Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
stevemagegod

Atlantis

2,243 posts in this topic

C%25C3%25B3pia%2520de%2520Atlantis_greenland.jpg

“Oh God. Geology has been just vomited on all over the last many pages. I want to cry.”

You should never underestimate the power of independent research!

Can you be more specific on which pages exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Plato never placed his Atlantis that far away from the Straits of Gibraltar, but sufficiently close enough to block the straits with a shoal of mud upon its destruction.

Let us be precise on this: It is the priest within the Atlantis story who places it there, with the words, that "in your language" (i.e. Greek) the straits would be called "Pillars of Hercules". This simply means that in the Egyptian account (if it existed) the word "Pillars of Hercules" was not written (which is logic because it is a more recent Greek word in the times of Solon and Plato and not an Egyptian word). And this means that the original account (if it existed) does not talk of the Pillars of Hercules. This is valid even within the assumption that the whole thing is a fiction because Plato then considered this point to make his fiction a very very perfect fiction. But it is valid also under the assumption that there maybe was an Egyptian account.

And what does this mean?

It means that we should ask the question if the priest could have made a mistake within the context of his Saitic cultural and geographic understanding, when he identified the straits from the original account with the Greek Pillars of Hercules. (Again, this is just a question I want to open, I do not claim anything but one thing: That the whole thing with Atlantis is not that simple as many think.).

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us be precise on this: It is the priest within the Atlantis story who places it there, with the words, that "in your language" (i.e. Greek) the straits would be called "Pillars of Hercules". This simply means that in the Egyptian account (if it existed) the word "Pillars of Hercules" was not written (which is logic because it is a more recent Greek word in the times of Solon and Plato and not an Egyptian word). And this means that the original account (if it existed) does not talk of the Pillars of Hercules. This is valid even within the assumption that the whole thing is a fiction because Plato then considered this point to make his fiction a very very perfect fiction. But it is valid also under the assumption that there maybe was an Egyptian account.

And what does this mean?

It means that we should ask the question if the priest could have made a mistake within the context of his Saitic cultural and geographic understanding, when he identified the straits from the original account with the Greek Pillars of Hercules. (Again, this is just a question I want to open, I do not claim anything but one thing: That the whole thing with Atlantis is not that simple as many think.).

Which has no bearing on reality since there is no evidence that the story of Atlantis, by whatever name, ever existed in Ancient Egypt at any point in its entire existance. So it remains as nothing more than something allegedly said within the confines of a story. And it would appear that your bouncing from an alleged priest's claim within the Atlantis story to wondering if the priest made a mistake, in the real world, is an attempt to represent the story as fact. That's not the way it works. First try showing evidence that the story of Atlantis, as an island empire, ever existed in Greece and Egypt prior to Plato's claim. Because anything less is a house of cards.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us be precise on this: It is the priest within the Atlantis story who places it there, with the words, that "in your language" (i.e. Greek) the straits would be called "Pillars of Hercules". This simply means that in the Egyptian account (if it existed) the word "Pillars of Hercules" was not written (which is logic because it is a more recent Greek word in the times of Solon and Plato and not an Egyptian word). And this means that the original account (if it existed) does not talk of the Pillars of Hercules. This is valid even within the assumption that the whole thing is a fiction because Plato then considered this point to make his fiction a very very perfect fiction. But it is valid also under the assumption that there maybe was an Egyptian account.

And what does this mean?

It means that we should ask the question if the priest could have made a mistake within the context of his Saitic cultural and geographic understanding, when he identified the straits from the original account with the Greek Pillars of Hercules. (Again, this is just a question I want to open, I do not claim anything but one thing: That the whole thing with Atlantis is not that simple as many think.).

I'd like to add that the older name of the Pillars of Hercules was Pillars of Melqart. The Greeks equated their Hercules (or better, "Herakles") with Melqart, and changed the name accordingly.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which has no bearing on reality since there is no evidence that the story of Atlantis, by whatever name, ever existed in Ancient Egypt at any point in its entire existance. So it remains as nothing more than something allegedly said within the confines of a story. And it would appear that your bouncing from an alleged priest's claim within the Atlantis story to wondering if the priest made a mistake, in the real world, is an attempt to represent the story as fact. That's not the way it works. First try showing evidence that the story of Atlantis, as an island empire, ever existed in Greece and Egypt prior to Plato's claim. Because anything less is a house of cards.

I take this as a first step to admit that it is not that easy. Thank you!

And concerning the attackers from islands: The Sea Peoples serve well, here.

And others, too.

Look, again I do not want to claim anything, but to claim only one thing:

LET US SEARCH! For heavens sake, do not interrupt a search before you know where it will lead to.

You yourself defined criteria for this search in your posting above, now let us follow this path!

I'd like to add that the older name of the Pillars of Hercules was Pillars of Melqart. The Greeks equated their Hercules (or better, "Herakles") with Melqart, and changed the name accordingly.

Maybe, maybe not. According to Karl Kerenyi the Pillars of Hercules once stood in the direct south-west of Greece.

But this is not the question, because: In an old (very old) Egyptian text surely nothing was said about the Pillars.

Something was written there which made the Saitic priest to immediately think of Gibraltar.

Edited by Proclus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take this as a first step to admit that it is not that easy. Thank you!

And concerning the attackers from islands: The Sea Peoples serve well, here.

And others, too.

Look, again I do not want to claim anything, but to claim only one thing:

LET US SEARCH! For heavens sake, do not interrupt a search before you know where it will lead to.

You yourself defined criteria for this search in your posting above, now let us follow this path!

Maybe, maybe not. According to Karl Kerenyi the Pillars of Hercules once stood in the direct south-west of Greece.

But this is not the question, because: In an old (very old) Egyptian text surely nothing was said about the Pillars.

Something was written there which made the Saitic priest to immediately think of Gibraltar.

I take this as an admission on your part that you didn't understand a thing I said.

I see no purpose in searching for something the physical sciences have already shown didn't exist. And since whatever may have inspired the story doesn't make it Atlantis, it has no bearing on the real world.

This is unevidenced speculation on your part and nothing more. There's no textual evidence to suggest any of this was ever true.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take this as an admission on your part that you didn't understand a thing I said.

I see no purpose in searching for something the physical sciences have already shown didn't exist. And since whatever may have inspired the story doesn't make it Atlantis, it has no bearing on the real world.

This is unevidenced speculation on your part and nothing more. There's no textual evidence to suggest any of this was ever true.

Except the tiny fact that Plato himself believed it to be true.

Alas ... what I wonder about: Where are all the supporters of a real Atlantis? THEY should be really interested in my considerations.

But they even do not "like" my postings.

Neither they nor you have a proper understanding of the scientific method of historical criticism.

It's such a pity ...

... I'm off again ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the tiny fact that Plato himself believed it to be true.

Alas ... what I wonder about: Where are all the supporters of a real Atlantis? THEY should be really interested in my considerations.

But they even do not "like" my postings.

Neither they nor you have a proper understanding of the scientific method of historical criticism.

It's such a pity ...

... I'm off again ...

It doesn't matter whether he believed it to be true or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not it was, in fact, true. The answer of which is unequivocally NO.

You've not shown you even understand the scientific method nor the difference between historical context versus textual context. The latter of which is what you're really talking about. It might help if you learned the difference between the two as well as actually learning the scientific method and how it's applied instead of your misinformed idea of same.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter whether he believed it to be true or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not it was, in fact, true. The answer of which is unequivocally NO.

You've not shown you even understand the scientific method nor the difference between historical context versus textual context. The latter of which is what you're really talking about. It might help if you learned the difference between the two as well as actually learning the scientific method and how it's applied instead of your misinformed idea of same.

Sorry, but I have to defend myself. The difference between the historical context of the text and the textual context is well-understodd by me. But not by you. Because you (!) -- I talk of you, yes -- apply natural science to the Atlantis presented on the textual level, the literal level, whereas the question is, whether this is the real Atlantis. And only to this real Atlantis the natural science criteria have to be applied.

Look, it is so easy to see that the literal Atlantis did not exist. But it is not easy to see if a real Atlantis behind a distorted tradition exists. It is in the shadows behind a curtain, and what I try to show you is *not* that you have to believe in shadows but that it is worth having a look behind the curtain, and yes, until this search is not done, it is more reasonable to talk of Atlantis as not real, but the search goes on, and maybe some day it reveals some proof.

All I want to express is the opinion that searching for a real Atlantis has a certain chance, maybe a small one, but it is not 0%.

And please, let me repeat: The confusion of literal text, historcial context of the text, historcal context of an alleged tradition of the story, etc., this is your confusion.

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK lets stick with the facts we know from Plato's writings, as they are the one and only source for Atlantis.

- Atlantis is first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias.

- According to Plato, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hercules" that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9600 BC.

- After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".

- In Critias, Plato claims that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the legendary Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.

- In Egypt, Solon met a priest of Sais, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on papyri in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek.

Not a lot to go on.

As to the veracity of Atlantis, well Plato himself gives us a clue. As it appears, Critias's story in the Timaeus provides some insight.

In the dialogue, Critias says, referring to Socrates' hypothetical society:

And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon.

On this particular bit, A. E. Taylor wrote, "We could not be told much more plainly that the whole narrative of Solon's conversation with the priests and his intention of writing the poem about Atlantis are an invention of Plato's fancy." (ref. Plato: The Man and His Work - A. E. Taylor)

So in my opinion and that of a great many scholars it seems, Atlantis as described by Plato is a literary construct. However it would be interesting to find out what might have inspired Plato. Was it the attempted Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC, the Thera eruption maybe?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK lets stick with the facts we know from Plato's writings, as they are the one and only source for Atlantis.

- Atlantis is first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias.

- According to Plato, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hercules" that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9600 BC.

- After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".

- In Critias, Plato claims that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the legendary Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.

- In Egypt, Solon met a priest of Sais, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on papyri in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek.

Not a lot to go on.

As to the veracity of Atlantis, well Plato himself gives us a clue. As it appears, Critias's story in the Timaeus provides some insight.

In the dialogue, Critias says, referring to Socrates' hypothetical society:

And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon.

On this particular bit, A. E. Taylor wrote, "We could not be told much more plainly that the whole narrative of Solon's conversation with the priests and his intention of writing the poem about Atlantis are an invention of Plato's fancy." (ref. Plato: The Man and His Work - A. E. Taylor)

So in my opinion and that of a great many scholars it seems, Atlantis as described by Plato is a literary construct. However it would be interesting to find out what might have inspired Plato. Was it the attempted Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC, the Thera eruption maybe?

Therein lies the problem Searcher. Proclus apparently can't differenciate a literary construct from an historical fact. But tries to turn the former into the latter as can be seen by his oft repeated mention of "searching for a real Atlantis". An inspiration for the Atlantis story doesn't make that inspiration Atlantis any more than the inspiration for the Cyclops legends (usually attributed to mammoth/mastodon skulls) makes said skulls proof that the Cyclops existed.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therein lies the problem Searcher. Proclus apparently can't differenciate a literary construct from an historical fact. But tries to turn the former into the latter as can be seen by his oft repeated mention of "searching for a real Atlantis". An inspiration for the Atlantis story doesn't make that inspiration Atlantis any more than the inspiration for the Cyclops legends (usually attributed to mammoth/mastodon skulls) makes said skulls proof that the Cyclops existed.

cormac

I hear you Cormac and you're quite correct. Plato himself didn't believe it to be true. I think that this was established in another thread and if memory serves, Proclus was involved there, so he should know better than to confirm that Plato believed it. It's far from being proven and to be perfectly honest, more speaks against it than for it.

The question of what could have inspired Plato as an example is an interesting one, that I will agree on. However it's the only thing about all the Atlantis claptrap that I will agree on, considering that every half-wit or Atlantis enthusiast (two rather different things btw.) will already use this to say that we admit Atlantis existed.

Atlantis, as described by Plato, isn't real, never was real, is just a literary construct to bolster the political point that Plato was trying to make with his writings. To believe otherwise makes you in my eyes, part of the aforementioned half-wits or Atlantis enthusiasts.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qoute-TheSearcher

OK lets stick with the facts we know from Plato's writings, as they are the one and only source for Atlantis.

- Atlantis is first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias.

- According to Plato, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hercules" that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9600 BC.

Plutarch, Life of Solon 26. 1 (trans. Perrin) (Greek historian C1st - C2nd A.D.) :

"He [solon] also spent some time in studies with Psenophis of Heliopolis [in Egypt] and Sonkhis (Sonchis) of Sais, who were very learned priests. From these, as Plato says, he heard the story of the lost Atlantis, and tried to introduce it in a poetical form to the Greeks."

Solon poetic portrayal of Atlantis 9600 bc, there was no navel power, only references to the foundation of the Gods ( no man could get to the island, for ships and voyages were not as yet.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qoute-TheSearcher

OK lets stick with the facts we know from Plato's writings, as they are the one and only source for Atlantis.

- Atlantis is first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias.

- According to Plato, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hercules" that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9600 BC.

Plutarch, Life of Solon 26. 1 (trans. Perrin) (Greek historian C1st - C2nd A.D.) :

"He [solon] also spent some time in studies with Psenophis of Heliopolis [in Egypt] and Sonkhis (Sonchis) of Sais, who were very learned priests. From these, as Plato says, he heard the story of the lost Atlantis, and tried to introduce it in a poetical form to the Greeks."

Solon poetic portrayal of Atlantis 9600 bc, there was no navel power, only references to the foundation of the Gods ( no man could get to the island, for ships and voyages were not as yet.)

Solon would have been hard pressed to have left any such information for either Plato or Plutarch to acquire since Ancient Egypt didn't keep records of the priesthood that would have been passed down over centuries, nor was there ever a story of Atlantis (by any name) in Egypt for Solon to have heard about. Nor even do these two alleged priests names appear in the Egyptian record before Plutarch's mention of them. One has to wonder where Plutarch was getting his information as it doesn't appear to have existed in Egypt.

The story of Atlantis as had allegedly been passed down from Solon to Plato says otherwise.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the veracity of Atlantis, well Plato himself gives us a clue. As it appears, Critias's story in the Timaeus provides some insight.

In the dialogue, Critias says, referring to Socrates' hypothetical society:

And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon.

On this particular bit, A. E. Taylor wrote, "We could not be told much more plainly that the whole narrative of Solon's conversation with the priests and his intention of writing the poem about Atlantis are an invention of Plato's fancy." (ref. Plato: The Man and His Work - A. E. Taylor)

So in my opinion and that of a great many scholars it seems, Atlantis as described by Plato is a literary construct.

Thank you,

I agree that Plato says that he "constructs" something here. But of which kind is this construction precisely? Look carefully:

First, it is not a full invention. It is an addition to an (alleged) historical tradition.

Primeval Athens as Plato saw it did fit to his ideal state in that sense, that he only had to add small things to make it complete.

At least this is, what is said in the dialogues. If it is all a literary invention, it would be a very very sophisticated one, you have to admit that.

Second, of which kind are these additions? Pure inventions? No. This is simply not the way Plato constructs his "Platonic Myths".

There is nowhere "pure invention" in Platonic Myths (which by the way are no myths), but ... conclusions!

Plato fills gaps by conclusions. A conclusion is not an invention.

So the story is presented as a true or at least likely story (this is true even if it all is an invention).

Third, this word on additions is said about primeval Athens. But do we search for primeval Athens? No.

We search for Atlantis, which is a representation of the decadent state.

Now, how much models do we find in reality for an ideal state? Not a single one. So you have to add something.

But how much models do we find for a decadent state? Plenty!!! You do not have to add anything to make certain real states a decadent state.

I conclude: Plato presents it all as a reality, and he does this in such a perfect and sophisticated and credible way,

that it is reasonable to conclude that Plato really thought so (Gomperz saw this too, remember?),

and that there is a certain chance of a distorted tradition behind Atlantis.

And then, there is again another certain chance that the distortion of this tradition is not so strong that in the end we can talk of a real place as Atlantis.

And I beg your pardon, I would like to try to find out whether I can realize this certainly small chance.

Yes, yes, likelihood speaks strongly against this, but it's not a 100% likelihood.

Nobody knows in a strong sense of knowing whether an Atlantis existed or not, we operate only with likelihoods.

We only know that the literal meaning is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you invent story you invent characthers. Far as I know Solon was not fictional characther. Maybe yot think differently.

Maybe Gandalf did exist too.

You dont invent story with real person.

That doesnt make sense.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you invent a story you invent characters. As far as I know Solon was not fictional character. Maybe you think differently.

Maybe Gandalf did exist too.

You don't invent a story about a real person.

That doesn't make sense.

We both can make up stories about our fathers.

They existed, but what we tell about them doesn't therefore have to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We both can make up stories about our fathers.

They existed, but what we tell about them doesn't therefore have to be true.

I would not lie. And knowing Plato and his school Im sure he wouldnt too.

Also Solon was not Plato father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Ancient Egypt didn't keep records of the priesthood that would have been passed down over centuries, nor was there ever a story of Atlantis (by any name) in Egypt for Solon to have heard about. Nor even do these two alleged priests names appear in the Egyptian record before Plutarch's mention of them.

Nor even we have all from Egyptian books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not lie. And knowing Plato and his school Im sure he wouldnt too.

Also Solon was not Plato father.

I am not saying or even suggesting you would, but Plato was a PHILOSOPHER.

He wanted to teach his 'flock' about moral, and a little twist of history here and there wouldn't hurt if it got the message across.

Jesus talked in parables to teach his people. Do you think his parables were about real historical events?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However it would be interesting to find out what might have inspired Plato. Was it the attempted Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC, the Thera eruption maybe?

If Atlantis didnt exist and Plato was inspired then it is most likely Helike. When it was destroyed Plato was 50 years old.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying or even suggesting you would, but Plato was a PHILOSOPHER.

He wanted to teach his 'flock' about moral, and a little twist of history here and there wouldn't hurt if it got the message across.

Jesus talked in parables to teach his people. Do you think his parables were about real historical events?

But you suggest that he invented alternative history. If he want to twist history he could invent some Greek. Why use real person?

Also if he wanted to invent story and glorify Athenians and their greatest military victory why he didnt "invent" and desrcibe to us battles?

Where happened? Tactic on field. Strategy behind...For how long they fight...He even DONT mention was war happened on sea or on ground?

Isnt that obscure?

You want to describe and invent story where you will show how Athenians were God like and how they defeat most strongest opponent ever, yet you dont invent anything about it.

You dont even mention a line about battle with decent info.

Jesus was same school as Plato, I believe. Just not in that extend.

Jesus far as I know didnt use similar parables as you think Plato did.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you suggest that he invented alternative history. If he want to twist history he could invent some Greek. Why use real person?

Also if he wanted to invent story and glorify Athenians and their greatest military victory why he didnt "invent" and desrcibe to us battles?

Where happened? Tactic on field. Strategy behind...For how long they fight...He even DONT mention was war happened on sea or on ground?

Isnt that obscure?

You want to describe and invent story where you will show how Athenians were God like and how they defeat most strongest opponent ever, yet you dont invent anything about it.

You dont even mention a line about battle with decent info.

Jesus was same school as Plato, I believe. Just not in that extend.

Jesus far as I know didnt use similar parables as you think Plato did.

Plato created what I'd like to call a parable.

Jesus used historical figures a couple of times in his parables (don't ask me which persons, I know he did, but I don't recall their names right now)

And has anyone ever found archeological proof in Greece of a major war of 10,000 years or more ago?

I think not.

All they found was remnants of stone age people. No advanced boats (triremes) , no 'glorious' civilization of that age.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlantis didnt exist and Plato was inspired then it is most likely Helike. When it was destroyed Plato was 50 years old.

Helike was like my balcony: a very tiny area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why we didnt find nothing yet can be argued. But ...

If Atlantis was invented then Plato would invent story about battle. Yet Plato didnt provide us any info. Why ?

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.