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 2
Proclus

Prof. Theodor Gomperz: Atlantis could be real

63 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Prof. Theodor Gomperz is one of the scientists who more than others saw the possibility of distorted traditions behind the Atlantis account. All in all he realized that Plato himself believed what he wrote and sees a composed story but he leaves open the question to which extent it could be based on real traditions, then of course distorted traditions.

Now available on the internet:

http://www.atlantis-...tis_gomperz.htm

It is very important to realize that Plato did not make up a simply invented story. It is more complicated. Gomperz: "Plato believed that he had discovered some of the essential features of his political ideal in the dim beginnings of his native city."

This is the crucial sentence: Plato did not simply make it all up. He himself believed major parts of it, if not all, and thus was in error if it is not true. And being in error is something totally different than deceiving.

And: "We should be glad to know how far Plato's fiction is based on popular legend; how far the belief in an extensive country in the West rests on the presupposition of a not wholly unsymmetrical distribution of land between the Eastern and Western hemispheres; how far the fact, now attested by documentary evidence, of an incursion into Libya and Egypt made by conquering "sea-nations" coming from the West. But on all these points we are left to uncertain conjecture."

So, it is our task to see whether we can bring more light into this question.

Edited by Proclus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plato

[Crit.] 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. There were of old, he said, great and marvellous actions of the Athenian city, which have passed into oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one in particular, greater than all the rest. This we will now rehearse. It will be a fitting monument of our gratitude to you, and a hymn of praise true and worthy of the goddess, on this her day of festival.

[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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is:

The more science is presented in this forum,

the less the forum members are interested.

What Gomperz says is the absolute sensation,

but who has the understanding to see this?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is:

The more science is presented in this forum,

the less the forum members are interested.

What Gomperz says is the absolute sensation,

but who has the understanding to see this?

1) Gomperz was a philosopher, not a scientist per se.

2) Gomperz died in 1912. Thus, referring to him or his writings in the present tense is misleading.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1) Gomperz was a philosopher, not a scientist per se.

2) Gomperz died in 1912. Thus, referring to him or his writings in the present tense is misleading.

1) Gomperz was a renowned classical scholar, i.e. a scientist on the field of classical studies, translated immediately into English, read by many intellectuals of his time. And he was a philosopher, too.

2) The book was published in 1902, to be precise. Important is, that his thoughts have weight.

So, not misleading at all.

Or did you expect Atlantis research to have made big progress since 1902? *smile*

What is your opinion on Gomperz' thoughts?

.

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Gomperz was a renowned classical scholar, i.e. a scientist on the field of classical studies. And a philosopher, too.

2) The book was published in 1902, to be precise. Important is, that his thoughts have weight.

So, not misleading at all.

Or did you expect Atlantis research to have made big progress since 1902? *smile*

What is your opinion on Gomperz' thoughts?

No, it is still there where it was in Plato's time: in the realm of fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Gomperz was a renowned classical scholar, i.e. a scientist on the field of classical studies, translated immediately into English, read by many intellectuals of his time. And he was a philosopher, too.

2) The book was published in 1902, to be precise. Important is, that his thoughts have weight.

So, not misleading at all.

Or did you expect Atlantis research to have made big progress since 1902? *smile*

What is your opinion on Gomperz' thoughts?

.

1) The term "classical scholar", in its conventional usage, refers to a student of Greek and Latin. This is to be distinguished from the more scientifically based study of linguistics.

2) Yes, your usage of the present tense could be, to those not familiar with the works/author, misleading.

3) The dating factor is of significance in respect to the archaeological, geological, genetic, and environmental research of the last century+. None of which support a factual basis for Plato's allegory.

4) Given that Plato's tale was allegorical, philosophical musings are simply that.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1) The term "classical scholar", in its conventional usage, refers to a student of Greek and Latin. This is to be distinguished from the more scientifically based study of linguistics.

2) Yes, your usage of the present tense could be, to those not familiar with the works/author, misleading.

3) The dating factor is of significance in respect to the archaeological, geological, genetic, and environmental research of the last century+. None of which support a factual basis for Plato's allegory.

4) Given that Plato's tale was allegorical, philosophical musings are simply that.

.

Let's leave it to everybody to read the wikipedia article on Gomperz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Gomperz

Well ... you do a lot to shroud the important thing: That Plato himself believed that his account had a historical kernel. Gomperz concludes this from an analysis of Plato's work and the historical context of it. This is the crucial point. Not this "material science" stuff ("archaeological, geological, genetic, and environmental research").

This then is the root for the question: Which tradition was it, on which Plato based his story? This is the question you carefully avoid with your "material science" talk.

No, it is still there where it was in Plato's time: in the realm of fantasy.

Exactly this is not the case.

It's maybe the realm of error, but surely not the realm of pure fantasy.

_

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's leave it to everybody to read the wikipedia article on Gomperz:

http://en.wikipedia....Theodor_Gomperz

Well ... you do a lot to shroud the important thing: That Plato himself believed that his account had a historical kernel. Gomperz concludes this from an analysis of Plato's work and the historical context of it. This is the crucial point. Not this "material science" stuff ("archaeological, geological, genetic, and environmental research").

This then is the root for the question: Which tradition was it, on which Plato based his story? This is the question you carefully avoid with your "material science" talk.

Exactly this is not the case.

It's maybe the realm of error, but surely not the realm of pure fantasy.

_

1) That over a century ago a given classicist concluded that Plato actually believed his allegory is not of particular relevance for a number of reasons:

a) Said conclusion is that of one individual writing during a period which witnessed the revival of the Atlantean myth and which did not have the benefit of more current research. The literal accuracy of the allegory has been debated since at least the time of Crantor (and his interpretations would appear to have been misinterpreted !).

B) More current research relating to the texts would not appear to support a literal interpretation. To quote Cameron:

The story of Atlantis, inspiration (on a recent estimate) of more than 20,000 books,

rests entirely on an elaborate Platonic myth (Timaeus 20d-26e, continued in Critias

108 d-121 c), allegedly based on a private, oral tradition deriving from Solon. Solon

himself is supposed to have heard the story in Egypt; a priest obligingly translated

it for him from hieroglyphic inscriptions in a temple in Sais. It might be added that

(unlike his modern readers) Plato is less concerned with Atlantis than with her rival

and conqueror, the Athens of that antediluvian age 9600 B.C. That Plato himself made

the whole story up (fashionable recent theories about Thera notwithstanding) is indeed

virtually demonstrable. (Emphasis added).

Cameron, Alan

1983 Crantor and Posidonius on Atlantis. The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 1

c) Even had Plato believed in the tale, this does little to substantiate the actual presence of the culture as depicted by Plato.

2) Which brings us to the "material sciences". It is through these many and varied studies that we have a more accurate and comprehensive insight into the potential for the veracity of Plato's mythical culture. To date, neither this allegorical culture, nor its location, have received credible documentation.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, the definition of classical scholar is indeed : a student of ancient Greek and Latin. Nothing more and nothing else, it's even still correct today. Gomperz himself was a philosopher and Classic scholar indeed, but you'll note that most of his works are about philosophy. After all he was professor of classical philology at Vienna from 1873 to 1901.

Now, I did notice that Gomperz also refers to what Plato writes, and I quote from the same text, "over-bold fiction".

He goes on to recount the great deeds of those Athenian forefathers, more particularly their wonderful victory, gained nine thousand years ago, over the inhabitants of Atlantis, an island in the Western sea which had afterwards sunk beneath the surface. The narrative is begun in the "Timasus," and continued in the "Critias," but not concluded. What, we are inclined to ask, was Plato's purpose in this over-bold fiction?

Not words used to describe something you believe founded in reality, in my opinion. He actually keeps referring to it as fiction the entire time.

Gomperz doesn't rule it out, you're correct there, but he does tell us a little about how Plato saw research.

It was not till late in life that the philosopher approached the investigation of nature; this part of his system was therefore subjoined by way of appendix to the "Republic," a work already complete in itself, in which all the other divisions of his philosophy were contained. Even then the study of nature was for him, as he tells us expressly, a labour of secondary importance, a kind of pastime. The limitations of Plato's endowment are here plainly discernible, and it is still more evident that by his disdain of the most effective means of pursuing these inquiries, he has closed against himself the paths which might have led to valuable results.

Since besides Plato, there are no other recounts of Atlantis or anything remotely like it, this is however a very moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) .....a) Said conclusion is that of one individual writing during a period which witnessed the revival of the Atlantean myth and which did not have the benefit of more current research.

Cameron, Alan 1983 Crantor and Posidonius on Atlantis. The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 1

Just for the record, the definition of classical scholar is indeed : a student of ancient Greek and Latin. Nothing more and nothing else, it's even still correct today. Gomperz himself was a philosopher and Classic scholar indeed, but you'll note that most of his works are about philosophy.

Again, my purpose was not to show that Atlantis existed, but to show that the question cannot be answered that easily. Doubts are allowed. As you can see yourself, Gomperz is not certain and not very consequent in using the words "fiction" vs. distorted tradition. To be precise, his text is self-contradictory to a certain extent.

I really amuse myself that the great Gomperz is humbled by Atlantis skeptics to be a "student" only. That's a good joke! By the way: Gomperz as a philosopher interpretes Plato who was ...what? ... a philosopher!

I really amuse myself that the great Gomperz is put in line with the arise of Atlantis search in his time, like Ignatius Donnelly. Come on, my dear Atlantis skeptics, you can do well without such nonsense arguments!

I really amuse myself that Cameron's paper, which shows some serious mistakes, still is cited by Atlantis skeptics. His mistakes which a student (this time really a student) of Ancient Greek language could immediately see, are debunked in: Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Atlantis auf ägyptischen Stelen? Der Philosoph Krantor als Epigraphiker, in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik ZPE No. 135/2001, pp. 33–35. German only. And in: Franke, Aristotle and Atlantis, 2012. English.

To calm your nerves down I add: Nesselrath is an Atlantis skeptic, too. Cheer up!

Last thing: Is Gomperz alone? This is what Atlantis skeptics want to tell us. But what about Wilhelm Christ? Wilhelm Brandenstein? Massimo Pallottino? Spyridon Marinatos? John V. Luce? Eberhard Zangger? and all the others? Are they all "alone", each of them on his own, whereas the Atlantis skeptics unite to a monolithic block? Again, I amuse myself. Things are not that easy.

And this is the only thing I want to show: Things are not that easy.

In the end, Atlantis can be a fiction, why not? But no premature conclusions, please!

_

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have noticed are maps created in the past and "ancient times" that have islands all around the Atlantic where no islands are to be found. It's not only the Atlantic, but around the entire World here. The idea of Atlantis had both its positives and negatives. Atlantis also had its share of moot ideas. The reason of why Greece holds the knowledge is a different and unique idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing: Is Gomperz alone? This is what Atlantis skeptics want to tell us. But what about Wilhelm Christ? Wilhelm Brandenstein? Massimo Pallottino? Spyridon Marinatos? John V. Luce? Eberhard Zangger?

_

As you admit, Gomperz (who, again, was not a scientist) is uncertain and contradictory in his assessment. As to your other authors/researchers:

Three of them are, again, classicists. One of these is notably dated, with the next having been dead for over 45 years. Therefore, let us look at the most recent of these three (Luce d. 2011). In reviewing the book Atlantis: Fact or Fiction and Luce's contribution to such, reviewer Sinclair Hood observed the following:

While Luce and Frost have argued in a serious and reasonable manner for an Aegean

reality behind the story of Atlantis, the weight of Classical scholarship has always

favoured the view that Plato invented it, and that is the verdict here, in papers by the

editor, Edwin S. Ramage, and by J. Rufus Fears and S. Casey Fredericks (Emphasis added).

Atlantis: Fact or Fiction? Edited by Edwin S. Ramage

Review by: Sinclair Hood The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1980), pp. 161-162 Published by: Cambridge University Press.

In respect to Marinatos and Pallatino, these archaeologists were both respected and Marinatos' (d. 1974) early work at Akrotiri is well regarded. At this juncture perhaps the comment of one of the contributors to Atlantis: Fact or Fiction should be cited:

The geologist, Dorothy Vitaliano, one of the two scientists who writes here, and one

who has played a leading part in unraveling the scientific facts about the Thera eruption,

has probably said all that can be said: 'The very best we can do is to grant that Plato might

have derived some of his ideas from Minoan Crete in one way or another, but such a

derivation is far too roundabout for Atlantis to qualify as a legend which presents a

distorted view of an actual event.' (Emphasis added).

Atlantis: Fact or Fiction? Edited by Edwin S. Ramage

Review by: Sinclair Hood The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1980), pp. 161-162 Published by: Cambridge University Press.

As to Zangger's Troy/Atlantis hypothesis: This hypothesis was highly controversial and eventually rejected. Zangger no longer works in the archaeological field.

Yes, the intent of your contributions is understood. However, in light of the spectrum of current research, there would presently appear to be no credible support for the actual existence of a culture/landform/timeline as depicted by Plato.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....snip

And this is the only thing I want to show: Things are not that easy.

In the end, Atlantis can be a fiction, why not? But no premature conclusions, please!

_

Point made. However next time maybe phrase it differently, I think your initial post might have induced a few people in error. Just saying. Oh, and he is called a "student", because that is the textbook definition of "classical scholar".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is:

The more science is presented in this forum,

the less the forum members are interested.

What Gomperz says is the absolute sensation,

but who has the understanding to see this?

First, Gomperz died long before anyone even knew how old Athens is.

Second, I read your linked text and found nothing but Gomperz (a Classicist, BTW, and not a scientist) repeatedly stating that The Critias is fiction.

I figured you were still on about possible influences in Plato's life that caused him to describe certain things in his allegory in certain ways.

I understand that you are interested in this, but I am not. I was always interested in the possible existence of Atlantis - not where Plato picked up the nuances he used in his account.

If you ask me, Plato's description of Atlantis stems from his knowledge (and possibly his witnessing) of what happened to Helike, along with some references to things in other places, like Thera. Plato didn't know about the Thera eruption from personal experience, but it's possible that he visited there and saw the red and black stone that he described in Critias as being a hallmark of Atlantean architecture. It's also possible that there were still people around that had heard some story about what had happened at Thera 1300 years before Plato lived.

The red and black (and white) combination of stones can be found elsewhere around the Aegean (and the rest of the Mediterreanean) as well.

Harte

Edited to add:

Your quote:

It is very important to realize that Plato did not make up a simply invented story. It is more complicated. Gomperz: "Plato believed that he had discovered some of the essential features of his political ideal in the dim beginnings of his native city."

appears to come from a portion of Gomperz essay where he's addressing "The Republic," and not the Atlantis of Timaeus

H..

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Gomperz died long before anyone even knew how old Athens is.

Reading this it is clear that you have not understood Gomperz. Gomperz did not say that Athens is 10000 years old, but Gomperz said, that Plato said this and believed this! Note the difference! This is not the same. Because with this it is irrelevant which opinion on the age of Athens you have, it is even irrelevant how old Athens really is. It's only about the believes of Plato, right or wrong is not important. For Athens we know that Plato was wrong not only in date but also in facts. But Plato: He believed it. As he did with Atlantis! And this means: Atlantis could be a wrong composition like Plato's primeval Athens, but it could also be real!

Second, I read your linked text and found nothing but Gomperz (a Classicist, BTW, and not a scientist) repeatedly stating that The Critias is fiction.

You surely noticed that Gomperz contradicts himself to a certain extent, using the word "fiction", but then opening the question on which traditions Plato relied, and to which extent he relied on them. You cannot cite Gomperz to call Atlantis a "pure fiction", this would be a mis-citation. In the end Gomperz simply does not know it, and he confesses this implicitly. You cannot bend Gomperz to be pro or contra a real Atlantis.

The question of reality depends on the extent Plato relied on (distorted) traditions. As we can see with Plato's primeval Athens, it could be unreal, but if Plato relied on a compact Egyptian tradition it could be real. It's an open question, and that is all I wanted to show.

"science": This is an intercultural misunderstanding. In German Classical Studies are considered as science, too, as it was in the Anglo-Saxon world in former times as I read on Wikipedia, but today the meaning of "science" narrowed down to "natural science" in the Anglo-Saxon world. Please help me: How do you call a Classicist, then, if you want to express that he is a "scientist" using scientific means and standards like "historical criticism", without using the word "scientist"?

_

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this it is clear that you have not understood Gomperz. Gomperz did not say that Athens is 10000 years old, but Gomperz said, that Plato said this and believed this! Note the difference! This is not the same. Because with this it is irrelevant which opinion on the age of Athens you have, it is even irrelevant how old Athens really is. It's only about the believes of Plato, right or wrong is not important. For Athens we know that Plato was wrong not only in date but also in facts. But Plato: He believed it. As he did with Atlantis! And this means: Atlantis could be a wrong composition like Plato's primeval Athens, but it could also be real!

You surely noticed that Gomperz contradicts himself to a certain extent, using the word "fiction", but then opening the question on which traditions Plato relied, and to which extent he relied on them. You cannot cite Gomperz to call Atlantis a "pure fiction", this would be a mis-citation. In the end Gomperz simply does not know it, and he confesses this implicitly. You cannot bend Gomperz to be pro or contra a real Atlantis.

The question of reality depends on the extent Plato relied on (distorted) traditions. As we can see with Plato's primeval Athens, it could be unreal, but if Plato relied on a compact Egyptian tradition it could be real. It's an open question, and that is all I wanted to show.

"science": This is an intercultural misunderstanding. In German Classical Studies are considered as science, too, as it was in the Anglo-Saxon world in former times as I read on Wikipedia, but today the meaning of "science" narrowed down to "natural science" in the Anglo-Saxon world. Please help me: How do you call a Classicist, then, if you want to express that he is a "scientist" using scientific means and standards like "historical criticism", without using the word "scientist"?

_

Erm sorry but....... he actually calls it over-bold fiction, which in my view is even worse than pure fiction. so in fact you don't need to bend Gomperz one way or the other. Reading this it shows that you also have some issues understanding Gomperz. Also, to be totally sure and impartial of what he actually says, you ought to read it in German, the language that it originally written in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm sorry but....... he actually calls it over-bold fiction, which in my view is even worse than pure fiction. so in fact you don't need to bend Gomperz one way or the other. Reading this it shows that you also have some issues understanding Gomperz. Also, to be totally sure and impartial of what he actually says, you ought to read it in German, the language that it originally written in.

Look, I read it in German, I am German, and Gomperz clearly says: Plato believed in a primeval Athens, and thus in Atlantis, too. For Athens it is clear: It is not true. A self-deception of Plato. But to which extent there was a distorted tradition behind Atlantis is unknown. I am really getting angry that you pick only the words you like from Gomperz. I never did this. I always stated that Gomperz opens a question, not more.

You don't like open questions, do you?

Citations:

"Truth and fiction were blended in this narrative; but the fiction was not wholly arbitrary, and a considerable measure of self-deception preceded the deception practised on others. Plato believed that he had discovered some of the essential features of his political ideal in the dim beginnings of his native city."

"We should be glad to know how far Plato's fiction is based on popular legend; how far the belief in an extensive country in the West rests on the presupposition of a not wholly unsymmetrical distribution of land between the Eastern and Western hemispheres; how far the fact, now attested by documentary evidence, of an incursion into Libya and Egypt made by conquering "sea-nations" coming from the West. But on all these points we are left to uncertain conjecture."

In the latter quote it becomes quite clear that Gomperz is self-contradictory: He talks of "fiction" and then of "fact" - what now? An open question.

I am really getting angry about Atlantis skeptics picking only what they like. I never would do this. I do not claim that Gomperz said Atlantis was real. He did not. Why do Atlantis skeptics have such a big lack of scientific discipline? In the end Atlantis skeptics seem to be not better than certain Atlantomaniacs. Really. I cannot stand this. Always these blanket premature judgements!

_

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I read it in German, I am German, and Gomperz clearly says: Plato believed in a primeval Athens, and thus in Atlantis, too. For Athens it is clear: It is not true. A self-deception of Plato. But to which extent there was a distorted tradition behind Atlantis is unknown. I am really getting angry that you pick only the words you like from Gomperz. I never did this. I always stated that Gomperz opens a question, not more.

You don't like open questions, do you?

Citations:

"Truth and fiction were blended in this narrative; but the fiction was not wholly arbitrary, and a considerable measure of self-deception preceded the deception practised on others. Plato believed that he had discovered some of the essential features of his political ideal in the dim beginnings of his native city."

According to the linked essay, the "political ideal" Plato thought he had discovered was what he wrote about in The Republic, not in Timaeus or Critias.

So, Gomperz is saying that Plato believed that the culture he described in The Republic was similar to Athens ancient culture.

Gomperz goes on to claim that Plato was attempting to "flesh out" the society from The Republic in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias - years later - but left off on it when the entire exercise of giving a realistic setting to the society he described in The Republic became too unscientific for Plato's tastes.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gomperz goes on to claim that Plato was attempting to "flesh out" the society from The Republic in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias - years later - but left off on it when the entire exercise of giving a realistic setting to the society he described in The Republic became too unscientific for Plato's tastes.

*sigh* ... just another cherry picker ...

I give up. I don't like to explain each single step of thought again and again and more and more in detail.

That's boring.

Strange that such a short text like Gomperz' is overstraining the capacity of analysis of the forum's members. That is the reason why you cited Cameron: You never understood what Cameron said, you just only cite hime because he says things you like. Therefore you never realized the weakness and errors of his arguments. Science ... be it "natural science" or "social sciences / Humanities" works only, if you apply the principle "sine ira et studio". My hope is that the Gomperz text will turn your minds when his thoughts will sink in deeper over time. Maybe after some years you will understand?

We will see us then :-)

_

Edited by Proclus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* ... just another cherry picker ...

I give up. I don't like to explain each single step of thought again and again and more and more in detail.

That's boring.

Strange that such a short text like Gomperz' is overstraining the capacity of analysis of the forum's members. That is the reason why you cited Cameron: You never understood what Cameron said, you just only cite hime because he says things you like. Therefore you never realized the weakness and errors of his arguments. Science ... be it "natural science" or "social sciences / Humanities" works only, if you apply the principle "sine ira et studio". My hope is that the Gomperz text will turn your minds when his thoughts will sink in deeper over time. Maybe after some years you will understand?

We will see us then :-)

*sigh* ... just another poster with poor reading comprehension.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take the opportunity of this nice thread on Prof. Theodor Gomperz to present you just another Austrian Professor in favour of the existence of Atlantis, this time his publication is more recent, from 1951:

It is Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Brandenstein, expert linguist for ancient languages.

His conclusion from a literary analysis: This is not just invented, there is a real place of Atlantis.

http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis_brandenstein_engl.htm

Thank you for your attention.

_

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take the opportunity of this nice thread on Prof. Theodor Gomperz to present you just another Austrian Professor in favour of the existence of Atlantis, this time his publication is more recent, from 1951:

It is Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Brandenstein, expert linguist for ancient languages.

His conclusion from a literary analysis: This is not just invented, there is a real place of Atlantis.

http://www.atlantis-...nstein_engl.htm

Thank you for your attention.

_

And Brandenstein (writing some 62+ years ago) concluded that the "Atlantis War" occurred between 1700 BC and 1200 BC. And that "Atlantis" was Crete.

Which brings us (hypothetically) back to Santorini. Which is not consistent with Plato's description.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Gomperz was a renowned classical scholar, i.e. a scientist on the field of classical studies, translated immediately into English, read by many intellectuals of his time. And he was a philosopher, too.

2) The book was published in 1902, to be precise. Important is, that his thoughts have weight.

So, not misleading at all.

Or did you expect Atlantis research to have made big progress since 1902? *smile*

What is your opinion on Gomperz' thoughts?

.

To say a Classical scholar is a scientist /is/ deliberately misleading. Scientists work in the realm of science -- that is to say, the realm of hard data and facts. Classical scholars work in the realm of the humanities -- that is to say, the realm of human activites, which exists without the realm of hard data and facts. His is an opinion, and an opinion three-quarters of a century away from any current consensus.

Not that there /is/ any current consensus amongst scholars and historians about a real Atlantis (not even Classicists deal with fiction like it was reality), which is probably why you were reduced to fact-mining from the last century. Which process is, on its face, relatively ludicrous. I'm sure you'd concede there's all manner of German research both in the sciences and humanities from that time period which should be looked at in askance.

Is there any other news/science from the last century you can keep us up to date with? Canals on Mars? Phrenology? Eugenics? I'm sure you can find papers from the keenest minds of the 1920s to support these ideas and not a single 21rst Century voice to oppose them, so they must be valid, right?

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@jaylemurph:

> To say a Classical scholar is a scientist /is/ deliberately misleading.

Classics and Philology is a science, at least in German speaking countries. Maybe Anglo-Saxons consider it to be hocus-pocus? Why then professors teaching this hocus-pocus at universities? A definition of science which excludes most important parts of research only because you can't "measure" or "calculate" things sucks. Call it whatever you want, important is: It is rational and reasonable. Not just "opinions" - how crazy is this? You don't like the humanities, don't you?!

> not even Classicists deal with fiction like it was reality

An intolerant prejudice. You surely know the academic discussions on Platonic Myths and that they could contain a core of truth, sometimes? Or don't you? Could it be that you have no clue about what you are talking?

> why you were reduced to fact-mining from the last century.

Hopefully you are aware that Atlantis research is a very patient science, information from 65 years ago can be very helpful. Therefore academic articles of this time are still cited in current scientific literature - ah, you are surely aware of this. And "fact-mining" is the very beginning of every science. How can anyone state anything on Atlantis without "fact-mining"? Do you have a problem with "fact-mining"?

> Is there any other news/science from the last century you can keep us up to date with? Canals on Mars? Phrenology? Eugenics?

> I'm sure you can find papers from the keenest minds of the 1920s to support these ideas and not a single 21rst Century voice

> to oppose them, so they must be valid, right?

Surely you realize that your argument is nonsense because Brandenstein is far from the "canals on Mars" level and everybody knows without me talking about it that there is opposition.

Would you please be so kind to put on your friendly face? Again I did not want to claim anything special but just wanted to give this forum's readers the opportunity to read something they do not read every day. Is this forbidden, here? Hopefully not.

Ha, you even didn't realize that the provided article on Brandenstein contains criticism on Brandenstein's thesis *laugh*

You just hacked into your keyboard without thinking: that's your "science", am I right?

_

Edited by Proclus
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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.