32 replies to this topic

[the L]

Proclus, on 03 January 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Look: The Atlantis dialogues show some didactic intention: Two states fighting with each other, a good one and a bad one.

And who is good and who is bad one in Atlantis story?

[Abramelin]

Proclus, on 02 January 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

Recently a somewhat forgotten scientific invention hypothesis on Plato's Atlantis written by Prof. Gunnar Rudberg was dug out and brought into the English language for the first time. It still can keep up with current invention hypotheses ... or maybe even more: It casts light on some aspects current invention hypotheses seem to neglect (why?! oohoouuuhooohuaahuaahuaa!).

Maybe it's even closer to the core of Plato's idea with Atlantis than all the rest?

But jugde for yourself:

Syracuse was the place where Plato tried to approach his ideal state in reality - and failed. Indeed, Syracuse shares many similarities with Plato's Atlantis: Like Atlantis, it was situated on a large and fertile island in the west, a city of abundant wealth and power. As in Atlantis, the ruler's castle and magnificent temples were gathered on a small island. As in Atlantis, there were several harbors, quarries and many walls encircling the city. And like Atlantis, Syracuse waged war with Athens.

... there is even a sea straits near to Syracuse ... west of Egypt ...

But what sounds like a hot trail to decipher the enigma of Plato's Atlantis lay forgotten for a long time: As early as 1917, far ahead of his time, Gunnar Rudberg wrote this most coherent scientific analysis. The world did not, however, take notice of a Swedish text. Translated now for the first time, Rudberg's thesis is still a very good read on Plato's Atlantis, presenting not only one of the most credible solutions for Plato's Atlantis, but also offering an introduction to Atlantis research in general.

Sounds not bad, does it? An invention hypothesis, but quite another caliber than the ones out of thin air ...
... I would be interested in your opinions!
Discussion is opened ...

It's an interesting idea:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/384822822X

But Sicily and Syracuse are still very much above sea level. However, I haven't read the book (did you?) so I can't give a real opinion about it.

[Abramelin]

the L, on 03 January 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

And who is good and who is bad one in Atlantis story?

Bad: the Atlantians at a later stage (so not from the start)
Good: the Athenians.

[Proclus]

Abramelin, on 03 January 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Bad: the Atlantians at a later stage (so not from the start)
Good: the Athenians.

Exactly, and I like especially the precision that the Atlantians are not bad from the beginning.
Be Atlantis real or not: Plato wanted to say something with this. To teach something.
But to whom?

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 03 January 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Hope you are aware that you are very very alone with your believe that there was no inspiration at all for inventing Atlantis (if invented at all)? The last scientist I know who thought like that was Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff in 1920. How much time did you spend, you said? I assume it took you 5 minutes to read of 9000 years and the Atlantic Ocean, then you made a very short-circuited conclusion (just another 30 seconds), and then you were done. Because "facts" is all which counts.

Did you ever care studying some philosophy of science? You obviously don't know that there are no "facts" at all in this world when it comes to the nitty-gritty. All is guessing to a certain degree of likelihood, never with 100% likelihood. Think of the wisdom of Socrates: I know that I know nothing. This is not a joke and no irony.

And Plato actually was in Syracuse, this is "fact" ... but maybe not for you?

You obviously don't know what I've said during my time here or you wouldn't be making such an ignorant remark, to whit (from the "Atlantis is a reality find out where here" thread):

Quote

Even if he used the disappearance of other locations, such as Helike or Santorini, as an inspiration for some of his tale this still wouldn't validate an island civilization just outside of the Pillars of Hercules.

Try not "assuming" so much, it just makes you look rather uninformed. I've spent several years studying the relevant information from the various fields I've mentioned previously, to come to the conclusion I have. Have you?

cormac

[Proclus]

I dared to judge on your postings in three threads I learned here and I do not feel mistaken.

cormac mac airt, on 03 January 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Try not "assuming" so much, it just makes you look rather uninformed. I've spent several years studying the relevant information from the various fields I've mentioned previously, to come to the conclusion I have. Have you?

I started in 1999, so it's around 14 years now, and I assume you simply read the wrong books.
First of all you have to learn ancient Greek, of course. Ah, I did this before 1999.
Then you have to learn about Plato and his philosophy. "Platonic Myths" as one key word of many.
Then about the historical context, the Greeks and their view of the world, the Egyptians, etc.
Learning Middle Egyptian (hieroglyphs) was enightening, too, to a certain extent.

The key science is: Philology, or "Classical Studies" if you will. Surely not geology, genetics, climatology, volcanism and such "material science" stuff. These sciences are necessary but only secondary. What has to be found is the proper interpretation of Plato's text, not necessarily a real place, but could be a real place, you don't know from the beginning. And that's the point: You make the mistake to think it's obvious how to interprete Plato, but it is not.

Edited by Proclus, 03 January 2013 - 05:24 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 03 January 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

I dared to judge on your postings in three threads I learned here and I do not feel mistaken.

I started in 1999, so it's around 14 years now, and I assume you simply read the wrong books.

What has to be found is the proper interpretation of Plato's text, not necessarily a real place, but could be a real place, you don't know from the beginning.

~SNIP~

That was your first mistake, but then ignorance really is bliss apparently.

So you're a newbie who assumes quite alot. For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

Which is the whole point behind the debate claiming Atlantis was a real place. While I've done my share of reading in the area of Classical Studies as well, it's the "material science stuff" as you call it that either will or won't validate Atlantis as an actual place. And these sciences have shown, across the board, that Plato's account is wrong. Which leaves you with nothing more than a search for the inspiration of a place that never existed. I have to wonder if snipe-hunting isn't on your list of things to do next.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 03 January 2013 - 09:27 PM.

[the L]

Proclus, on 03 January 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

You confuse things a bit: Plato was sold as slave by Dionysius I and later tried to educate Dionysius II.

I think you confused few things. He didnt thought him well because son poisoned his father.
Or you think that Plato was puppet master, hand from shadow, which thought young man to kill his father as revenge for slavery, ...Plato the conspirator...Plato Ploter.

Edited by the L, 03 January 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[Harte]

Proclus, on 02 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Yes, these historical outline is correct.
But Plato was on Sicily many decades later in order to educate the tyrant to become a philosopher king.
And this failed and Syracuse experienced its downfall.
It is the question whether Plato wrote the dialogues while in Sicily or after it?

Actually, the question should be did Plato write Critias before he ever went to Sicily.

The most common date you'll find for Critias is 360 BC.  Tht was Benjamin Jowett's claim.  Jowett's translation is the most common one you'll find on the internet (because it's free.) That could explain why so many sites list it as being written then.  I've seen later dates for it.

It appears that Plato's first trip to Syracuse took place at some point after 366.  You might find the following useful for what you appear to be interested in here:
http://www.livius.or...sicily_t20.html

Harte

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 03 January 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

So you're a newbie who assumes quite alot.

Besides that I do not understand why somebody who studies the case for more than 10 years on a scientific level is a "newbie" ...:

I really have the strong feeling that we exchanged all our arguments, let's stop our discussion here, ok? I really don't know what else to say to bring your mistake to your conscience. I said enough to enable you to see your mistake.

Maybe studying the philosophy of science would help you, such as reading Karl R. Popper, or minimalist works on biblical archaeology like "The Bible Unearthed"  http://en.wikipedia....Bible_Unearthed   It's not that you had a lack of "facutal" knowledge, that's ok. It's a lack of methodology, a lack of philosophy of science, which leads you into an abyss of premature conclusions.
There's a very good youtube docu on "Bible Unearthed", see it here:
http://www.youtube.c...21B8E0D2D8EA963
I clearly recommend this to everybody who wants to foster his scientific understanding of history.

[badeskov]

Proclus, on 04 January 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Besides that I do not understand why somebody who studies the case for more than 10 years on a scientific level is a "newbie" ...:

I apologize for budging in, but a newbie here you are and frankly, your line of argumentation reflects it.

Quote

I really have the strong feeling that we exchanged all our arguments, let's stop our discussion here, ok?

If you really believe that you have reached the end your argumental line, that is frankly very telling.

Quote

I really don't know what else to say to bring your mistake to your conscience. I said enough to enable you to see your mistake.

In fact, no you didn't. What you did show, however, was a lack of research skills or maybe the lack of breadth in knowledge that Cormac arguably possesses in this field of study.

Quote

Maybe studying the philosophy of science would help you, such as reading Karl R. Popper, or minimalist works on biblical archaeology like "The Bible Unearthed"  http://en.wikipedia....Bible_Unearthed   It's not that you had a lack of "facutal" knowledge, that's ok. It's a lack of methodology, a lack of philosophy of science, which leads you into an abyss of premature conclusions.

Sorry, I cannot be be bothered with watching YouTube videos.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Abramelin]

Talking about a 'model' for Atlantis, I think this post of mine

http://www.unexplain...30#entry4607187

belongs in this thread instead.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 04 January 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[Peter Cox]

Wait, im confused, we looking for a model of a place that didnt exsist, contextulising a place that did exsist as a replacment or saying that there is a similarity between the 2. Or are you outright saying that sicisly is Atlantis? Because last I checked on a map, wait..... Phew yip its still there and not under water.... The next thing you need to consider is Sicisly was not the place it was when the time period for Adlantis is estimated at.

So I can see what you are trying to do but I cant for one second for the life of me fathom that Plato didnt then just use Sicisly instead of making up a place called Adlantis.

But I do understand your point of connecting the similarities to the cultures and experinces Plato may have had when there. But not sure we can tie that back to Adlantis. So have to agree with Cormac here.

[Proclus]

badeskov, on 04 January 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I apologize for budging in, but a newbie here you are and frankly, your line of argumentation reflects it.

If you really believe that you have reached the end your argumental line, that is frankly very telling.

In fact, no you didn't. What you did show, however, was a lack of research skills or maybe the lack of breadth in knowledge that Cormac arguably possesses in this field of study.

My line of argumentation is: What has to be found is the proper interpretation of Plato's text. Not necessarily a real place, but it could be a real place in the sense of a distorted historical tradition. Or there was maybe a model for the invention? Before you found the right interpretation you do not know this. And it is not obvious what is the right interpretation of Plato's text. You cannot make conclusions before you started thinking. - Furthermore, the historcial context has to be considered. You cannot just judge an ancient text as if it was written in the present. Without knowing the historical context you cannot provide a proper interpretation.

cormac's line of argumentation is: Oh, it's 9600 BC (we today know: stone age!) and in the Atlantic Ocean (we today know: there is nothing!), so it simply cannot be any truth in it and it is not worth to spend any further thought on it. Attempts to ask for the historical context, to ask for a distorted historical tradition are only "rationalizations" of something which cannot and does and must not exist. (With this line of argumentation e.g. Herodotus' Egypt does not exist, too - oouuups!)

Now then, what is wrong with my line of argumentation?
Do you really prefer cormac's line which is simply pseudo-science?!
Please tell me, badeskov.

Sincerely
Your "newbie"

Edited by Proclus, 04 January 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 04 January 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

My line of argumentation is: What has to be found is the proper interpretation of Plato's text. Not necessarily a real place, but it could be a real place in the sense of a distorted historical tradition. Or there was maybe a model for the invention? Before you found the right interpretation you do not know this. And it is not obvious what is the right interpretation of Plato's text. You cannot make conclusions before you started thinking. - Furthermore, the historcial context has to be considered. You cannot just judge an ancient text as if it was written in the present. Without knowing the historical context you cannot provide a proper interpretation.

cormac's line of argumentation is: Oh, it's 9600 BC (we today know: stone age!) and in the Atlantic Ocean (we today know: there is nothing!), so it simply cannot be any truth in it and it is not worth to spend any further thought on it. Attempts to ask for the historical context, to ask for a distorted historical tradition are only "rationalizations" of something which cannot and does and must not exist. (With this line of argumentation e.g. Herodotus' Egypt does not exist, too - oouuups!)

Now then, what is wrong with my line of argumentation?
Do you really prefer cormac's line which is simply pseudo-science?!
Please tell me, badeskov.

Sincerely
Your "newbie"

You suffer from an English comprehension problem evidently. Not only today do we not find evidence for Atlantis in the location Plato gives, but not even within anatomically modern human history, which is the last c.200,000 years.

There is no truth in the location, size or technological capabilities of an island civilization, Plato's Atlantis, that multiple scientific disciplines have shown never existed.

There is no historical context for a place that didn't exist. And attempting to find locations that "may" have inspired the story of Atlantis does not make them Atlantis.

Beyond looking for what may have inspired the story, it's meaningless as to the actual existance of such a place.

cormac