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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just recounts what he heard from Egyptian prophets.

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

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry-please delete

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?!

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.

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Agreed on the first part, however the fact Plato and Crantor only relied on written sources is an assumption, since it is not the majority view and should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on the first part, however the fact Plato and Crantor only relied on written sources is an assumption, since it is not the majority view and should be treated as such.

Yes. The whole Atlantis thing is not the majority view :-)

Especially funny are certain French researchers (book "Plato the Myth Maker" by Brisson) who intensely see Plato as an inventor of an "oral tradition" story -- not considering that Plato in his (alleged) invention clearly talks of written sources: Solon and the priest read in papyri, and Critias (allegedly) reads in Solon's text. Even if Plato invented the whole thing, you cannot call it "oral tradition". Just to give you an example how weird academia sometimes can be ...

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And in fact, Plato claimed Solon was told this by the priests of Sais. I'm saying that Crantor's statement that the Egyptian prophets testified to this is a rewording of what Plato said. IOW, Crantor is talking about what Plato wrote, not about his own experience with some Egyptian priests.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in fact, Plato claimed Solon was told this by the priests of Sais. I'm saying that Crantor's statement that the Egyptian prophets testified to this is a rewording of what Plato said. IOW, Crantor is talking about what Plato wrote, not about his own experience with some Egyptian priests.

It's a possibility, but I do not know any scholar who follows this view. One thing is clear: Crantor at least pretends to have an independent source, because corrobating Plato's story is what he wants to achieve. This is clear from the context. Well, well, now you can start to doubt the context, too, that Proclus screwed it up, etc. etc. -- at a certain point Atlantis skeptics face similar problems as Atlantis searchers: They have to work with a lot of uncertainties. But I agree that it is a possibility, although unlikely.

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The whole Atlantis thing is not the majority view :-)

Especially funny are certain French researchers (book "Plato the Myth Maker" by Brisson) who intensely see Plato as an inventor of an "oral tradition" story -- not considering that Plato in his (alleged) invention clearly talks of written sources: Solon and the priest read in papyri, and Critias (allegedly) reads in Solon's text. Even if Plato invented the whole thing, you cannot call it "oral tradition". Just to give you an example how weird academia sometimes can be ...

NO, I said "the fact Plato and Crantor only relied on written sources is an assumption, since it is not the majority view and should be treated as such". Don't give it a meaning it has not.

Having said this, yes, the whole Atlantis thing is a supposition at best.

Also, as far as I remember, it goes as follows in the Timaeus and the Critias texts :

Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages. He was a relative and a dear friend of my great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says in many passages of his poems; and he told the story to Critias, my grandfather, who remembered and repeated it to us.
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.
But besides the gods and goddesses whom you have mentioned, I would specially invoke Mnemosyne; for all the important part of my discourse is dependent on her favour, and if I can recollect and recite enough of what was said by the priests and brought hither by Solon, I doubt not that I shall satisfy the requirements of this theatre. And now, making no more excuses, I will proceed.

None of the above hints at reading all points towards having heard tell the story, Critias heard the story, didn't read it.. So yes "oral tradition " is not wrong at all.

And in fact, Plato claimed Solon was told this by the priests of Sais. I'm saying that Crantor's statement that the Egyptian prophets testified to this is a rewording of what Plato said. IOW, Crantor is talking about what Plato wrote, not about his own experience with some Egyptian priests.

Harte

I wouldn't be half surprised to find that you are right.

Edited by TheSearcher
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above hints at reading all points towards having heard tell the story, Critias heard the story, didn't read it.. So yes "oral tradition " is not wrong at all.

*sigh* You read the Atlantis dialogues? Does not seem so. *sigh*

You did not read about the Egyptian priest talking of written text? You did not read that Solon had some written stuff on it in which Critias read when he was young? "Oral tradition" is exactly the opposite of what Plato claims for this story, because he opposes Greek oral tradition (Solon) to Egyptian written tradition (the priest). O Solon Solon, you Greeks ... etc. etc.

Think twice! *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* You read the Atlantis dialogues? Does not seem so. *sigh*

You did not read about the Egyptian priest talking of written text? You did not read that Solon had some written stuff on it in which Critias read when he was young? "Oral tradition" is exactly the opposite of what Plato claims for this story, because he opposes Greek oral tradition (Solon) to Egyptian written tradition (the priest). O Solon Solon, you Greeks ... etc. etc.

Think twice! *sigh*

Proclus, your condescending attitude it getting really tiresome. It has been a while since I did read the Atlantis dialogues, yes, however those bits are to show that things are far from being as close cut as you present them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proclus, your condescending attitude it getting really tiresome. It has been a while since I did read the Atlantis dialogues, yes, however those bits are to show that things are far from being as close cut as you present them.

Where we have to add that it is highly improbable that the temple in question existed at the time of Solon in Sais, making the story with the priest a little questionable. Now, in Plato's time the temple existed though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* You read the Atlantis dialogues? Does not seem so. *sigh*

You did not read about the Egyptian priest talking of written text? You did not read that Solon had some written stuff on it in which Critias read when he was young? "Oral tradition" is exactly the opposite of what Plato claims for this story, because he opposes Greek oral tradition (Solon) to Egyptian written tradition (the priest). O Solon Solon, you Greeks ... etc. etc.

Think twice! *sigh*

"Sigh"

Critias (the younger) never read Solon's poem.

IIRC, neither did his grandfather (C. the elder), who heard it at the Festival of Apaturia. Orally.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proclus, your condescending attitude it getting really tiresome. It has been a while since I did read the Atlantis dialogues, yes, however those bits are to show that things are far from being as close cut as you present them.

See below.

Where we have to add that it is highly improbable that the temple in question existed at the time of Solon in Sais, making the story with the priest a little questionable. Now, in Plato's time the temple existed though...

This temple ... did not exist? Interesting. You talk of the temple described by Herodotus in Sais? And it did not exist in Solon's time?! *smile* Well, then show me where your wisdom comes from. Besides the fact that a new temple is not an obstacle - I wonder where this attitude comes from that the Egyptian papyri with the Atlantis story must at any cost have been handed down in Sais itself all the time. ---- And besides the fact that it is not harmful for the existence of Atlantis if Plato himself fetched the knowledge from Egypt, and not Solon.

Critias (the younger) never read Solon's poem.

IIRC, neither did his grandfather (C. the elder), who heard it at the Festival of Apaturia. Orally.

My attitude has reasons, my dear fellow forists! *SIGH*

First, you fully ignore the fact mentioned by me, that Plato opposes Greek oral and Egyptian written tradition. You simply just ignore it. This is so pseudo-science ... ha! You are not willing to find out the truth, it is obvious that you only search for reasons to debunk my ideas, but not for the opposite. This is not scientific. *sigh* again.

Then, Critias 113b: (Critias the participant of the dialogue is speaking):

"My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child."

I know your next move: "These are only the names! The writings contain only the names! Only the names! The names!! Only!!!"

My answer is: These writings are the draft of Solon's planned poem which center around the names of the dramatis personae, as usual when drafting such a poem. You never saw how a writer drafts a novel or a drama or the like? He begins with writing down the persons and how they interact. --- And how can someone carefully study in a paper which only contains names?!

Plato's Atlantis story as "oral tradition"? Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

_

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sigh"

Critias (the younger) never read Solon's poem.

IIRC, neither did his grandfather (C. the elder), who heard it at the Festival of Apaturia. Orally.

Harte

I probably shouldn't stick my nose in but just to clarify, and maybe Proctis covered it above but isn't it Critias the Elder who tells it at Apaturia, not hears it..? Critias the young hears it as a child about 10, and also has the unfinished poem.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropides had the original writing given to him by Solon. (or came into possession of it).

Dropides gave it to his great-grandson Critias the Younger. (or maybe it was passed down thru Critias the Elder it doesn't say).

Critias the Elder tells this story at Apaturia.

Critias the Younger hears it at Apaturia, told by Critias the Elder.

Critias the Younger has the unfinished original poem (original writing) and heard it as a child as an oral poem.

Critias the Younger tells what he knows about it in the dialogue - from learning the names and reading the unfinished poem and also from hearing it when aged 10 at Apaturia.

The Egyptian priest claims to have a written record of historical events of which the Athenians are unaware they play a big part in.

They do not have a story or legend of it, they have written records of this war.

The priest offers to show Solon the particulars of it in a register.

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See below.

....snip

No Proclus, as far as I'm concerned your posts and threads will be ignored, you may thank your condescending and, in my opinion, arrogant attitude for that.

Have a great thread and maybe learn to be a bit less fanatical about something that was, for all intents and purposes, just a literary construct, in order to convey a certain idea.

Bye

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Proclus, as far as I'm concerned your posts and threads will be ignored, you may thank your condescending and, in my opinion, arrogant attitude for that.

Have a great thread and maybe learn to be a bit less fanatical about something that was, for all intents and purposes, just a literary construct, in order to convey a certain idea.

Bye

Condescending, arrogant types abound on here Searcher but proclus has come across as hardly that imo and I've had plenty of dealings with those types on here. It's just frustrating...

Proclus: Sorry for calling you Proctis 2 posts back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Proclus, as far as I'm concerned your posts and threads will be ignored, you may thank your condescending and, in my opinion, arrogant attitude for that.

Have a great thread and maybe learn to be a bit less fanatical about something that was, for all intents and purposes, just a literary construct, in order to convey a certain idea.

Bye

Interesting response! :tu:

First you are not able to admit that I am fully right concerning the (allegedly) written tradition,

then you call me arrogant and fanatical (because I again could show that I am right and things are not that easy?),

and then you express your own d-o-g-m-a of a literal invention, this mostly shattered and all-too-simple position ...

But alas, I admit it is hard to overcome a dogma, I have full understanding and will never laugh about you if you ever change your mind! Loosing nerves simply means that you realized the power of my arguments. You do not know it, yet, but you are on the right way! B)

_

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.