2241 replies to this topic

[Harte]

Proclus, on 07 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Yes, the number of possibilities is infinite. *smile* The crucial thing is: Some are more likely, some less. This is scientific thinking. Yeah! Atlantis in your shoes e.g. has a very small likelihood. Furthermore you repeatedly ignore what I elsewhere stated, that you cannot just jump into any possibility, but you have to have reasons for this.

I repeatedly have to say: This black and white scheme, either "fact" or "not of interest" and nothing in between, this is so uneducated, really ... you can't sell this to me as "science", the crucial thing in science is to handle uncertainties.

Yes, that's why so many think Atlantis cannot but be a fiction: Because they do not bear the tension of not knowing. But staying in a we-do-not-know state is at the heart of science.

_

So I "fear the tension of not knowing?

That's a real hoot.  Or it would be if it wasn't so sad that you still haven't searched here.

Tell me, where are any remains of any scraps of the Egyptian mythology regarding Atlantis that the priests of Sais were so eager to tell Solon circa 530 BC?  Apparently, at that time, they knew the story well.  Since you insist it wasn't an oral history, where is it?  Where is anything at all that even looks like it?

You're gonna tell me that, 200 years later, Plato knew of the myth, but the Egyptians couldn't maintain it over those same 200 years?

Now there's a "scientific" view for you.  BTW, you have no business referring to any discourse on Atlantis as "scientific." After all, it is based on literature, not data or evidence.

Regarding your complaint that you cannot accept that my beliefs in this matter do not conform with yours, and your opinion that a "'fact or not of interest" and 'nothing in between'" position is "so uneducated," how, then do you explain the education on this very same subject that I have provided to you in this thread and in other threads of the forum?

There are no "facts" associated with Atlantis whatsoever, if you use the scientific understanding of the term; the very circumstance upon which you insist.  In the real world, outside of science,. there are many facts associated with Atlantis.  Primary among them is the fact that the only ancient source - the only ancient source - concerning Atlantis is Plato. Another fact is that later authors commented on Plato's work(s). Yet another fact is that a shyster - "Madame" Helena Blavatsky - took up Plato's moral tale and turned it into a cash cow, inducing (eventually) thousands of other similar crooks and liars to follow suit.

The last sentence above was general enough to pretty much cover the rest of the "facts" that are known about Atlantis.

Without actual facts - the scientific kind - it is safe to say that Atlantis never existed.  As far as your "no interest" characterization, I've worn out my interest in the subject over the last 30 years I've been looking into it.  Turns out that when you become truly educated on this subject, you eventually realize the truth of the situation - Atlantis was a fable.

Atlantis was what drove me into ancient history - a subject that was the ultimate in boredom to me and still is except in situations involving fantastical beliefs such as yours.

I've always been far more into truly ancient man, personally.  I prefer finding out about Homo Erectus and the varied types of Erectus, specifically, though I'm up for earlier versions as well.

Harte

Edited by Harte, 07 February 2013 - 10:29 PM.

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 07 February 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

I think the only theory that made geological sense, a theory that put Atlantis in the right place (Atlantic), the right time (9600 BCE), and also explained that it really sunk, is the one posted/published by Rod Martin (username "MissionAtlantis").

Here is the pdf in which he explains it in detail:

http://www.missionat...tis_geology.pdf

Proclus (the poster) should be interested in that pdf, given his desire to research the influences on Plato that affected his allegorical land of Atlantis.

But it doesn't answer the question of why there's no Egyptian record of the tale, when there was a record of it in a (fairly) recent period of Ancient Egypt (circa 530 BC.)

Harte

[Harte]

Proclus, on 07 February 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

I wonder how easily you say this: "what it was and is, a stroy of fiction". You can't be serious with this. This is at least not what Plato's dialogues say and many scholars do not assume that Plato just "invented" the elements of his "Platonic Myths", besides the fact that the Atlantis story is not presented as mythos like other Platonic Myths. Things are not that easy.

So, you haven't read "The Republic?"

In it, Plato lays out exactly why he fabricated the Atlantis tale.

Quote

[Republic 376] In this education, you would include stories, would you not? These are of two kinds, true stories and fiction. Our education must use both and start with fiction. . . . And the first step, as you know, is always what matters most, particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are easily moulded and when any impression we choose to make leaves a permanent mark (Desmond Lee translation).

Not free, so a different translation: Republic, 376C 30

And:

Quote

[Republic: 414 b-c] “Now I wonder if we could contrive one of those convenient stories we were talking about a few minutes ago,” I asked. “Some magnificent myth that would in itself carry conviction to our whole community, including, if possible the Guardians themselves. . . . Nothing new-a fairy story like those the poets tell and have persuaded people to believe about the sort of thing that often happened ‘once upon a time,’ but never does now and is not likely to: indeed it would need a lot of persuasion to get people to believe it” (Desmond Lee translation).

Again Lee's is not free so: Republic 414 B-C.  Section C can be reached via the list on the left of that page.

Harte

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 07 February 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

It could be an exaggerated story, a story based on a long line of orally passing on an event: A telling B, B telling C, C telling D, and so on for ages on end.

The fish caught was really only 3 feet long, but after 10 generation it grew to the size of a whale.

And add to that a large dose of pride about accomplished tasks (beating some enemy), and you'll get what I'm hinting at.

Troy was an oral myth.  Ancient Greece is plastered with evidence that they had the Troy myth.

If Atlantis was some sort of oral myth that was passed down, how come nobody, not the Greeks, not the Egyptians, literally nobody else, appears to have had that particular myth?

Harte

[docyabut2]

According to the Egypt legend, Keftiu was an advanced civilization, and was the gateway to and ruler of all of the lands to the far west of Egypt (Greece, Libya, and beyond). Keftiu traded in ivory, copper, and cloth. Keftiu supported hosts of ships and controlled commerce far beyond the Egyptians domain.By Egyptian record Keftiu was destroyed by the seas in an apocalypse.

[Abramelin]

Proclus, on 07 February 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Besides some repeatedly false claims by you I emphasize your "nothing" of above: I see that you have understood nothing. You have a really biased idea of science as if you always could decide what is fact and what is not. Have you ever thought about Platonic Myths? They are exactly about this problem: There are things we cannot know for sure but we have to think about them. Who does not understand the concept of a Platonic Myth is basically not able to understand Plato's intention with the Atlantis story.

_

Plato's myth was a moralistic story, a teaching story, a 'parable'.

Maybe he used some myths to add to the juice, but that doesn't make his story more true.

Believe me, I truely wish his story proved to be true in the end.

[Abramelin]

docyabut2, on 07 February 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

According to the Egypt legend, Keftiu was an advanced civilization, and was the gateway to and ruler of all of the lands to the far west of Egypt (Greece, Libya, and beyond). Keftiu traded in ivory, copper, and cloth. Keftiu supported hosts of ships and controlled commerce far beyond the Egyptians domain.By Egyptian record Keftiu was destroyed by the seas in an apocalypse.

Keftia (as a nation) didn't even exist around 9600 BCE.

And it wasn't even remotely near the size of ancient Libya and Asia combined.

And it is still above sea level.

[Abramelin]

Goddamn, I am getting really tired of people twisting and turning Plato's story to fit their very own idea of Plato's Atlantis.

Either you totally believe what he wrote down, or you completely discard his tale as nothing but a moralistic/political/ philosophical story.

[Mr Right Wing]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Goddamn, I am getting really tired of people twisting and turning Plato's story to fit their very own idea of Plato's Atlantis.

Either you totally believe what he wrote down, or you completely discard his tale as nothing but a moralistic/political/ philosophical story.

If we go with the literal interruptation of Platos Atlantis then a thousand miles opposite the straights of Gibralter used to exist a large island populated by the Atlantis civilization.

What do we find a thousand miles opposite the straights of Gibralter? A geologically very interesting part of the world. Its a place where three tectonic plates meet, where theres huge magma chambers large enough to fill super volcanos under the sea bed and where theres a lot of seismic activity. I propose the island of Atlantis was above water when the magma chambers were full and when they emptied it rapidly sunk several thousand feet.

All plausable.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 08 February 2013 - 12:44 AM.

[Everdred]

Abramelin, on 07 February 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

I think the only theory that made geological sense, a theory that put Atlantis in the right place (Atlantic), the right time (9600 BCE), and also explained that it really sunk, is the one posted/published by Rod Martin (username "MissionAtlantis").

He once started a thread here on UM, but within a very short time the discussion wasn't about his theory anymore.

Now I will be the last one to suggest I know enough of geology, but from what I know Martin's theory makes the most sense, without resorting to outlandish statements. In his theory Atlantis was about as large as it should be, located where it should be, existing when it should be, and submerged when it should have.

His theory also explains the elephants in Atlantis.

I am not saying he proved the existence of Atlantis, but he had a - to me - sound theory that it could have existed.

Here is the pdf in which he explains it in detail:

http://www.missionat...tis_geology.pdf

And for the lazy s.o.b.s he also made a short and not so serious YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oObKC4HsRI

.

Fun read.  That's certainly the best theory I've ever seen for Atlantis.

Too bad it fell apart when it got to Atlantis falling apart.

[Proclus]

Harte, on 07 February 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

Without actual facts - the scientific kind - it is safe to say that Atlantis never existed.

Thank you for spending so much text on my argument, it seems at least that you got a glimpse of the real problem, although you did not manage to accept the openness of the question. Safe to say that your core sentence is simply wrong. You have a likelihood for this, not more.
I reject your claim to have given me education on the subject, you just repeat stereotypes you learned somewhere. I reject your claim that my views were "fantastical beliefs". They are not. My interpretations place Atlantis fully fitting into the known course of history, nowhere else.

Strange that you started to talk on homo erectus. What does paleoanthopology have to do with Plato's Atlantis?

Lastly, I want to claim that also the interpretation of texts is a science and follows scientific rules. Interpretation of texts is no arbitrary thing as you suggest. Besides the fact that Plato's text are not literature (and not history), but philosophy. Like most Atlantis deniers you have no idea what this means. All arguments based on the literature assumption are wrong from the beginning.

_

[Abramelin]

Everdred, on 08 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

Fun read.  That's certainly the best theory I've ever seen for Atlantis.

Too bad it fell apart when it got to Atlantis falling apart.

You mean this part?

Could Atlantis have suffered from the
effect of rebound compensation? Could it have
been "sucked" down to make up for the crustal
rise in North America and Northern Europe?
If Atlantis had already been weakened by
the extensional forces of gravity and rotation
around the initial region of plate boundary
damage, then rebound compensation could
have accelerated the weakening and ultimate
collapse. Atlantis may have been the weakest
link, globally. With two regions of energetic
uplift on both sides of the Atlantic, Atlantis in
between likely suffered the brunt of the
required compensation for the American and
European rebounds.

[docyabut2]

Harte, on 07 February 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

So, you haven't read "The Republic?"

In it, Plato lays out exactly why he fabricated the Atlantis tale.

Not free, so a different translation: Republic, 376C 30

And:

Again Lee's is not free so: Republic 414 B-C.  Section C can be reached via the list on the left of that page.

Harte

Harte I some what agree with you, the tale of Atlantis was a platonic myth, and could not have been true the way it was writtin. The tale even uses the same numbers of the army of Atlantis that Homer had for Troy, however I do believe the tale was based on a real event that Solon had heard from the Egyptian priest.


According to the Egypt legend, Keftiu was an advanced civilization, and was the gateway to and ruler of all of the lands to the far west of Egypt (Greece, Libya, and beyond). Keftiu traded in ivory, copper, and cloth. Keftiu supported hosts of ships and controlled commerce far beyond the Egyptians domain.By Egyptian record Keftiu was destroyed by the seas in an apocalypse.

Edited by docyabut2, 08 February 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Harte]

docyabut2, on 07 February 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

According to the Egypt legend, Keftiu was an advanced civilization, and was the gateway to and ruler of all of the lands to the far west of Egypt (Greece, Libya, and beyond). Keftiu traded in ivory, copper, and cloth. Keftiu supported hosts of ships and controlled commerce far beyond the Egyptians domain.By Egyptian record Keftiu was destroyed by the seas in an apocalypse.

In fact, there exists no "Egypt legend" that even remotely resembles what you claim here.

Search this site for the term Keftiu if you actually care to learn more about this.

Harte

[Harte]

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Thank you for spending so much text on my argument, it seems at least that you got a glimpse of the real problem, although you did not manage to accept the openness of the question. Safe to say that your core sentence is simply wrong. You have a likelihood for this, not more.

If any evidence arises, I'm ready to change my opinion.

You got any?

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I reject your claim to have given me education on the subject, you just repeat stereotypes you learned somewhere.

Note the below:

Proclus, on 18 January 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

You yourself mentioned now the witness Crantor who allegedly saw the story on Pillars. There is an independent witness! You may doubt him, but there it is! Whoever says: "There is no witness except Plato" is expressing a lie - Crantor is to be mentioned at least, even if you do not trust him. By the way: Pillars with the sea peoples story exist.

After a correction provided by me:

Proclus, on 19 January 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Correct is, that Crantor did not claim to have seen the pillars himself. But he is anyway a witness. And the "Pillars" he did not get from Plato, Plato does not talk of pillars.

Yet another correction to this last quote, again from me:

Harte, on 20 January 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Nobody is ignoring anything.  Crantor is no witness.  Crantor claims the Egyptians told Solon what Plato claims they told Solon.  That the records exist.  Why Crantor would mention pillars can be found in the Critias itself, where Plato states that the Atlanteans had their laws and their kings list inscribed on pillars of orichalcum.

Quote

As to offices and honours, the following was the arrangement from the first. Each of the ten kings in his own division and in his own city had the absolute control of the citizens, and, in most cases, of the laws, punishing and slaying whomsoever he would. Now the order of precedence among them and their mutual relations were regulated by the commands of Poseidon which the law had handed down. These were inscribed by the first kings on a pillar of orichalcum, which was situated in the middle of the island, at the temple of Poseidon, whither the kings were gathered together every fifth and every sixth year alternately, thus giving equal honour to the odd and to the even number.

SNIP

Now on the pillar, besides the laws, there was inscribed an oath invoking mighty curses on the disobedient. When therefore, after slaying the bull in the accustomed manner, they had burnt its limbs, they filled a bowl of wine and cast in a clot of blood for each of them; the rest of the victim they put in the fire, after having purified the column all round. Then they drew from the bowl in golden cups and pouring a libation on the fire, they swore that they would judge according to the laws on the pillar, and would punish him who in any point had already transgressed them, and that for the future they would not, if they could help, offend against the writing on the pillar, and would neither command others, nor obey any ruler who commanded them, to act otherwise than according to the laws of their father Poseidon.

Source - Critias

Harte

The above represents a small part of the education I have supplied on this subject here at U-M, whether you care to admit your own education or not.

I believe, then, that the case that I have educated you on the matter is hereby proven beyond any doubt.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Strange that you started to talk on homo erectus. What does paleoanthopology have to do with Plato's Atlantis?

Absolutely nothing, but it illustrates that I have educated myself on Ancient Egypt and this Atlantis fable even though I don't actually care for so-called "Ancient" history.  I noted that I prefer "Ancient-er" history.

Pardon me for inserting a personal aside about myself.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Lastly, I want to claim that also the interpretation of texts is a science and follows scientific rules. Interpretation of texts is no arbitrary thing as you suggest. Besides the fact that Plato's text are not literature (and not history), but philosophy. Like most Atlantis deniers you have no idea what this means. All arguments based on the literature assumption are wrong from the beginning.

Make whatever "claim" you care to.  The fact is, the subject is known as Classicism, which as you state is a branch of philosophy.  Philosophy is not science, nor is it scientific, though science is philosophical.

If you think I have no idea what this means, then you need to take your blinders off, look around this site, and note that you know far less about the subject than I do, as evidenced by the above-noted education on it I have provided to you.

Harte