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

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.

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

Unfortunately you're right. This horse has been beat, buried, exhumed, re-beat and reburied more times than I can keep up with.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

If we're talking that far back, I would doubt it. This was around the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, as I recall. Although the first clear indications of intensive agriculture would start appearing within a couple of millennia, during which wheeled carts would've been practical, a point in time farther back would've meant no real practical need for wheeled carts.

I'm talking strictly practical needs here. And the first need would've been to make life easier, once agricultural efforts were underway on a large scale in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Anatolia. Small-scale, seasonal agricultural activities are attested before that time, but hunting-gathering was still an integral part of life.

As far as carts in warfare are concerned, it is considerably less likely. One of the earliest attested examples of evidence for "war carts" is on the Stela of the Vultures from southern Iraq, which dates to around 2600 BCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you're right. This horse has been beat, buried, exhumed, re-beat and reburied more times than I can keep up with.

cormac

Isn't there a way just to mummify the damn thing, dump it in a hole, and forget it forever?

No, sadly, I know it's not possible. As long as fringe authors spin out their half-baked books and diminished venues like the History Channel proceed to spew out ridiculous, dimwitted programming, endless misconceptions about Atlantis will go on indefinitely.

But I'm not bitter. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a way just to mummify the damn thing, dump it in a hole, and forget it forever?

No, sadly, I know it's not possible. As long as fringe authors spin out their half-baked books and diminished venues like the History Channel proceed to spew out ridiculous, dimwitted programming, endless misconceptions about Atlantis will go on indefinitely.

But I'm not bitter. Right?

Too late for mummification since bone-chips are all that's left of the poor horse. It probably didn't get that much of a beating when it was alive. :D

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking that far back, I would doubt it. This was around the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, as I recall. Although the first clear indications of intensive agriculture would start appearing within a couple of millennia, during which wheeled carts would've been practical, a point in time farther back would've meant no real practical need for wheeled carts.

I'm talking strictly practical needs here. And the first need would've been to make life easier, once agricultural efforts were underway on a large scale in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Anatolia. Small-scale, seasonal agricultural activities are attested before that time, but hunting-gathering was still an integral part of life.

As far as carts in warfare are concerned, it is considerably less likely. One of the earliest attested examples of evidence for "war carts" is on the Stela of the Vultures from southern Iraq, which dates to around 2600 BCE.

Like you said, we needed to make life easier. Say I appeared here and they're a few thousand others that suddenly appeared around the World. First thing I do is get food. During my time looking for food, I discover rock and wood and yada yada, now I got drugs and sex with those words. Happy New Year.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yeah Plato and Atlantis sucks. I don't feel like explaining how an island capitol city can disappear as in vanish into mid air back in 9,600 BC after accomplishing what Plato said. It's a giant stretch and it's all assume.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Plato and Atlantis sucks.

I wouldn't say either sucks, but Plato's tale was never meant to be taken so literally, as many people want it to be. It was meant to teach a lesson and has since been blown all out of proportion.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say either sucks, but Plato's tale was never meant to be taken so literally, as many people want it to be. It was meant to teach a lesson and has since been blown all out of proportion.

cormac

You assume. :innocent:

Or we assume but I'm not 100% there but I feel I should be. I'm 99.9% there.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you said, we needed to make life easier. Say I appeared here and they're a few thousand others that suddenly appeared around the World. First thing I do is get food. During my time looking for food, I discover rock and wood and yada yada, now I got drugs and sex with those words. Happy New Year.

Drugs and sex are prohibited at UM but yada yada is allowed. :w00t:

Happy New Year...to everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume. :innocent:

Or we assume but I'm not 100% there but I feel I should be. I'm 99.9% there.

....it had a purpose other than being an interesting piece of fiction. Yep, but Plato and others were known for weaving a good tale. :D

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can`nt see how this island of Atlantis can`nt be figure out if true, when the priest clearly says the war was at the time of the Cecrops dynasty of 1582bc. Atlantis as named by Solon was most likely the Crete and Santorina distructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drugs and sex are prohibited at UM but yada yada is allowed. :w00t:

Happy New Year...to everyone!

That's good, because no one's getting any at UM anyway. :w00t:

Happy New Year to everyone and may 2013 be better than 2012 was.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can`nt see how this island of Atlantis can`nt be figure out if true, when the priest clearly says the war was at the time of the Cecrops dynasty of 1582bc. Atlantis as named by Solon was most likely the Crete and Santorina distructions.

Yet there's no evidence, specifically, for a Cecrops dynasty in the 16th century BC. And while Solon is mentioned by name, there is no extant textual support by him of any such tale having existed. This does not lend the story any credibility whatsoever.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet there's no evidence, specifically, for a Cecrops dynasty in the 16th century BC. And while Solon is mentioned by name, there is no extant textual support by him of any such tale having existed. This does not lend the story any credibility whatsoever.

cormac

To add, there's no proof for a real King Cecrops, period, of which I'm aware. This is another thing that lies within Greek myth: the contest between Athena and Poseidon to determine which deity would be the patron of Athens.

How exactly is the date of 1582 BCE reached for Cecrops? This would be the Late Bronze Age and specifically for Greece, I believe, the Late Helladic Age. My own research of ancient Greece centers much more on the Classical periods so this early period lies outside my comfort zone, per se, but it would be the time of the Mycenaeans.

There is clear evidence for a Mycenaean stronghold or fortress on the Athenian hilltop that would later become the Acropolis, but I don't know that many (if any) actual personal names—much less the names of kings—are known for the Mycenaean fortress of Athens. The Classical Greeks in total seem to have possessed very little working knowledge of their Mycenaean ancestors and the events of those distant times, so a lot of those holes were filled with myths. One must tread carefully when trying to see historicity in mythology. While in some cases it might be true that there are kernels of truth in myths, it's nearly impossible in most cases to discern what those truths might be. The legend of Troy in the Iliad is always a good example.

I agree with cormac about Solon and underscore the fact that for Plato, Solon was merely a tool to bolster the interest in and strength of his allegorical tale of Atlantis. Solon was a revered person by Plato's time, and his name lent weight. That doesn't mean any of it is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tha Marmor Parium, deciphered by John Selden (1584-1654), is one of the so called Arundel marmors, which were secured in 1627 in Asia Minor. The Marmor Parium was found in the island of Paros, and parts of it were later used to repair Lord Arundel's house. Another fragment of the same marble was found in Paros in 1897. The chronology of the Marmor Parium was written about 264 BC. Pétau was a French chronologist.

Written in 264bc, but still a record.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cparada/GML/MythicalChronology.html

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?

Dear kampz, I did never say to "ignore" what Plato said, but to interprete it in the historical context. Like Herodotus. This is not "ignoring". It is taking Plato's dates for serious but as distorted because of Plato's world view.

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, I don't like to repeat me, you are very dogmatic.

And I don't like you imputing things to me I never said.

Yes, it is the only account that matters.

Yes, you cannot just "move around" time and place.

But did I ever deny this?

Did I ever just "moved around" place and time of Atlantis? No I surely did not!

I interpreted Plato's date in the context in which it was written. You should start to understand this.

Did I ever claimed that I had evidence that Atlantis existed? No.

And where is the evidence by your mentioned scientists that it is not true? I cannot see any.

I read them all.

I am just on the search by applying scientific means to an ancient text.

And I want to be allowed to do that. The result is open.

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. .............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.

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." ....What can the Hyksos possibly have to do with Atlantis?

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 ..........

Let's start with the latter: You have to understand Plato. Good point! I did this. I read a lot about so-called "Platonic Myths". And the first thing you learn: Platonic Myths are no myths. They are composed stories, including truth and myth and parables. But: Truth and myth and parables are marked as such! Plato is not a teller of fairy tailes. He is not a historian and not a poet. He is a philosopher. He tells the Atlantis account in order to learn from history. And he does call it a logos. This simply means that he himself believed in the story, not more, not less.

Concerning the hybris theme: You are right and wrong at the same time. Yes, hybris is a theme in the Atlantis story. But no invention is needed in order to show this. Hybris occurs in reality. Plato experienced it in Persia and Syracuse. If he just wanted to demonstrate something on hybris. he could have chosen Persia or Syracuse. But he did not. And don't come with the long-bearded fairy tale that Atlantis is Athens, I heard enough of this nonsense. You have to learn more about Plato!

Hyksos and Sea Peoples: You are right, no 100% correspondance to Atlantis. But asking for this means missing the point. Minoan freskoes with the Hyksos and you have no idea what connection to Atlantis it could have? Oh my dear, read the literature on the Atlantis = Santorini thesis.

Atlantis does appear only in Plato's text? Yes. At least this name.

But you will easily realize that this is no proof against its existence.

... and there are important details in the Atlantis story not only occuring there.

This all is more complicated than you think.

Besides the ancients all considering Atlantis to be real.

Strange, if it allegedly was only a parable ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plato`s account of , but not Plato`s story. According to Chritias ,Solon heard of the tale from the egyptian Priest and told the tale in greek poetic form to his grandfather, Solon poetic tale of two cities and their foundations that went back 9000 years before, however the priest placed the war and the good deed around the kings of Athens 1500bc. If the tale is any way true there really no written proof found but of Plato `s account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plato`s account of , but not Plato`s story. According to Chritias ,Solon heard of the tale from the egyptian Priest and told the tale in greek poetic form to his grandfather, Solon poetic tale of two cities and their foundations that went back 9000 years before, however the priest placed the war and the good deed around the kings of Athens 1500bc. If the tale is any way true there really no written proof found but of Plato `s account.

You have evidence for that, because Solon remains excruciatingly silent on the subject while Plato is the only one who actually mentions it? And the story appears nowhere in Ancient Egypt. So there's no basis for even considering that the story of Atlantis was true.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have evidence for that, because Solon remains excruciatingly silent on the subject while Plato is the only one who actually mentions it? And the story appears nowhere in Ancient Egypt. So there's no basis for even considering that the story of Atlantis was true.

So, this is your "evidence"? How poor ...

... the one who does not start searching is the one who will never find. This is evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this is your "evidence"? How poor ...

... the one who does not start searching is the one who will never find. This is evident.

Your understanding apparently is. There's also no extant writing from any of the people between Solon and Plato to substantiate any part of the claim either. All of which amounts to hear-say and doesn't validate the story of Atlantis by any stretch of the imagination. Pretentions to the contrary aside.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your understanding apparently is. There's also no extant writing from any of the people between Solon and Plato to substantiate any part of the claim either. All of which amounts to hear-say and doesn't validate the story of Atlantis by any stretch of the imagination. Pretentions to the contrary aside.

I still amuse myself on your method:

"Because Atlantis is not presented on a silver plate, we just don't start to search and ask for it" - that's your method :-)

I repeat: The ancient authors who read Plato almost all assumed it to be a true story.

How is this possible if it was meant only as a "parable"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still amuse myself on your method:

"Because Atlantis is not presented on a silver plate, we just don't start to search and ask for it" - that's your method :-)

I repeat: The ancient authors who read Plato almost all assumed it to be a true story.

How is this possible if it was meant only as a "parable"?

Nope, it's because there is no archaeological, geological, chronological, technological nor genetic evidence to support its existance. Not liking that fact and wanting to excuse it as some sort of anachronistic storytelling that is (somehow) true is meaningless where the subject is concerned.

You know the saying about "assuming" things, right?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it's because there is no archaeological, geological, chronological, technological nor genetic evidence to support its existance.

What I like most in your strange list is the "genetic evidence".

That's so pseudo-science .... *smile*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I like most in your strange list is the "genetic evidence".

That's so pseudo-science .... *smile*

Which just goes to show you know nothing about archaeogenetics either. What a pity.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Aristotle didn't disprove it... it must exist? What's the cumulative point to 'Aristotle' and 'wasn't against the existence of Atlantis'? If it's 'Aristotle's a good source for fact' then it doesn't tie in the fact that Aristotle also believed:

-didn't believe plants were divided between male and female sexes

-championed the view the sun and the planets revolved around the Earth

-further surmised that outer space was made up of 54 spheres and that there were only seven heavenly bodies, which were fixed and unchanging

-declared that heavier objects fall faster then lighter ones

-surmised the heart was the seat of though, intelligence, and emotion; going against Greeks such as Democritus and Hippocrates (Aristotle believed the brain was used for 'cooling blood')

-Aristotle scoffed at the idea set forth by Greek philosopher Democritus that the world was made up of tiny pieces of matter

Source: Asimov, Issac.Issac Asimov's Book of Facts. Fawcett Columbine Books, 1979 § Kaisler, Denise. "Comet Misconceptions." Undated paper on doctoral student Kaisler's site on the website of UCLA's Division of Astronomy and Astrophysics [www.astro.ucla.edu/~kaisler/]. § Wilson, Prof. Fred L. "Science and Human Values: Aristotle." Undated paper on Dr. Wilson's site on the Rochester Institute of Technology website [www.rit.edu/~flwstv/]. § "Aristotle." "Atom." "Democritus." Encyclopedia Britannica.

1 person likes this

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.