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 4
Proclus

Aristotle against existence of Atlantis? No!

154 posts in this topic

Oh, I like this multi-quote facility in this forum! :-)

I wouldn't count on it considering the earliest evidence for boats even remotely near the area, in the form of canoes, doesn't occur until circa 6000 BC and the earliest evidence for domesticated horses coming later at circa 3500 BC. Both post-date the claim for Atlantis by several thousand years.

Right, but even more convincing is to look on Plato's philosophy of cyclical time and the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history.

Then it becomes clear: It is meant to be real, but the Greeks simply screw up the knowledge on far-away history.

Using the word "Trireme" to talk about a warship is true. Definitions do not always help. The thesaurus will help a lot more.

Thanks. It may surprise Atlantis skeptics, but the "Trireme" thing is no objection against the existence of Atlantis.

Whether one looks at the claim archaeologically, geologically, technologically or genetically all four avenues support each other in saying Atlantis didn't exist.

Hm, not only Atlantis searchers, also Atlantis skeptics should apply historical-critical thinking.

And then your skeptical list becomes ... empty.

There are not only Atlantis searcher crackpots, there are also Atlantis denier crackpots, aren't there?

There is no reason to assume that it was ever real.

A giant advanced civilization exists yet is only mention twice by a Greek 9000 years later?

Well, there is MUCH reason to assume that Plato speaks seriously when it comes to Atlantis,

but maybe you search for the wrong thing? I suggest considering the historical context.

Like with the Triremes. Looking 9000 years before is simply missing the point.

Only crackpots do this.

Can you give link about land west of Gibraltar and elephants?

Maybe he didnt say nothing against it and nothing which confirm it because most of Arisotele work is lost. We have just notes of him. Not works as books.

I like most the L's comments, they are so constructive!

There is e.g. the "Columbus passage" (my naming): De caelo II 14 297b-298a.

http://classics.mit.... On the heavens

(You have to scroll down to 14 and a bit farther)

And you are right: In contrary to Plato's works, much of Aristotle's works are lost.

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I like this multi-quote facility in this forum! :-)

Right, but even more convincing is to look on Plato's philosophy of cyclical time and the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history.

Then it becomes clear: It is meant to be real, but the Greeks simply screw up the knowledge on far-away history.

Thanks. It may surprise Atlantis skeptics, but the "Trireme" thing is no objection against the existence of Atlantis.

Hm, not only Atlantis searchers, also Atlantis skeptics should apply historical-critical thinking.

And then your skeptical list becomes ... empty.

There are not only Atlantis searcher crackpots, there are also Atlantis denier crackpots, aren't there?

Well, there is MUCH reason to assume that Plato speaks seriously when it comes to Atlantis,

but maybe you search for the wrong thing? I suggest considering the historical context.

Like with the Triremes. Looking 9000 years before is simply missing the point.

Only crackpots do this.

I like most the L's comments, they are so constructive!

There is e.g. the "Columbus passage" (my naming): De caelo II 14 297b-298a.

http://classics.mit.... On the heavens

(You have to scroll down to 14 and a bit farther)

And you are right: In contrary to Plato's works, much of Aristotle's works are lost.

The story as told has a specific location with a specific timeframe and a specific level of technology. Changing any of these is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize Atlantis into existance. Such attempts of which have placed its existance in many locations around the world.

Literalists do this, which is what the debate is about.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story as told has a specific location with a specific timeframe and a specific level of technology. Changing any of these is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize Atlantis into existance. Such attempts of which have placed its existance in many locations around the world.

Literalists do this, which is what the debate is about.

Unfortunately, your argumentation is not scientific.

With the very same argumentation you could declare Herodotus' Egypt as an unreal country.

Egypt is not 11340 years old, as Herodotus stated. The Nile is not as long as Herodotus stated.

The Egyptian king list of Herodotus is partially screwed up. Etc. etc.

But Egypt is real. There are understandable reasons why Herodotus got it wrong unintentionally.

And the same applies to Plato and Atlantis.

Plato's notion of 9000 years is not just any fabled number of years, it fits into Plato's view of cyclical history and the alleged age of Egypt. It is not meant to be fiction, phantasy, an invention, unreal. Modern researchers have the task to interprete these 9000 years to modern chronologies, like the 11340 years of Herodotus (they correspond to approx. 3000 BC).

Atlantis searchers who do not consider the context are searching on a wrong way.

Atlantis skeptics who deny Atlantis not considering the context are denying in a wrong way.

Insisting on the Atlantic Ocean 9600 BC is not scientific.

It is scientific to understand why Plato and the Egyptians screwed up this or that.

And with this understanding (not without it!) you are enabled to search for the real Atlantis.

You cannot just "change" and "bend" anything as you like.

You must have an understanding why something is distorted by tradition.

This, then, is not a "rationalization of Atlantis into existance", this is the real Atlantis.

Not a fabled country, but a most likely disappointingly unimportant culture and city, such as Troy, e.g.

As the real Egypt is related to the Egypt described by Herodotus.

Maybe you should try to find Egypt on a map? It is there!

Although some things changed compared to Herodotus :-)

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Herodotus' stories and accounts could be checked by going to Egypt because its location was known, but we cannot go to Atlantis to check what was right and what was wrong in Platos story and that's because we don't know where (or when) it was.

If it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Herodotus' stories and accounts could be checked by going to Egypt because its location was known, but we cannot go to Atlantis to check what was right and what was wrong in Platos story and that's because we don't know where (or when) it was.

If it was.

Thank you, Abramelin, this is a most scientific attitude!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, your argumentation is not scientific.

With the very same argumentation you could declare Herodotus' Egypt as an unreal country.

Egypt is not 11340 years old, as Herodotus stated. The Nile is not as long as Herodotus stated.

The Egyptian king list of Herodotus is partially screwed up. Etc. etc.

But Egypt is real. There are understandable reasons why Herodotus got it wrong unintentionally.

And the same applies to Plato and Atlantis.

Plato's notion of 9000 years is not just any fabled number of years, it fits into Plato's view of cyclical history and the alleged age of Egypt. It is not meant to be fiction, phantasy, an invention, unreal. Modern researchers have the task to interprete these 9000 years to modern chronologies, like the 11340 years of Herodotus (they correspond to approx. 3000 BC).

Atlantis searchers who do not consider the context are searching on a wrong way.

Atlantis skeptics who deny Atlantis not considering the context are denying in a wrong way.

Insisting on the Atlantic Ocean 9600 BC is not scientific.

It is scientific to understand why Plato and the Egyptians screwed up this or that.

And with this understanding (not without it!) you are enabled to search for the real Atlantis.

You cannot just "change" and "bend" anything as you like.

You must have an understanding why something is distorted by tradition.

This, then, is not a "rationalization of Atlantis into existance", this is the real Atlantis.

Not a fabled country, but a most likely disappointingly unimportant culture and city, such as Troy, e.g.

As the real Egypt is related to the Egypt described by Herodotus.

Maybe you should try to find Egypt on a map? It is there!

Although some things changed compared to Herodotus :-)

There is no scientific foundation involved in support of Plato's story of Atlantis.

While Egypt does exist, Herodotus' understanding of Egypt does not. The difference between the two does not make Herodotus' understanding equal to the real thing.

The whole story was meant to be an allegorical tale. Outside of mythical origins Egypt didn't have an existance prior to c.3100 BC. So any alleged age for Egypt prior to this is irrelevant.

It is the story that we have though. And yet, in all of Egypt there is no mention of anything that could be remotely understood as Atlantis. So the Egyptians didn't screw up anything. If anyone did, it was Plato. As to changing things as you like, that's exactly what you're doing. The story, as a place, doesn't exist prior to Plato and exists nowhere in Ancient Egyptian myths or legends. Plato is its start and finish.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no scientific foundation involved in support of Plato's story of Atlantis.

This is just a statement, very dogmatic.

While Egypt does exist, Herodotus' understanding of Egypt does not. The difference between the two does not make Herodotus' understanding equal to the real thing.

Yes, exactly. It is not equal, but there is a correspondance.

The real Egypt is meant.

The whole story was meant to be an allegorical tale.

Again a dogmatic statement. Any proof for this?

Why does Plato call it a "logos", then?

Outside of mythical origins Egypt didn't have an existance prior to c.3100 BC. So any alleged age for Egypt prior to this is irrelevant.

Yes, exactly. Or to be precise: The alleged date for king Menes has to be mapped to the real date of king Menes.

And it's most probably the same with Atlantis.

You have begun to understand!

And yet, in all of Egypt there is no mention of anything that could be remotely understood as Atlantis.

Don't we?

What about the Hyksos who introduced the chariot and had a capital city on a hill surrounded by rings of Nile water?

PS: The Hyksos capital had also Minoan freskoes ...!

What about the Sea Peoples who came from islands in the sea?

There are enough possibilities.

You are too quick in denying.

So the Egyptians didn't screw up anything. If anyone did, it was Plato.

Ah well, and what about the so many known stories from Egyptian hieroglyphs which we know are surely screwed up?

Such as the report that "the people of Israel is no more". Am I mistaken or does this people still exist today?

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Abramelin, this is a most scientific attitude!

Please tell me if I am wrong, but is it correct when I say I smelled some sarcasm here? Lol.

If it is, it's ok, if it's not, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me if I am wrong, but is it correct when I say I smelled some sarcasm here? Lol.

If it is, it's ok, if it's not, sorry.

No sarcasm at all! The problem with Atlantis is indeed that we have to re-construct the historical distortions without knowing where this path will lead us. Maybe to nowhere. But before we tried we cannot say. Premature denial of Atlantis is as wrong as premature literal interpretation of Plato's text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a statement, very dogmatic.

Yes, exactly. It is not equal, but there is a correspondance.

The real Egypt is meant.

Again a dogmatic statement. Any proof for this?

Why does Plato call it a "logos", then?

Yes, exactly. Or to be precise: The alleged date for king Menes has to be mapped to the real date of king Menes.

And it's most probably the same with Atlantis.

You have begun to understand!

Don't we?

What about the Hyksos who introduced the chariot and had a capital city on a hill surrounded by rings of Nile water?

PS: The Hyksos capital had also Minoan freskoes ...!

What about the Sea Peoples who came from islands in the sea?

There are enough possibilities.

You are too quick in denying.

Ah well, and what about the so many known stories from Egyptian hieroglyphs which we know are surely screwed up?

Such as the report that "the people of Israel is no more". Am I mistaken or does this people still exist today?

And your evidence for the use of the name Atlantis for any location and timeframe, other than where Plato locates it, would be what?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your evidence for the use of the name Atlantis for any location and timeframe, other than where Plato locates it, would be what?

But it's clear: Research ist still ongoing! Atlantis is not found, yet. No evidence, yet. The described way still has to be walked. The Aristotle-not-against theme of this Thread (first posting) is one step of many to go. Science has to live with I-do-not-know-yet situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's clear: Research ist still ongoing! Atlantis is not found, yet. No evidence, yet. The described way still has to be walked. The Aristotle-not-against theme of this Thread (first posting) is one step of many to go. Science has to live with I-do-not-know-yet situations.

Science has already shown that Atlantis, as described and where located by Plato, has never existed. It has also shown that the story of Atlantis has never been found in Ancient Egypt at any point in its 3000+ year existance. Those are the only points that really matter. Trying to remove Atlantis from it's alleged time and place in order to claim relevancy to the original story are disingenuous at best, if not an outright fabrication.

The above doesn't mean that Plato's tale couldn't have been influenced by peoples or events more contemporary to his time, but that doesn't make them "Atlantis".

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has also shown that the story of Atlantis has never been found in Ancient Egypt at any point in its 3000+ year existance.

Here I would say that science never tried to search with serious intention.

You just avoided to mention my above mentioned examples of Egyptian history.

Or to be precise: Science did search, until a certain point of time, then it stopped,

and only few scientists went on.

Those are the only points that really matter.

Trying to remove Atlantis from it's alleged time and place in order to claim relevancy to the original story

are disingenuous at best, if not an outright fabrication.

Sorry, but this is a totally unscientific dogmatism which I clearly have to reject.

This simply meant to put a ban on searching before you know whether something can be found or not.

And again I have to emphasize: To avoid applying historical-critical method to Plato's Atlantis is an outrageous unscientifc dogmatism. It is totally unacceptable for science to ignore Plato's theory of cyclical history and to ignore the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history. It is totally unacceptable to treat the Atlantis account disregarding its context.

You love the 9000 year dogma because it is so easy for you to use it as an argument against Atlantis searchers, do you? But look: You and many professional scientists are wrong. You have to see this in the context of the time. The Greeks - all Greeks - really thought that the history of Egypt (and all what is connected with it) went back over 10000 years. You cannot just say that because Plato wrote of 9000 years it is all bull****. There are more reasonable scientists who say that Plato meant a point of time in the early Egyptian history, so in modern terms e.g. 2500 BC, just as an example. The world is not cracking down if you dare to accept such a view. Look, it seems that there is something to learn for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I would say that science never tried to search with serious intention.

You just avoided to mention my above mentioned examples of Egyptian history.

Or to be precise: Science did search, until a certain point of time, then it stopped,

and only few scientists went on.

Sorry, but this is a totally unscientific dogmatism which I clearly have to reject.

This simply meant to put a ban on searching before you know whether something can be found or not.

And again I have to emphasize: To avoid applying historical-critical method to Plato's Atlantis is an outrageous unscientifc dogmatism. It is totally unacceptable for science to ignore Plato's theory of cyclical history and to ignore the Greeks' notion of Egypt's history. It is totally unacceptable to treat the Atlantis account disregarding its context.

You love the 9000 year dogma because it is so easy for you to use it as an argument against Atlantis searchers, do you? But look: You and many professional scientists are wrong. You have to see this in the context of the time. The Greeks - all Greeks - really thought that the history of Egypt (and all what is connected with it) went back over 10000 years. You cannot just say that because Plato wrote of 9000 years it is all bull****. There are more reasonable scientists who say that Plato meant a point of time in the early Egyptian history, so in modern terms e.g. 2500 BC, just as an example. The world is not cracking down if you dare to accept such a view. Look, it seems that there is something to learn for you.

The story is what it is. Your attempt to validate it as something else is irrelevant. And your "more reasonable scientists" have done nothing to validate its existance within the archaeological or textual evidence that is extant to us. Wanting it to be true does not make it true.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is MUCH reason to assume that Plato speaks seriously when it comes to Atlantis,

but maybe you search for the wrong thing? I suggest considering the historical context.

Like with the Triremes. Looking 9000 years before is simply missing the point.

Only crackpots do this.

Missing the point is assuming that a couple parables are a factual account. Is it possible that Plato's story of Atlantis is based off an actual event or civilization? Absolutely. The Minoans, perhaps, or the island of Santorini(Thera).

But to assume that there was a great continent in the Atlantic that was sunken, no, it's not possible.

Even if the timeline that Plato used was wrong, it still doesn't add up. Atlantis seekers always use Troy as an example of a lost civilization that was found. This is a false equivalency. The story of the fall of Troy was ingrained in the Greek culture. It was in art and literature. It had evidence. Atlantis has no such evidence anywhere in any culture at all.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The story is what it is. Your attempt to validate it as something else is irrelevant. And your "more reasonable scientists" have done nothing to validate its existance within the archaeological or textual evidence that is extant to us. Wanting it to be true does not make it true. cormac

I see that you do not want to follow scientific considerations.

You prefer to stay with your known simple beliefs.

Wanting it to be not true does not make it untrue.

Missing the point is assuming that a couple parables are a factual account. Is it possible that Plato's story of Atlantis is based off an actual event or civilization? Absolutely. The Minoans, perhaps, or the island of Santorini(Thera). But to assume that there was a great continent in the Atlantic that was sunken, no, it's not possible. Even if the timeline that Plato used was wrong, it still doesn't add up. Atlantis seekers always use Troy as an example of a lost civilization that was found. This is a false equivalency. The story of the fall of Troy was ingrained in the Greek culture. It was in art and literature. It had evidence. Atlantis has no such evidence anywhere in any culture at all.

First, Atlantis is not presented as a "couple of parables" but as plain truth.

Sorry, but it's not presented as a tale. It's presented as logos, a high-quality standard of proven truth.

Then, it depends on how close the distorted historical traditon comes to the point Plato wants to make or not.

If yes, then we can talk of the real Atlantis.

I do not want anybody to "believe" in Atlantis. Just to accept that it is an open question.

(Where are all the Atlantis believers? I see a lot of stubborn skeptics here!)

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proclus are you just saying the time of when Atlantis existed is incorrect and we should almost completely ignore Platos account? What parts in your opinion hold truth in to Platos story?

With that said I don't know what to think and I don't know how Atlantis ever became into existence.

Minoans traveled to Turkey, Egypt and Jerusalem. There's not a lot about Minoans traveling out west. How can it be Minoan if it is? How do I know what Platos North, West, South and East was for sure when explaining Atlantis? Ignoring the Pillars of Hercules comment from him. If it's the Straits of Gibraltar then I'm stuck. I assume. How are hominids found on Crete by the way? Can they build boats? I saw that when looking.

If I go farther West of Malta, Tunis, Sicily and Rome there's not a lot of money I assume. It's all based off time. The odd guys out are the people of Northern Europe and England.

Atlantis is like Lord of the Rings in a way. There's a battle at Minas Tirith then yada yada Mordor sinks into the Earth.

Does anybody know what Ancient Rome said about Atlantis if anything before I'm off on my quest to look for myself? Seriously Rome should of or would of took a dump on Atlantis and Greece if it wasn't real.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that you do not want to follow scientific considerations.

You prefer to stay with your known simple beliefs.

Wanting it to be not true does not make it untrue.

First, Atlantis is not presented as a "couple of parables" but as plain truth.

Sorry, but it's not presented as a tale. It's presented as logos, a high-quality standard of proven truth.

Then, it depends on how close the distorted historical traditon comes to the point Plato wants to make or not.

If yes, then we can talk of the real Atlantis.

I do not want anybody to "believe" in Atlantis. Just to accept that it is an open question.

(Where are all the Atlantis believers? I see a lot of stubborn skeptics here!)

What scientific considerations? You've not shown that you follow scientific methodology as regards Plato's account of Atlantis. Because that's the only account that matters. It certainly doesn't include moving Atlantis in either time or place so one can rationalize it into existance, which seems to be your preference. And as I already mentioned the results from various scientific disciplines has shown Plato's Atlantis didn't exist. If you have something to show that such is incorrect than present it, otherwise it's a dead issue.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've have a question regarding technology back in ancient times. Shouldn't humans have all the same capabilities that we always have had since our first appearance? I mention this because they're chariots and wheels involved in the story. So what? It's wood in a form of a box and so are boats. I can use a card board box and make a chariot. Rocks in Flintstones are wheels. Use some wood. I'm saying Humans were smart compared to everything else on Earth right from the very start I assume. I just hope the damn island didn't appear and disappear if it ever existed.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Yes, exactly. Or to be precise: The alleged date for king Menes has to be mapped to the real date of king Menes.

And it's most probably the same with Atlantis.

You have begun to understand!

The foundation of the Egyptian kingdom around 3100 BCE is not in question. The precise identification of Menes is. Some scholars believe he was one and the same as Narmer while others say he was one and the same as Aha. The latter group points to this ivory label found in the mastaba of Neithhotep as proof that Aha and Menes were the same. Note the two sereks in the upper-right corner. The name inside the one at left reads Aha and the one at right Menes. Does this mean they were the same people? Is Narmer to be excluded? The evidence is not clear, but the foundation of the kingdom has become an accepted date.

Menes also appears in the Abydos kings list in the temple of Seti I, as well as in other royal annals. The point is, we have archaeological attestation for this king, whomever he might have been, and we have ample archaeological evidence for the formation of the Egyptian state. Outside the pages of Plato, we have no such evidence for the existence of Atlantis. The fable of Atlantis pops up for the first time in Plato's Timaeus and Critias, and later writers merely commented on it. This doesn't make it real. We need clear physical evidence to define Atlantis as real, and such evidence doesn't exist.

Don't we?

What about the Hyksos who introduced the chariot and had a capital city on a hill surrounded by rings of Nile water?

The Hyksos capital of Avaris (Tell el-Daba) was located along a Delta branch of the Nile River. It was not surrounded by "rings of water." Tell el Daba has been extensively excavated over the decades and an understanding of the Hyksos has been achieved to a much larger extent than many people realize. Their ethnic identification as primarily Canaanites and origin from southern Palestine has been well established. What can the Hyksos possibly have to do with Atlantis?

At the same time, I applaud you for not trying to identify the Hyksos as Hebrews. That's one of the most common misconceptions I see at UM and it's grown tiresome.

PS: The Hyksos capital had also Minoan freskoes ...!

This is well understood. What does it have to do with Atlantis, however? Still, the destruction event of Thera remains a plausible origin source for Plato's allegory, even if most of the details and facts were long, long gone by his time.

What about the Sea Peoples who came from islands in the sea?

What about them? The Sea Peoples were a mixing of Aegean populations who raided kingdoms at the end of the Bronze Age. They were never a nation-state or a united socio-political entity. This may well have been the era from which the story of Troy emerged, but I don't see any connections with Atlantis.

To understand the Atlantis story one must understand Plato and the polis of Athens in the specific time during which Plato penned Timaeus and Critias. What traumatic event had Athens recently experienced to inspire a philosopher to write a cautionary tale about the hubris of a city and its people? The Greeks loved that concept of hubris. They always warned one another that once a people or its city grew too big for its britches and thought too highly of itself, the gods would squash it.

Cormac is correct. Plato was not an historian. Atlantis was an allegorical tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've have a question regarding technology back in ancient times. Shouldn't humans have all the same capabilities that we always have had since our first appearance? I mention this because they're chariots and wheels involved in the story. So what? It's wood in a form of a box. I can use a card board box and make one.

You might not understand how sophisticated and complicated chariots were. They were cutting-edge technology for their time—and they were considerably more than a wood box stuck atop wheels. The box was usually not even wood, which would've been too heavy, but cane or other sturdy plant materials. Think of the many things involved. What would be the best type of wood for the draught-pole, so that it was light enough but still suitably strong? What of the wood for the wheels, and how many spokes should it have? How many people should the carriage carry, what would be their specific functions, and how many horses should pull the device? How do you train the horses to do so? Et cetera.

Answering these questions has enabled scholars to understand how the chariot developed in the ancient Near East and how it spread—even it's been my own research experience that there's no universal agreement on who first invented the chariot. Answering such questions also enables us to identify the specific culture who used a given chariot, considering they tended to be unique in design to individual cultures.

So in summary, no, not all things are equal. Someone comes up with an idea and it spreads. All ancient Near Eastern civilizations—and the rest of the world's civilizations, for that matter—freely helped themselves to the ideas of others, and frequently improved upon them. The Egyptians, for example, invented neither the chariot nor the khepesh sword, but they adopted them to great effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotle of 322 bc didn`nt know any more of Atlantis then the other greeks.The tale was Egyptian, a record of a deed of war lost in a Greek destuction.

And this deed was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word.

,This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon

Cecrops 1582bc

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might not understand how sophisticated and complicated chariots were. They were cutting-edge technology for their time—and they were considerably more than a wood box stuck atop wheels. The box was usually not even wood, which would've been too heavy, but cane or other sturdy plant materials. Think of the many things involved. What would be the best type of wood for the draught-pole, so that it was light enough but still suitably strong? What of the wood for the wheels, and how many spokes should it have? How many people should the carriage carry, what would be their specific functions, and how many horses should pull the device? How do you train the horses to do so? Et cetera.

Answering these questions has enabled scholars to understand how the chariot developed in the ancient Near East and how it spread—even it's been my own research experience that there's no universal agreement on who first invented the chariot. Answering such questions also enables us to identify the specific culture who used a given chariot, considering they tended to be unique in design to individual cultures.

So in summary, no, not all things are equal. Someone comes up with an idea and it spreads. All ancient Near Eastern civilizations—and the rest of the world's civilizations, for that matter—freely helped themselves to the ideas of others, and frequently improved upon them. The Egyptians, for example, invented neither the chariot nor the khepesh sword, but they adopted them to great effect.

In 10,000 BC do you think a wagon of wood existed? Forget Atlantis.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've have a question regarding technology back in ancient times. Shouldn't humans have all the same capabilities that we always have had since our first appearance? I mention this because they're chariots and wheels involved in the story. So what? It's wood in a form of a box and so are boats. I can use a card board box and make a chariot. Rocks in Flintstones are wheels. Use some wood. I'm saying Humans were smart compared to everything else on Earth right from the very start I assume. I just hope the damn island didn't appear and disappear if it ever existed.

Having the physical capability is not the same thing as having a need for the various later technologies. Particularly since many of them weren't put into use until the rise of domesticated crops and livestock which allowed a much more sedentary lifestyle. Also, it should be noted that the human population consisted of much, MUCH smaller groups so many of the early technologies had to be mobile or semi-mobile.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

First, Atlantis is not presented as a "couple of parables" but as plain truth.

Sorry, but it's not presented as a tale. It's presented as logos, a high-quality standard of proven truth.

Then, it depends on how close the distorted historical traditon comes to the point Plato wants to make or not.

If yes, then we can talk of the real Atlantis.

I wanted to comment on this, too. A "logos" was not really a presentation of hard historical fact. It belongs to a tradition going back far in time in Classical Greece and was simply little more than a writing down of events as they were believed to have happened. There was usually no deeper historical investigation than that. Numerous logographers are known from Classical Greece. They also embodied ethnographic, geographic, and mythographic matters.

This is what makes Herodotus so significant. Although his Histories is riddled with errors, Herodotus is rightly called the "father of history" because he appears to have been the first to take the work of logographers one step farther by searching out deeper meanings as well as cause and effect in historical accounts.

[i do not want anybody to "believe" in Atlantis. Just to accept that it is an open question.

(Where are all the Atlantis believers? I see a lot of stubborn skeptics here!)

LOL The believers are probably as burnt out right now with Atlantis as we skeptics are. I know you're new, Proclus, but if you do a thorough review of the forum's history, you might be mildly shocked by just how many Atlantis discussions have happened at UM. There have been times when three or more separate Atlantis or Atlantis-related discussions have occurred simultaneously. We skeptics are a tenacious lot but if we come across as abrupt or grumpy, it's only because we've pretty much already heard it all before. Many, many times before.

Right, cormac? :D

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.