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

Helike was like my balcony: a very tiny area.

But it could use as inspiration. He was "witness" destruction similar to those in Atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

Hello?

Plato usually marks his Platonic Myths as "mythos" if their truth status is not important or in doubt. But with Atlantis he does not do this, quite the opposite. Also Jesus does not claim truth for his parables. Everybody who knows Plato well knows that he does not just make up any story. That's nonsense. (Especially when it comes to the "noble lie", forget it, you cannot call the Atlantis story a noble lie in Plato's sense). This is also common sense among Plato researchers, they only are reluctant to apply these insights to the Atlantis story because they feel bad about the consequences ... Atlantis a distorted reality? Ah well ... All in all: A true thing with a historical distorted kernel which has a small chance to be identified.

The discussion about Atlantis has a serious lack of knowlege on Plato and his way of writing dialogues and "Platonic Myths".

... and you still have not understood that a distorted tradition does not reach back 10000 years? Come on, this is not the discussion here! Distorted traditions are nearer in time, such as bronze age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know Plato personally?

No, you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know Plato personally?

No, you don't.

A certain helplessness is expressed by your statement :-) I read a lot on Plato, especially the current scientific discussion on Platonic Myths. Sorry for you, but Plato's work is preserved well, and there are many witnesses of him and his time, he is indeed known well. You should consider my thoughts to be well-based. Of course, you will always find dissenting opinions.

Is the thought uncomfortable to you that Atlantis could be a real place?

You share the same emotions many had when Schliemann started to search for Troy.

How can he dare to search for a ... poem? Well, he could.

_

Edited by Proclus

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?

First of all, in critiquing and digesting an ancient writer like Plato, you must divorce yourself from concepts which underpin the "social norms" of modern writing. In point of fact almost no reputable professional historian would employee Plato's tactics in writing a modern historical treatment. It would be akin to an American historian writing some narrative about the first Gulf War and putting words in the mouth of General Norman Schwartzkopf, whose leadership was integral to the swift American victory in that war. You just don't do that sort of thing by today's standards.

But Plato did not need to abide by today's standards. He employed a common ancient literary device: the use of revered or at least universally familiar historical personages to bolster his story. Arguably the most prominent of them all was Solon, the great Athenian law-giver. By Plato's time most of Solon's deeds and events would no longer have been remembered, but due mostly to his laws, Solon was considered by Athenians to have been one of the greatest and wisest Athenians ever to have lived. This enabled Plato to use a respected and revered historical figure to make his own allegorical tale seem all the more worth considering, even though it was not a true historical account.

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

If you could go back in time to Plato's day and ask ten Athenians (or a hundred Athenians, for that matter) what the greatest military achievement of Athens ever was, I highly doubt a single one of them would've said "Atlantis." I am quite confident that every last one of them would've said "Marathon" instead. Even more so than the fighting in the waters off Salamis, it was the Athenians' victory against the Persians on the beaches of Marathon that left them with their greatest pride.

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?

The precise strategies and tactics of the Atlantean battle are actually quite irrelevant. That is not the important part of the tale. The outcome is what mattered.

If you look at actual Greek historians like Herodotus, as far as that goes, you will encounter very few real details about strategies and tactics. The attempt is there to explain battles of the time, but again, of much greater importance was the outcome. This is a constant source of frustration for military historians who specialize in ancient warfare: be it the Sumerians or Egyptians or Hittites or Hebrews or Assyrians or Greeks, very few historically viable descriptions exist for ancient battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A certain helplessness is expressed by your statement :-) I read a lot on Plato, especially the current scientific discussion on Platonic Myths. Sorry for you, but Plato's work is preserved well, and there are many witnesses of him and his time, he is indeed known well. You should consider my thoughts to be well-based. Of course, you will always find dissenting opinions.

A cautionary note on my part, Proclus: you just spent an entire paragraph disparaging a poster and his response while touting yourself. You've broken no forum rules in the above statement and I am writing this more as a poster than as a Moderator, but the self-promotion evident in the above is somewhat off-putting. Especially in light of the fact, based on what I've seen of your general posting history to date, that you yourself come across with a certain degree of naiveté in the critical-thinking process of evaluating some avenues of source material. None of us is perfect—neither you nor I nor any other poster here.

I fear this is coming across as too negative and I don't mean it to upset or discourage you because you do contribute usefully to the discussions in which you've been involved, but I would just advise dialing back on the critiquing of other people's level of knowledge as well as maintaining a certain wariness in promoting yourself. It's bound to come back and bite you in the tushy.

Is the thought uncomfortable to you that Atlantis could be a real place?

I've been meaning to come back to this discussion because I've wanted to reply to more than one of your recent posts, but this comment about the possible reality of Atlantis serves the purpose right now. I know you haven't been at UM very long and I don't know what your personal history and experience might be with involvement in other internet forums, but it might be worth noting on my part that it's nearly impossible to list all of the Atlantis themes and ideas and "theories" that have been contributed at UM alone. Taking you as one example, from my own experience at UM, pretty much everything you've presented in defense of Atlantis as real has already been said—many times, by many different posters through the years. The phrase "We've heard it all" is rather apropos.

So if at times I or another "skeptic" at UM seems weary or truculent when it comes to discussing Atlantis, it's only because of the abundance of times this has all been discussed over the years. It might also be why many of the Atlantis "believers" seem scarce: they've said the same stuff over the years, and frankly, from what I can see, many of them are no longer even active anymore.

You share the same emotions many had when Schliemann started to search for Troy.

How can he dare to search for a ... poem? Well, he could.

To this day there is no universal consensus that Hisarlik was even the actual site around which Homer's tale was framed. Many modern historians do consider it plausible, but most or all would agree that it's not definitive. The strata of Hisarlik which date to the Late Bronze Age, for example, are rather weak on convincing evidence for widespread destruction caused by invasion. It's not my intent to sidetrack the discussion with a debate about ancient Troy, but we cannot say with certainty that the mound Schliemann tore asunder was the right place.

In the very least, however, there is ample archaeological evidence at Hisarlik for the city that was once there and for the people who occupied that city down through time. The comparison between Hisarlik and Atlantis simply falls flat because no similar archaeological evidence exists for Atlantis. It remains a fairy tale, albeit a brilliantly written one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cautionary note on my part, Proclus: you just spent an entire paragraph disparaging a poster and his response while touting yourself. You've broken no forum rules in the above statement and I am writing this more as a poster than as a Moderator, but the self-promotion evident in the above is somewhat off-putting. Especially in light of the fact, based on what I've seen of your general posting history to date, that you yourself come across with a certain degree of naiveté in the critical-thinking process of evaluating some avenues of source material. None of us is perfect—neither you nor I nor any other poster here.

I fear this is coming across as too negative and I don't mean it to upset or discourage you because you do contribute usefully to the discussions in which you've been involved, but I would just advise dialing back on the critiquing of other people's level of knowledge as well as maintaining a certain wariness in promoting yourself. It's bound to come back and bite you in the tushy.

I've been meaning to come back to this discussion because I've wanted to reply to more than one of your recent posts, but this comment about the possible reality of Atlantis serves the purpose right now. I know you haven't been at UM very long and I don't know what your personal history and experience might be with involvement in other internet forums, but it might be worth noting on my part that it's nearly impossible to list all of the Atlantis themes and ideas and "theories" that have been contributed at UM alone. Taking you as one example, from my own experience at UM, pretty much everything you've presented in defense of Atlantis as real has already been said—many times, by many different posters through the years. The phrase "We've heard it all" is rather apropos.

So if at times I or another "skeptic" at UM seems weary or truculent when it comes to discussing Atlantis, it's only because of the abundance of times this has all been discussed over the years. It might also be why many of the Atlantis "believers" seem scarce: they've said the same stuff over the years, and frankly, from what I can see, many of them are no longer even active anymore.

To this day there is no universal consensus that Hisarlik was even the actual site around which Homer's tale was framed. Many modern historians do consider it plausible, but most or all would agree that it's not definitive. The strata of Hisarlik which date to the Late Bronze Age, for example, are rather weak on convincing evidence for widespread destruction caused by invasion. It's not my intent to sidetrack the discussion with a debate about ancient Troy, but we cannot say with certainty that the mound Schliemann tore asunder was the right place.

In the very least, however, there is ample archaeological evidence at Hisarlik for the city that was once there and for the people who occupied that city down through time. The comparison between Hisarlik and Atlantis simply falls flat because no similar archaeological evidence exists for Atlantis. It remains a fairy tale, albeit a brilliantly written one.

To put it another way the location of Hisarlik, which was also known as Ilion and was believed by some to have been the original Troy was never a myth nor just a poem but a legend. As opposed to Atlantis which was NEVER a legend at any point in ancient history. The best it could ever achieve was the status of a myth.

cormac

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 ?

Probably because his entire written works never survived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is still about the Piri Reis Map try this:

http://xoomer.virgil...iriReis_eng.htm

You should check my "Science" blog (click link in my signature) : there your link already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A certain helplessness is expressed by your statement :-) I read a lot on Plato, especially the current scientific discussion on Platonic Myths. Sorry for you, but Plato's work is preserved well, and there are many witnesses of him and his time, he is indeed known well. You should consider my thoughts to be well-based. Of course, you will always find dissenting opinions.

Is the thought uncomfortable to you that Atlantis could be a real place?

You share the same emotions many had when Schliemann started to search for Troy.

How can he dare to search for a ... poem? Well, he could.

_

Based on how you 'judge' me now. based on just a couple of words of mine, no, I don't think you can safely say you know Plato well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me Atlantis was a real place based on a event told to Solon by a Egyptian priest and was retold in a poetic form by Solon of a war that did occur and was forgotten.The whole tale points to the islands of Santorina and Thera. Plato did`nt invent the tale he just was qouting Critias who heard the tale from his Grandfather Critias as a ten year old boy.

Plato

Soc.] Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

[Crit.] I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man; for Critias, at the time of telling it, was as he said, nearly ninety years of age, and I was about ten. Now the day was that day of the Apaturia which is called the Registration of Youth, at which, according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and the poems of several poets were recited by us boys, and many of us sang the poems of Solon, which at that time had not gone out of fashion. One of our tribe, either because he thought so or to please Critias, said that in his judgment Solon was not only the wisest of men, but also the noblest of poets. The old man, as I very well remember, brightened up at hearing this and said, smiling: Yes, Amynander, if Solon had only, like other poets, made poetry the business of his life, and had completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@all:

I have not the feeling that everything on Atlantis was said already in this forum. I browsed this forum, but where is the philological and historical-critical discussion on Atlantis? I see only many many all-too simple proposals of locations, as you say yourself! But just only proposing another location is not my point and will lead to nowhere.

I do not propose any location, I propose something else: That it really could be worth to start searching! Really searching without knowing in advance the result. But where to start? Start searching in the texts of course. And that in the end a real location could come up which does not look like any Atlantis searcher or any Atlantis skeptic had imagined. But which is really Atlantis. The place meant by Plato.

Especially when it comes to a more sophisticated discussion on the philology of the Atlantis account under the perspective of the idea of the so-called "Platonic Myth" in the broader context of Plato's work I see a big gap of knowledge, here. Most skeptics are strong in rejecting the idea of a literal meaning (in the Atlantic 9600 BC), but they are weak when it comes to the nitty gritty of historical criticism. Some skeptics seem really annoyed by the idea that Plato himself believed what he wrote.

Most skeptics, if not all, love and deeply believe (believe!) the idea that Plato simply made the story up. They simply follow those scholars who think that "Platonic Myths" are just myths. But there is no common sense in science on this. And *this* attack on their believe is the reason why some are annoyed, not, that they already read such stuff elsewhere in this forum. I have to admit: The discussion on the reality-part in Platonic Myths is a discussion which happens very silently in academia. Especially when it comes to Atlantis. But it happens.

It is like with Herodotus: There are some scholars who say Herodotus was a lier and made it all up, so you can forget him, and there are some other scholars who defend Herodotus and deliver reasons why Herodotus was wrong although he really wanted to be serious.

Well, no applause is expected, I just wanted to suggest you to be skeptic towards all-too simple explanations, like the weird idea that Plato made it all up.

PS: Concerning Troy it is true, the discussion whether Hissarlik is Troy goes on, but ... it goes on, it is not just rejecting the idea as pure bullsh....; and the skeptics do not say that there never was such a battle of "Troy", they only say that the real setting of the historical tradition was elsewhere, and much less spectacular. A Homer who simply made it all up is *not* in discussion, at least not among serious scholars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@all:

I have not the feeling that everything on Atlantis was said already in this forum. I browsed this forum, but where is the philological and historical-critical discussion on Atlantis? I see only many many all-too simple proposals of locations, as you say yourself! But just only proposing another location is not my point and will lead to nowhere.

I do not propose any location, I propose something else: That it really could be worth to start searching! Really searching without knowing in advance the result. But where to start? Start searching in the texts of course. And that in the end a real location could come up which does not look like any Atlantis searcher or any Atlantis skeptic had imagined. But which is really Atlantis. The place meant by Plato.

Searching the texts is a good start but you must also search the myths and legends of those lands Atlantis would have an impact on. Outside of Plato there is no documentation, legends, myths or stories about Atlantis.

Most skeptics, if not all, love and deeply believe (believe!) the idea that Plato simply made the story up. They simply follow those scholars who think that "Platonic Myths" are just myths. But there is no common sense in science on this. And *this* attack on their believe is the reason why some are annoyed, not, that they already read such stuff elsewhere in this forum. I have to admit: The discussion on the reality-part in Platonic Myths is a discussion which happens very silently in academia. Especially when it comes to Atlantis. But it happens.

It is like with Herodotus: There are some scholars who say Herodotus was a lier and made it all up, so you can forget him, and there are some other scholars who defend Herodotus and deliver reasons why Herodotus was wrong although he really wanted to be serious.

For most skeptics, it is not a matter of belief, but whether there is evidence to back up the claim. There is common sense in science and it says if evidence to support a claim or statement is lacking then you do not proclaim that it exists but maintain it as unevidenced/unsupported. Science, like most skeptics is willing to reassess the conclusions about Atlantis if evidence is forth coming, however, that evidence can not be taken at face value but must withstand scrutiny to determine it's validity.

What annoys scholars, researchers and skeptics where subjects like Atlantis are concerned are those people that take the story as factual without ever checking into the validity of it, those that take existing evidence and change or cherry pick it to support their view and those (especially those) who ignore evidence that not only does not support the subject but in cases outright refutes it.

Well, no applause is expected, I just wanted to suggest you to be skeptic towards all-too simple explanations, like the weird idea that Plato made it all up.

In most cases, where evidence is lacking to support a claim or view, the simple view is often the correct view.

PS: Concerning Troy it is true, the discussion whether Hissarlik is Troy goes on, but ... it goes on, it is not just rejecting the idea as pure bullsh....; and the skeptics do not say that there never was such a battle of "Troy", they only say that the real setting of the historical tradition was elsewhere, and much less spectacular. A Homer who simply made it all up is *not* in discussion, at least not among serious scholars.

The difference between Troy and Atlantis is there is evidence that can be used to support the existence of Troy.

I read the following in "The History of Atlantis by Lewis Spence"

Plutarch expressly upholds Plato's statement that Solon intended to write a poem on Atlantis, but was compelled to renounce his intention on account of his great age. In the Timaeus Plato eloquently expresses his regret that he had not carried out his plan

I have not had the time to check into this, but if it is accurate then the only reference to Atlantis would have been a verbal account that Solon was going to write the poem but no evidence that specific information about Atlantis was ever passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most skeptics, it is not a matter of belief, but whether there is evidence to back up the claim.

I have not had the time to check into this, but if it is accurate then the only reference to Atlantis would have been a verbal account that Solon was going to write the poem but no evidence that specific information about Atlantis was ever passed.

The idea to judge against it because nothing speaks for it, fails, because there speaks something for it:

Many details speak for the idea that Plato really meant it to be true.

A scientific attitude in this case would rather be the neutral statement: We don't know it.

I do not agree that an invention is the simpler solution.

You have to answer other questions, then:

Why does Plato invent it, it's not his way?

Why does Plato clearly explains that he adds something to primeval Athens, if it is all invented?

Why does Plato clearly explains that he adds something to primeval Athens, if it is a deception myth?

And quickly the "simple" solution is very very complicated.

Another no-brainer is the claim that there were not other traditions, because: ( a ) in Greece of course not, since the story allegedly came from Egypt and ( b ) of course not under the name of Atlantis, because Atlantis is no name. The hands of the skeptics are as empty as the hands of the searchers.

Plutarch: He just repeats what Plato wrote in the dialogue: Solon planned to make an epic poem of the (allegedly) factual story.

_

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea to judge against it because nothing speaks for it, fails, because there speaks something for it:

Many details speak for the idea that Plato really meant it to be true.

A scientific attitude in this case would rather be the neutral statement: We don't know it.

I do not agree that an invention is the simpler solution.

You have to answer other questions, then:

Why does Plato invent it, it's not his way?

Why does Plato clearly explains that he adds something to primeval Athens, if it is all invented?

Why does Plato clearly explains that he adds something to primeval Athens, if it is a deception myth?

And quickly the "simple" solution is very very complicated.

Another no-brainer is the claim that there were not other traditions, because: ( a ) in Greece of course not, since the story allegedly came from Egypt and ( b ) of course not under the name of Atlantis, because Atlantis is no name. The hands of the skeptics are as empty as the hands of the searchers.

Plutarch: He just repeats what Plato wrote in the dialogue: Solon planned to make an epic poem of the (allegedly) factual story.

_

No, a scientific attitude on this would be "Did Atlantis, as written and described by Plato in his works Timaeus and Critias really exist. The answer of which would be a resounding NO. What you are trying to do is find something that might have been the inspiration for Plato's account and then call it "Atlantis". That's not remotely a scientific approach.

A.) There's no evidence of any such story having ever existed in Ancient Egypt so it doesn't matter what was claimed.

B.) There's also no evidence of any such place like Atlantis being mentioned by any other name in Ancient Egypt, so this too is irrelevant.\

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted double post.

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the story of the Titans and Hyperborea is closely linked to the story of Atlantis. Probably the same area or place, maybe different time. Both stories has many similarities and describes an powerfull island, and poseidon and advanced and blessed people..

The Hyperborean story tells of 40 days/nights of light, this is a very specific geographic clue and places it above the actic circle. Atlantis describes elephants, which also only can live in a temperate climate. In the whole world there are only two such areas that fit both categories, and thats Iceland and the area off norway called Lofoten, Both outside the pillars, which divided the two worlds and in the atlantic ocean. This is the only two places elephants can enjoy the Northern lights and still not freeze their ass off.

Lofoten has several of large islands that have sunk in the sea during stoneage. The old kingdom of Hålogaland (means the holy land) includes part of west coast off norway and lofoten. They had their own religion proven by 10 different caves with same style paintings over the kingdom during the stone and bronzeage.

Some elephant babies could easily be traded and brought there from the south. It almost never gets any colder than 0 degrees during night at winter even today. In stoneage the area was also much warmer for several reasons. The elephants could easily survive, grow big and reproduce and help with the heavy stones on the temples. Mother earths largest easy accessable and storable food source during stoneage also lies here. The Cod, and needed thousands of ships to harvest it from february to april. The fleet could be used as a large tradefleet/armyfleet the rest of the year.

Many sceptics doubt there even was a large non farming seabased kingdom with thousands of ships during the possible period. There was one. Whether thats the one platon describes, i dont know. But it could have been.. They vikings showed the greecs and italians and others what real warriors are made from during later periods. The area has also been trough several of all destroying catastrophic tsunamies (3 -4) since last iceage.

vikings.jpg

Edited by whitegandalf

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.

Ignorance has a cure. Here it is:

In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

Source

Not only would Plato lie, and not only is he famous for lies, he actually invented a type of lie.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seapeople attacked egypt and other kingdoms in the area from 1200bc. This find is from denmark, a part of the northern, outside pillar, bronzeage world. Dating 1100bc

seapeople3.gif

Bronze_Age_Helmets,_Nationalmuseet_Copenhagen.jpg

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea to judge against it because nothing speaks for it, fails, because there speaks something for it:

Many details speak for the idea that Plato really meant it to be true.

A scientific attitude in this case would rather be the neutral statement: We don't know it.

Cormac covered this part in his post

I do not agree that an invention is the simpler solution.

You have to answer other questions, then:

Why does Plato invent it, it's not his way?

Why does Plato clearly explains that he adds something to primeval Athens, if it is all invented?

Why does Plato clearly explains that he adds something to primeval Athens, if it is a deception myth?

And quickly the "simple" solution is very very complicated.

The book I referenced in my last post I should have linked to but failed and that is my fault. here is the link History of Atlantis

In that book it indicates that Plato, being related to Solon, decided to do what Solon couldn't, write about Atlantis. Plato used the form most familiar to him.

The simple solution isn't as complicated as you would like it to be.

Another no-brainer is the claim that there were not other traditions, because: ( a ) in Greece of course not, since the story allegedly came from Egypt and ( b ) of course not under the name of Atlantis, because Atlantis is no name. The hands of the skeptics are as empty as the hands of the searchers.

This is where logic and critical thinking are quite useful. The story supposedly came from Egypt and there was even a mention that the story was inscribed on pillars. Logically, there should be something, anything in the writings and stories from Egypt that would mention Atlantis, yet nothing has been found, not even the pillars.

Let us expand our search for corroborating evidence using the story itself. Atlantis was a major sea power, it subjugated a great deal of Europe and North Africa, and the sinking of the island blocked sea travel. If the story were true there would be mention of this sea power by the other sea faring nations, There would be writings, stories, legends or myths in those areas that were subjugated and sea faring nations would have noted the mud shoals, most likely in the form of a warning. We find nothing of that sort.

The story may have come from Egypt but there was, according to the story, a war between Atlantis and Athens and her allies. If such a war happened there would be indications in the writings or orally about it but once again we find nothing.

The "no brainer" is that evidence would exist to support the story if the story were true but to date, nothing has been found.

Skeptics don't need anything in their hands. It is up to those, like yourself, who make the claims of Atlantis' reality to supply the evidence of it's existence.

Plutarch: He just repeats what Plato wrote in the dialogue: Solon planned to make an epic poem of the (allegedly) factual story.

If Solon planned to but didn't, then there was nothing written to be passed down Critias and nothing for Plato to reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seapeople attacked egypt and other kingdoms in the area from 1200bc. This find is from denmark, a part of the northern, outside pillar, bronzeage world. Dating 1100bc

seapeople3.gif

Bronze_Age_Helmets,_Nationalmuseet_Copenhagen.jpg

The Shardana helmets fit better:

seapeoples07.jpg

seapeoples12.jpg

Then we have the Nuragic helmets:

seapeoples56.jpg

And all those are from the immediate vicinity of Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hyperborean story tells of 40 days/nights of light, this is a very specific geographic clue and places it above the actic circle. Atlantis describes elephants, which also only can live in a temperate climate. In the whole world there are only two such areas that fit both categories, and thats Iceland and the area off norway called Lofoten, Both outside the pillars, which divided the two worlds and in the atlantic ocean. This is the only two places elephants can enjoy the Northern lights and still not freeze their ass off.

I think the elephants in Kenya would disagree with you on that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice how ignorant you are on my arguments.

By ignorance the strongest evidence can be gained :-)

cormac still has not arrived at the thought that a historical kernel not necessarily is "only" an inspiration, but it could be in core the thing itself! Especially, if it is not a combination of different inspirations, but only one main "inspiration".

cormac:

> A.) There's no evidence of any such story having ever existed in Ancient Egypt so it doesn't matter what was claimed.

How often do you want to repeat this again? The Sea Peoples are close enough to serve as a starting point. Your repeated statements are close to a lie. A noble lie? *smile* Indeed, some Atlantis skeptics have a political agenda and deny Atlantis very strictly because of political reasons. They believe Plato to be a friend of tyranny and think the story is put into the mouth of Critias the tyrant. But it is another Critias. But thank you cormac, that you mentioned the name-thing. A progress!

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.

I said: Forget the noble lie.

You said: Hey, maybe it is a noble lie?

Look: Plato invented the concept. But he invented it for the non-philosophers. Plato *never* applies the concept to the readers of his dialogues. He mentions only one noble lie, and this is explicitly marked as such. Furthermore it would make no sense to see the Atlantis story as a noble lie. It does not serve the purpose the noble lie is thought for. And then: Why does Plato explicitly say that he added something for primeval Athens? Are noble lies revealed as partly non-original stories?! *smile*

Ouuh, how simple this is: Plato made it all up, it is a lie, yes, a lie, a noble lie, plane into the face of his readers, and the readers, his philosopher friends, are so dumb as ordinary people, that they did not realize this, etc. etc. This is exactly how Plato was interpreted in the 19th century, the time of romanticism. The time when all statements of Plato's Socrates were considered to be pure irony. This changed, heavily, too. Yes, you are romantics, my dear so-called skeptics! You dream of a phantasy Atlantis, romantically, but in fact it's a boring small-sized reality, out there, somewhere, a huge heap of rubble. Very unromantic.

WhiteGandalf could be wiser than you!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it wasnt paradise for them, i agree.. but they cope with a colder climate pretty well.. Copenhaven Denmark has been breeding and kept elephants outdoor since 1907. There was a episode there with unusual ekstreme cold with -15 degrees a couple of years ago. The elephants survived fine, but pieces of their ears began to fall off, and they were kept inside in the future on the very coldest days. Lofoten is warmer. Copenhagen today and tomorrow is -4 and -7 degrees, Lofoten +4 and +4 degrees, Even Paris is colder with -1 and +1

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.