2241 replies to this topic

[the L]

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

Crantor ...Theophrastus....Aristotle

Problem I have following you is that I still dont see where either of them talk positivly about Atlantis as you said.
Maybe Im uneducated and didnt read what you did but I see you as person who wants to test his theories with sceptics only on same level. Often dont providing links, quotes for rest of mortals, which I include myself.

You are focus on changing mind of sceptics instead providing evidencies you claim to have.
Maybe it is common knowledge to you but to me is Sci Fi.
Thats probably because you think that if we are not sceptics that we are able to believe in anything. And that you find boring. Be sure that isnt a case.
Maybe I need to read more then come back to discuss.

Eitherway UM is eyeopener. Either you learn something or you realize how much do you know.
More and more you read, you know less.
Im newbie.

Edited by the L, 20 January 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Harte]

the L, on 20 January 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Problem I have following you is that I still dont see where either of them talk positivly about Atlantis as you said.
Maybe Im uneducated and didnt read what you did but I see you as person who wants to test his theories with sceptics only on same level. Often dont providing links, quotes for rest of mortals, which I include myself.

You are focus on changing mind of sceptics instead providing evidencies you claim to have.
Maybe it is common knowledge to you but to me is Sci Fi.
Thats probably because you think that if we are not sceptics that we are able to believe in anything. And that you find boring. Be sure that isnt a case.
Maybe I need to read more then come back to discuss.

Eitherway UM is eyeopener. Either you learn something or you realize how much do you know.
More and more you read, you know less.
Im newbie.

L,

You can read everything you could possibly ever need to know about Atlantis right here at U-M, in the posts or in the links provided in the posts.

Harte

[Proclus]

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.

Crantor does not talk of Atlantean pillars but of Egyptian pillars, i.e. he is clearly claiming to have knowledge of Atlantis independently from Plato. So he is (by his own claim, but this is normal with all witnesses) a witness for the Atlantis story independent from Plato -- of course you are allowed to doubt him and call him a wrong witness, but even a wrong witness is a witness. Hope you can live with that.

[TheSearcher]

Quote

With respect to the whole of this narration about the Atlantics, some
say, that it is a mere history, which was the opinion of Crantor, the first
interpreter of Plato, who says, that Plato was derided by those of his
time, as not being the inventor of the
Republic, but transcribing what the
Egyptians had written on this subject; and that he so far regards
what is said by these deriders as to refer to the Egyptians this history
about the Athenians and Atlantics, and to believe that the Athenians
once lived conformably to this polity. Crantor adds, that this is testified
by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars
[which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still
preserved.

Sorry Proclus, but I'm unsure what we can call Crantor, since he himself has never seen the Atlantean or Egyptian pillars (whichever it was, since this was never clarified in the text itself, so a moot point), that are being talked about. He just recounts what he heard from Egyptian prophets.
I'm not saying that either Proclus (the ancient Greek one, not you) or Crantor are liars, or cover up the truth, but they recount second hand knowledge. To me this means, that their testimony, has to be taken with a pinch of salt. For all we know, the Egyptian prophets could have been lying to them.

[Proclus]

TheSearcher, on 21 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Sorry Proclus, but I'm unsure what we can call Crantor, since he himself has never seen the Atlantean or Egyptian pillars (whichever it was, since this was never clarified in the text itself, so a moot point), that are being talked about. He just recounts what he heard from Egyptian prophets.
I'm not saying that either Proclus (the ancient Greek one, not you) or Crantor are liars, or cover up the truth, but they recount second hand knowledge. To me this means, that their testimony, has to be taken with a pinch of salt. For all we know, the Egyptian prophets could have been lying to them.

Thank you, TheSearcher, that you agree with me, that Crantor is an independent witness, although maybe not a credible one. Because you exactly said what I said: Crantor got his knowledge allegedly directly from Egypt, from "prophets" (and they from Egyptian pillars), similar to Plato. So, Crantor is an independent witness, although maybe not credible like Plato.

Thank you for your agreement, TheSearcher. But why did you begin your statement with "Sorry"?

_

[TheSearcher]

Proclus, on 21 January 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Thank you, TheSearcher, that you agree with me, that Crantor is an independent witness, although maybe not a credible one. Because you exactly said what I said: Crantor got his knowledge allegedly directly from Egypt, from "prophets" (and they from Egyptian pillars), similar to Plato. So, Crantor is an independent witness, although maybe not credible like Plato.

Thank you for your agreement, TheSearcher. But why did you begin your statement with "Sorry"?

_

because I'm still unsure that we should call him a witness as such, the word just doesn't ring right in my ears in this context. I do consider Crantor tainted because it is second hand and there is no way to verify what the Egyptians told him as his writings are lost to us. We then rely on another person, telling us that he heard Crantor say, that he heard Egyptians say and so forth. Again I'm not saying one or the other is a liar, but one has to admit for distortion if the chain is more than 2 links.

This is the reason I do not use Crantor myself, it amounts to hear-say in a way.

Edit for typo

Edited by TheSearcher, 21 January 2013 - 02:04 PM.

[Proclus]

TheSearcher, on 21 January 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

because I'm still unsure that we should call him a witness as such, the word just doesn't ring right in my ears in this context. I do consider Crantor tainted because it is second hand and there is no way to verify what the Egyptians told him as his writings are lost to us. We then rely on another person, telling us that he heard Crantor say, that he heard Egyptians say and so forth. Again I'm not saying one or the other is a liar, but one has to admit for distortion if the chain is more than 2 links.

This is the reason I do not use Crantor myself, it amounts to hear-say in a way.

Great, thanks, that is exactly what is valid for Plato, too! (Bold and underlined added by me)

No liar: Yes!
Distortion: Yes!

("hear-say" is in doubt: Plato and Crantor (as some scholars found likely) rely on written sources.)

[the L]

Harte, on 21 January 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

L,

You can read everything you could possibly ever need to know about Atlantis right here at U-M, in the posts or in the links provided in the posts.

Harte

Usually. But what Proclus stated he didnt provide link and quote to back his claims. He just claim things.
As for Crantor thats fine but I still dont know what Aristotele said about it even he open a thread about it.
Or Theophrastus. Either he suspect its common knowledge or he decive us.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 21 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

He just recounts what he heard from Egyptian prophets.

How do we know that Crantor heard from Egyptians? We dont.

Edited by the L, 21 January 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[the L]

sorry-please delete

Edited by the L, 21 January 2013 - 06:04 PM.

[Proclus]

the L, on 21 January 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Usually. But what Proclus stated he didnt provide link and quote to back his claims. He just claim things.
As for Crantor thats fine but I still dont know what Aristotele said about it even he open a thread about it.
Or Theophrastus. Either he suspect its common knowledge or he decive us.

I opened the Aristotle thread with hint to the publication where it is discussed,
remember?
I opened the Aristotle thread with hint to the publication where it is discussed,
because this publication brings something new.
I opened the Aristotle thread with hint to the publication where it is discussed,
because I wanted to share the news with you.

And to say it clearly: We have not a single word by Aristotle on Atlantis.
So quoting Aristotle on Atlantis is not possible.
It's argumentation by indirect conclusions, how to quote that?!

the L, on 21 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

How do we know that Crantor heard from Egyptians? We dont.

Of course not. We even don't know whether Herodotus was in Egypt,
or whether Thucycides ever was general in the Peloponnesian war,
or whether Caesar was in Gaul,
or whether Armstrong was on the moon,
or whether Petraeus ever was in Iraq.

We always have to discuss it and make a judgement, this does not make invalid the statement that Crantor is a witness, trustworthy or not.
Like Plato.

Sometimes I feel like in kindergarten here.

_

[the L]

Proclus, on 21 January 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

So quoting Aristotle on Atlantis is not possible.

Then try quoting those part which made you to your conclusion. Or dont even mention him.

Imagine this scenario.
L:Marco Polo spoke positivly about America.
Proclus: Source?
L:That is my conclusion on books I read about Polo. So quoting Polo on America is not possible.

Quote

Of course not. We even don't know whether Herodotus was in Egypt,
or whether Thucycides ever was general in the Peloponnesian war,
or whether Caesar was in Gaul,
or whether Armstrong was on the moon,
or whether Petraeus ever was in Iraq.

We always have to discuss it and make a judgement, this does not make invalid the statement that Crantor is a witness, trustworthy or not.
Like Plato.

Sometimes I feel like in kindergarten here.

_

We now that Herodotus was in Egypt because of details he wrote about.
And so on. Can beat your others arguments too if you desire.

Yes I notice you have attidute of a teacher. But to learn something you must act like student.
If you want to teach us, then you must be able to answer on given questions of your students.

[Proclus]

the L, on 21 January 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Imagine this scenario.
L:Marco Polo spoke positivly about America.
Proclus: Source?
L:That is my conclusion on books I read about Polo. So quoting Polo on America is not possible.

We now that Herodotus was in Egypt because of details he wrote about.
And so on. Can beat your others arguments too if you desire.

Your Marco Polo example does not work because I did not claim that Aristotle "spoke" explicitly on the subject.

Indeed there are scholars who even doubt that Herodotus ever was in Egypt. Of course a minority, but they exist.

_

[the L]

Proclus, on 21 January 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Your Marco Polo example does not work because I did not claim that Aristotle "spoke" explicitly on the subject.

Indeed there are scholars who even doubt that Herodotus ever was in Egypt. Of course a minority, but they exist.

_

There are scholars who doubt that Temujin existed, or even Marco Polo. There are scholars who doubt that al Biruni went in India. etc.
Many doubts many things. Thats why history is fun.

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

By the way: Is Theophrastus a liar, too? He also mentioned Atlantis positivly, and as I demonstrated elsewhere, Aristotle, too -- they are no witnesses but they are close to Plato.

Edited by the L, 21 January 2013 - 09:32 PM.

[Proclus]

the L, on 21 January 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

There are scholars who doubt that Temujin existed, or even Marco Polo. There are scholars who doubt that al Biruni went in India. etc.
Many doubts many things.

Yes, Theophrastus can be cited ... *sigh*

Here it is: Citation Beginning:

but with respect to that argument which was endeavoured to be established by the diminution of the sea, we may reasonably adduce this statement in opposition to it:

"Do not look only at the islands which have risen up out of the sea, nor at any portions of land which, having been formerly buried by the waters, have in subsequent times become dry land; for obstinate contention is very unfavourable to the consideration of natural philosophy, which considers the search after truth to be the chief object of rational desire; but look rather at the contrary effects: consider how many districts on the main-land, not only such as were near the coast, but even such as were completely in-land, have been swallowed up by the waters; and consider how great a portion of land has become sea and is now sailed over by innumerable ships." ..... And it is said that many other cities also have disappeared, having been swallowed up by the sea which overwhelmed them; since they speak of three in Peloponnesus --
"Aegira and fair Bura's walls,
And Helica's lofty halls,
And many a once renowned town,
With wreck and seaweed overgrown,"
as having been formerly prosperous, but now overwhelmed by the violent influx of the sea. And the island of Atalantes (Greek original: Atlantis, don't know why the translator wrote Atalantes) which was greater than Africa and Asia, as Plato says in the Timaeus, in one day and night was overwhelmed beneath the sea in consequence of an extraordinary earthquake and inundation and suddenly disappeared, becoming sea, not indeed navigable, but full of gulfs and eddies.

Therefore that imaginary and fictitious diminution of the sea has no connection with the destruction or durability of the world; for in fact it appears to recede indeed from some parts, but to rise higher in others; and it would have been proper rather not to look at only one of these results but at both together, and so to form one's opinion, since in all the disputed questions which arise in human life, a wise and honest judge will not deliver his opinion before he has heard the arguments of the advocates on both sides.

Citation End.

After Philo of Alexandria. As I already said: The authorship of Theophrastus is doubted, but IMHO without any good reason. And no, I will not go into details.

PS: Pretty sure very soon somebody will appear and take these words: "imaginary and fictitious diminution of the sea" and will apply them on Atlantis ... *sigh*, no, this is not what the quote says ... *sigh* ...

_

Edited by Proclus, 21 January 2013 - 09:40 PM.