

Does anybody know what Ancient Rome said about Atlantis if anything before I'm off on my quest to look for myself? Seriously Rome should of or would of took a dump on Atlantis and Greece if it wasn't real.

Edited by kampz, 01 January 2013 - 03:04 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

I see that you do not want to follow scientific considerations.
You prefer to stay with your known simple beliefs.
Wanting it to be not true does not make it untrue.



First, Atlantis is not presented as a "couple of parables" but as plain truth.
Sorry, but it's not presented as a tale. It's presented as logos, a high-quality standard of proven truth.
Then, it depends on how close the distorted historical traditon comes to the point Plato wants to make or not.
If yes, then we can talk of the real Atlantis.

I do not want anybody to "believe" in Atlantis. Just to accept that it is an open question.

(Where are all the Atlantis believers? I see a lot of stubborn skeptics here!)

What scientific considerations? You've not shown that you follow scientific methodology as regards Plato's account of Atlantis. Because that's the only account that matters. It certainly doesn't include moving Atlantis in either time or place so one can rationalize it into existance, which seems to be your preference. And as I already mentioned the results from various scientific disciplines has shown Plato's Atlantis didn't exist. If you have something to show that such is incorrect than present it, otherwise it's a dead issue.

cormac

[kampz]

I've have a question regarding technology back in ancient times. Shouldn't humans have all the same capabilities that we always have had since our first appearance? I mention this because they're chariots and wheels involved in the story. So what? It's wood in a form of a box and so are boats. I can use a card board box and make a chariot. Rocks in Flintstones are wheels. Use some wood. I'm saying Humans were smart compared to everything else on Earth right from the very start I assume. I just hope the damn island didn't appear and disappear if it ever existed.

Edited by kampz, 01 January 2013 - 04:08 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

Proclus, on 31 December 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

...

Yes, exactly. Or to be precise: The alleged date for king Menes has to be mapped to the real date of king Menes.
And it's most probably the same with Atlantis.
You have begun to understand!

The foundation of the Egyptian kingdom around 3100 BCE is not in question. The precise identification of Menes is. Some scholars believe he was one and the same as Narmer while others say he was one and the same as Aha. The latter group points to this ivory label found in the mastaba of Neithhotep as proof that Aha and Menes were the same. Note the two sereks in the upper-right corner. The name inside the one at left reads Aha and the one at right Menes. Does this mean they were the same people? Is Narmer to be excluded? The evidence is not clear, but the foundation of the kingdom has become an accepted date.

Menes also appears in the Abydos kings list in the temple of Seti I, as well as in other royal annals. The point is, we have archaeological attestation for this king, whomever he might have been, and we have ample archaeological evidence for the formation of the Egyptian state. Outside the pages of Plato, we have no such evidence for the existence of Atlantis. The fable of Atlantis pops up for the first time in Plato's Timaeus and Critias, and later writers merely commented on it. This doesn't make it real. We need clear physical evidence to define Atlantis as real, and such evidence doesn't exist.

Quote

Don't we?
What about the Hyksos  who introduced the chariot and had  a capital city on a hill surrounded by rings of Nile water?

The Hyksos capital of Avaris (Tell el-Daba) was located along a Delta branch of the Nile River. It was not surrounded by "rings of water." Tell el Daba has been extensively excavated over the decades and an understanding of the Hyksos has been achieved to a much larger extent than many people realize. Their ethnic identification as primarily Canaanites and origin from southern Palestine has been well established. What can the Hyksos possibly have to do with Atlantis?

At the same time, I applaud you for not trying to identify the Hyksos as Hebrews. That's one of the most common misconceptions I see at UM and it's grown tiresome.

Quote

PS: The Hyksos capital had also Minoan freskoes ...!

This is well understood. What does it have to do with Atlantis, however? Still, the destruction event of Thera remains a plausible origin source for Plato's allegory, even if most of the details and facts were long, long gone by his time.

Quote

What about the Sea Peoples who came from islands in the sea?

What about them? The Sea Peoples were a mixing of Aegean populations who raided kingdoms at the end of the Bronze Age. They were never a nation-state or a united socio-political entity. This may well have been the era from which the story of Troy emerged, but I don't see any connections with Atlantis.

To understand the Atlantis story one must understand Plato and the polis of Athens in the specific time during which Plato penned Timaeus and Critias. What traumatic event had Athens recently experienced to inspire a philosopher to write a cautionary tale about the hubris of a city and its people? The Greeks loved that concept of hubris. They always warned one another that once a people or its city grew too big for its britches and thought too highly of itself, the gods would squash it.

Cormac is correct. Plato was not an historian. Atlantis was an allegorical tale.