153 replies to this topic

[Proclus]

Already 2011 Jason Colavito published an article www.jasoncolavito.com/.../...aristotle-on-atlantis which cast doubts on the common scientific assumption that Aristotle did explicitly speak out against the existence of Plato's Atlantis. But already 2010 this wrong assumption was disproved on a scientific level, what Jason Colavito did not seem to know.

This book from 2010 is now available in English, see a recent review here:
http://atlantipedia....and-atlantis-n/

Who brought the mistake into life? How could it creep into the scientific literature? Which scientists silently opposed? And what did Aristotle really think on Atlantis? What did Aristotle say on ancient geography? And ... Atlantis? If Aristotle had a different opinion than we thought we have a lot of to discuss ...

One thing is sure: We are one step closer to solve the riddle.
A rare event in the history of Atlantis research.

[Imaginarynumber1]

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

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

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 30 December 2012 - 09:18 PM.

[CuriousGreek]

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...

How can you be sure of that?

PS. Welcome to the site as a member, Proklus

[Hilander]

I'm not sure if it ever existed or not, only time will tell.

[cormac mac airt]

CuriousGreek, on 30 December 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

How can you be sure of that?

PS. Welcome to the site as a member, Proklus

The geology of the location relevant to the Atlantis story doesn't support its existance.

Genetics doesn't support its existance.

The technological capabilities of the times and relevant area don't support its existance.

And the list goes on.

Welcome to UM Proklus.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 30 December 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[the L]

What Aristotele said about it?

Welcome to UM!

[Proclus]

Thanks to all for the warm welcome to this forum!

cormac mac airt, on 30 December 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

The geology of the location relevant to the Atlantis story doesn't support its existance.
Genetics doesn't support its existance.
The technological capabilities of the times and relevant area don't support its existance.
And the list goes on.

Ah well, if you take it all literally, yes. But is it reasonable to take it all literally?

We know e.g. of Herodotus' reports on Egypt that he screwed up some things unintentionally. An Egypt precisly as Herodotus described it did never exist. But of course we know: Egypt did exist. Or think of the bible: Neither is it all wrong, nor all true, what is written there. There is a kernel of truth in ancient texts, and it is our task to figure out, what this was.

And if Aristotle was more  in favour of Plato's Atlantis, then we could be lucky to have some more hints than we thought. I think it matters what Aristotle thought.

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 30 December 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

Thanks to all for the warm welcome to this forum!


Ah well, if you take it all literally, yes. But is it reasonable to take it all literally?

We know e.g. of Herodotus' reports on Egypt that he screwed up some things unintentionally. An Egypt precisly as Herodotus described it did never exist. But of course we know: Egypt did exist. Or think of the bible: Neither is it all wrong, nor all true, what is written there. There is a kernel of truth in ancient texts, and it is our task to figure out, what this was.

And if Aristotle was more  in favour of Plato's Atlantis, then we could be lucky to have some more hints than we thought. I think it matters what Aristotle thought.

Stick around long enough and you'll answer your own question, after you see how many really DO take it literally.

cormac

[the L]

Proclus, on 30 December 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I think it matters what Aristotle thought.

How do you know what he thought?

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 30 December 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Stick around long enough and you'll answer your own question, after you see how many really DO take it literally.

Let us try to enlight the crackpots, cormac :-)

the L, on 30 December 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

How do you know what he thought?

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.

[cormac mac airt]

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

Let us try to enlight the crackpots, cormac :-)


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.

Let me know how that works for you. Given enough time you'll see just how many ways people are willing to bend, twist, distort and reinterpret Plato's tale of Atlantis all to rationalize it into existance. The only enlightenment for believers occurs when one directs a flashlight into one ear and sees a light coming out of the other one.

cormac

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 30 December 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

Let me know how that works for you. Given enough time you'll see just how many ways people are willing to bend, twist, distort and reinterpret Plato's tale of Atlantis all to rationalize it into existance. The only enlightenment for believers occurs when one directs a flashlight into one ear and sees a light coming out of the other one.

Maybe we should teach them a lesson in historical-critical method?
I cannot see how it makes sense to discuss things otherwise.
The bending, twisting, distorting could make sense, if they had good reasons for this,
such as the historical context, typical distortions of traditon, etc.

[CuriousGreek]

cormac mac airt, on 30 December 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

The geology of the location relevant to the Atlantis story doesn't support its existance.

Genetics doesn't support its existance.

The technological capabilities of the times and relevant area don't support its existance.

And the list goes on.

Welcome to UM Proklus.

cormac

As far as i know, technology in ancient times were not so underdeveloped as we think it was. So, i have some doubts about that part. But, i really have no idea about the other two things you mentioned, so i'll just go on with them

[cormac mac airt]

CuriousGreek, on 31 December 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

As far as i know, technology in ancient times were not so underdeveloped as we think it was. So, i have some doubts about that part. But, i really have no idea about the other two things you mentioned, so i'll just go on with them

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

[Proclus]

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.

Good examples. Herodotus talks also of triremes in Egypt where there surely were none. "Trireme" was simply a common word to specify any warrior ship. The other thing is true: 9600 BC cannot be, but this is easily explained: As Herodotus sees the age of Egypt to be 11340 years (and not the approx. 3000 years we know today) Plato's datings fit into the same range of error. Since Atlantis attacked Egypt it could be any date after 3000 BC, so Bronze Age is a good and reasonable try.

Nothing is proven by this all, but it disproves the disproof :-)

Edited by Proclus, 31 December 2012 - 12:39 AM.