Atlantis

[cormac mac airt]

I can tell you that there are plenty we dont know about the north sea cultures (and other) yet. For only 50 years ago, nobody belived the vikings had seafearing ships, we didnt know they were in america, we did not know they had telescopes and smoked cannabis. We learn new things all the time. If you think this is it. Nothing more to discover, and absolute sure of it, I feel sorry for you. You must have a boring life. Why are you even here? Only to sabotage? Are you not interested in the truth? There are many wonders and mysteries that will be solved and revealed in the time to come, which we dont know, but we must look, under every stone. The past discoveries shows us the possibilities in the future. And be open to that others may have more information about a subject than than yourself. try to listen instead. If you even care..

Speak for yourself. Many have known what apparently you didn't for a VERY long time now.

There is plenty more to discover. None of which requires making up things as you go along.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Only on this last one:

When will you start to understand that it is about searching, not evidence. Searching means: Evidence still has to be found. What really does annoy me is that you want to prevent me from searching!

I try to avoid the imagination what happened to Galileo if you were the inquisitor ... ("No Mr Galileo, there is no evidence for your claims and was never, and I will not look through your telescope because I know without looking that it cannot show anything I cannot see with my eyes, ...") ... or to Columbus ... ("No Mr Columbus, you cannot reach India sailing the other way round the earth, because no one tried before, and because no one tried before we know it is not possible and we do not have to try it.")

_

Search all you want. But searching for an inspiration won't make it Atlantis. Only something that may have inspired the tale. There IS a difference.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

Speak for yourself. Many have known what apparently you didn't for a VERY long time now.

There is plenty more to discover. None of which requires making up things as you go along.

cormac

I will just ignore you from now. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion. You are probably a paid troll for some christian organisation or something anyway and nobody should take you seriously.

[cormac mac airt]

I will just ignore you from now. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion. You are probably a paid troll for some christian organisation or something anyway and nobody should take you seriously.

Good, it means a decrease in the amount of ignorance I have to listen to. "We", meaning the scientific community as well as researchers of same know alot more of ancient history via the myriad scientific fields than you are apparently aware of. And for alot longer than you apparently bellieve.

Nope, just not gullible enough to believe that everything we know about the Vikings has only come to be known within the last 50 years.

cormac

[Harte]

Frist of all I have to agree why would Plato make up a myth but used real people to qoute from, all the characters Plato qouted from were real people, all though Solon in making the tale into a poetic greek tale did copy Homer.

Did you know that it was said that Davy Crockett could grin a 'coon out of a tree?

Then once, in the gloom of night, he pulled the trick on an old gray 'coon he could barely make out in a big oak tree.

He grinned his best at that 'coon, but it never budged, so he kept right on grinning hard as he could all night.

Once dawn was near, and there was more light, he could see he'd been grinning at a knot on a tree limb.

In the light of day, when he climbed up and looked at that knot, he saw where his grinning had started to peel back the bark around the knot!

They told that tale while Crockett was still alive.

Ask your question now - why would they do that?

Harte

[Harte]

You yourself mentioned now the witness Crantor who allegedly saw the story on Pillars. There is an independent witness! You may doubt him, but there it is! Whoever says: "There is no witness except Plato" is expressing a lie - Crantor is to be mentioned at least, even if you do not trust him. By the way: Pillars with the sea peoples story exist.

You refer here to Rameses III's mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, I presume.

You know, the Sea Peoples attacked Egypt under Rameses III around 1200 BC. Let's all acknowledge that this date is over eight thousand years after Atlantis supposedly sank.

Regarding Crantor - you have a real problem since his works are lost. Proclus never actually states, however, that Crantor claimed to have seen these pillars:

With respect to the whole of this narration about the Atlantics, some

say, that it is a mere history, which was the opinion of Crantor, the first

interpreter of Plato, who says, that Plato was derided by those of his

time, as not being the inventor of the

Republic, but transcribing what the

Egyptians had written on this subject; and that he so far regards

what is said by these deriders as to refer to the Egyptians this history

about the Athenians and Atlantics, and to believe that the Athenians

once lived conformably to this polity. Crantor adds, that this is testified

by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars

[which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still

preserved.

From Proclus:Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato

I don't see Proclus claiming Crantor as a "witness" to anything there. The above statements by Proclus, which he (somewhat) attributes to Crantor, are merely a restatement of what Plato himself stated in Timaeus, IMO.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

...

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

Aside from your odd opinion that we skeptics have a "political" agenda (what on earth is that supposed to mean?), I always chuckle over inferences of the Sea Peoples. I ask myself why every other Atlantis "believer" trots out the Sea Peoples as though they're part of a valid connection to Plato's allegorical tale. Ask yourself, how would Plato even know about the Sea Peoples? Or Solon, for that matter? It's quite obvious the Greeks themselves had only dim and unreliable memories of their Mycenaean forebearers, and this was the period to which the Sea Peoples date.

These marauders were plying the eastern Mediterranean over 600 years before Solon lived, and over 800 years before Plato lived. You often tout the field of philology, but in doing so you are obligated not only to evaluate Plato's works but those of other writers and cultures from which he drew his information. To be certain, mainland Greece of Mycenaean times saw plentiful destruction events at the hands of invaders, and although we can't point to the Sea Peoples as the culprits in a definitive way, we can agree they played at least a part. Still, what would either Solon or Plato know of this? At most, we can answer, they and their Athenian kin might have possessed the most tenuous cultural memory of marauders from a very long time before their own day.

There is no textual evidence of the Sea Peoples in Greece, but we'll return to the actual extant textual evidence presently. For the moment it's germane to point out that there was no Athens, per se, in the time of the Sea Peoples—at least nothing of the sort Solon or Plato or others of their time would recognize. In the period of the Sea Peoples, in the Late Bronze Age, "Athens" was nothing more than a small village on what would become the Acropolis with an accompanying small cemetery in what would become the Agora; the most sizable settlement in Attica at this time was Peratai, on the east coast (Drews 1993: 22-23).

The only true textual evidence for the Sea Peoples that would've been viewable in Solon's or Plato's time was in Egypt. Ugarit in Syria appears to offer peripheral textual evidence but this did not come to light until modern times due to archaeology, so neither Solon nor Plato would've been aware of it. In Egypt, our principal written evidence for the invasions of the Sea Peoples comes from Merneptah's victory stela (dating to around 1208 BCE and found at his Theban mortuary temple) and the walls of Ramesses III's mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (said inscriptions probably dating to around 1176 BCE) (ibid 19, 50-52).

No equivalent texts of the Sea Peoples are extant at Sais, which in the time of the Sea Peoples' invasions was an important cult center for the goddess Neith but a far cry from the important state city it would be centuries later, in the Late Period, when Solon was supposed to have visited Egypt. In other words, whenever exactly Solon visited Egypt and whatever exactly he did while there, the invasions of the Sea Peoples were not part of the Sais temple tradition. It's unlikely the Sais priests would've known much of anything about the Sea Peoples for the simple reason that they had no bearing on their, the Sais priests', own time period or temple cult. As I said, the records of the invasions had been inscribed centuries earlier and deep in southern Egypt.

Tying the Sea Peoples into the Atlantis fable generally falls flat on multiple fronts. Also consider that the Sea Peoples themselves were not an empire or a kingdom or a nation-state or even a polity. They did not represent a single ethnic group, even if they were striving toward a common goal. They were an ethnically diverse collection of displaced Mediterranean peoples whose origins ranged all the way from Italy to Anatolia. They do not even remotely resemble the character and makeup of Atlantis.

You yourself mentioned now the witness Crantor who allegedly saw the story on Pillars. There is an independent witness! You may doubt him, but there it is! Whoever says: "There is no witness except Plato" is expressing a lie - Crantor is to be mentioned at least, even if you do not trust him. By the way: Pillars with the sea peoples story exist.

A greater familiarity with pharaonic inscriptions is critical here. It is a basic fact that pillars or columns were not generally used for historical accounts. Archaeology of the site of Sais shows no hint of this, either. Carefully examine any one of nearly every surviving column bearing inscriptions, and you will almost always see the inscriptional material is about pharaohs or deities or a mix of both. The texts are primarily religious in nature. Historical accounts from pharaonic Egypt are nearly always found on the walls of temples or on colossal stelae, such as Merneptah's. As skewed and inaccurate as these accounts tend to be to begin with (e.g., the accounts of Ramesses II and the battle of Kadesh), they were not really for the sake of preserving history so much as for glorifying pharaohs and the deities of the state.

I said: Forget the noble lie.

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

Crantor was merely supplementing Plato's account. Where he got his information is anyone's guess, but as any student of pharaonic Egypt knows, his information is not correct. He either made it up for the sake of literary embellishment or, also plausible, received inaccurate second-hand information from a poorly informed interviewee (the sort of thing that seems to have befallen Herodotus time and time again).

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Proclus, you need to stop disparaging other posters and shine the same light of scrutiny on yourself. You are fallible, just as we all are. The more you try to paint yourself to be all-knowing, the more harm it will do to your credibility. Do not take other posters' critiques so personally. Our rebuttals are aimed not at you, personally, but at the information in your posts.

Lastly, I need to correct my earlier post when I stated everything you've mentioned is something we've heard before. Only later did I remember your thread on Syracuse. That's something I had not come across at UM before, nor is it something I'd ever thought of, myself. It's a good idea for something that might have partly inspired Plato when he wrote his allegory—specifically the disastrous Athen expedition in the Peloponnesian War—but it does not reflect any potential "real" Atlantis.

------------------------------------------

Source cited:

Drews, Robert. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe CA. 1200 B.C. Princeton University Press, 1993.

[kmt_sesh]

_{It seems likely that Solon's Egyptian sojourn acquainted him with tales of an ancient land named Keftiu, an island nation named for holding one of the four pillars that supported the Egyptian sky. According to the Egypt legend, Keftiu was an advanced civilization, and was the gateway to and ruler of all of the lands to the far west of Egypt (Greece, Libya, and beyond). Keftiu traded in ivory, copper, and cloth. Keftiu supported hosts of ships and controlled commerce far beyond the Egyptians domain. Keftiu.was Egyptian name for Thera.}

_{Solon only wote down the meaning of the translated names.}

_Palto

In this mountain there dwelt one of the earth born primeval men of that country, whose name was Evenor, and he had a wife named Leucippe, and they had an only daughter who was called Kleito. The maiden had already reached womanhood, when her father and mother died; Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her, and breaking the ground, inclosed the hill in which she dwelt all round, making alternate zones of sea and land larger and smaller, encircling one another; there were two of land and three of water,

To me Kletio and Keftiu are the same.

As best as can be determined the Egyptian word "Keftiu" was possibly a reference to the island of Crete but could also have been a generic term of the Egyptians for the Aegean, its islands, and its people. The source evidence is not clear. For example, in the tomb of Menkheperraseneb at Thebes (Dynasty 18, reign of Tuthmosis III), a wall scene includes a kneeling figure with a pointed beard and he's identified as the "chief of the Keftiu." Nothing in the depiction or in the accompanying text is any clearer than that.

As Aegeans, the Keftiu maintained a lucrative thalassocracy that provided them a hegemony over their region of the northeast Mediterranean, but we can't realistically take it much farther than that. We can of course look at these people as one and the same as the Minoans, who certainly had great influence over mainland Greece both culturally and economically, but there's no real evidence that the Minoans ruled over the mainland and its Mycenaean population. The Minoans definitely did not rule over Libya, although trading relationships with coastal Libyan tribes must've been plausible.

In other words, don't make too much out of the word "Keftiu."

[kmt_sesh]

I will just ignore you from now. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion. You are probably a paid troll for some christian organisation or something anyway and nobody should take you seriously.

What the hell?

You don't know cormac too well, do you?

[cormac mac airt]

What the hell?

You don't know cormac too well, do you?

Hell, they'd pay me to stay away.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Hell, they'd pay me to stay away.

cormac

You'd just better not come knockin' on my door with a bunch of religious pamphlets.

[cormac mac airt]

You'd just better not come knockin' on my door with a bunch of religious pamphlets.

And just when I was going to stop by your place and solicit for a new Church. Part Jehovah's Witness, part Judaism, part Hare Krishna and part Scientology.

I was even going to call it Jehovah's Jewish Krishna Science.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

We are from two different sides. You and your friends reseach our known history, and use your time in debunking and critisise other ideas. You defend outdated history you learned in school for 50 years ago. Instead of opening your eyes and cooperate with the younger updated people, you instead use your time to learn different discussion teqniuqes, a waste of time if you ask me. In my eyes you are pathetic loosers and trolls. And very good ones. But at least you get paid for it.

I dont belive you guys have written thousands of "no value critics text" without getting something in return.

My side, the amateurs, research the unknown, try to find the truth and the black spots in history., are often wrong, but dont care, because the search is the most important. Most archelogical discoveries are made by my side, not yours. Without us, no development.

I see no point in staying on this site, and i recomend everybody else (amateurs) to stop debating with these people. They are not here to help you/us or find the truth.

LEAVE US KIDS ALONE!!

Edited January 19, 2013 by whitegandalf

[questionmark]

We are from two different sides. You and your friends reseach our known history, and use your time in debunking and critisise other ideas. You defend outdated history you learned in school for 50 years ago. Instead of opening your eyes and cooperate with the younger updated people, you instead use your time to learn different discussion teqniuqes, a waste of time if you ask me. In my eyes you are pathetic loosers and trolls. And very good ones. But at least you get paid for it.

I dont belive you guys have written thousands of "no value critics text" without getting something in return.

My side, the amateurs, research the unknown, try to find the truth and the black spots in history., are often wrong, but dont care, because the search is the most important. Most archelogical discoveries are made by my side, not yours. Without us, no development.

I see no point in staying on this site, and i recomend everybody else (amateurs) to stop debating with these people. They are not here to help you/us or find the truth.

LEAVE US KIDS ALONE!!

But we do, as long as they play out their fantasies on the playground, not on a history forum.

[Proclus]

You refer here to Rameses III's mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, I presume.

You know, the Sea Peoples attacked Egypt under Rameses III around 1200 BC. Let's all acknowledge that this date is over eight thousand years after Atlantis supposedly sank.

Am I allowed to run mad over this ever-repeated stubbornness? How many postings did I write to show how this fits together, and then you come again. This is one of my basic experiences with internet forums: There is no progress in them. Not from the one side, not from the other. You just can get there superficial opinions, but you cannot build one argument on another because there is always somebody who starts again at zero-point.

Regarding Crantor - you have a real problem since his works are lost. Proclus never actually states, however, that Crantor claimed to have seen these pillars:

Proclus: "Crantor adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars [which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still preserved."

Correct is, that Crantor did not claim to have seen the pillars himself. But he is anyway a witness. And the "Pillars" he did not get from Plato, Plato does not talk of pillars. He is a witness. Whether trustworthy or not, he is a witness. You can discuss it but not ignore it. Atlantis skeptics tend to the idea: Because I already know it is not true this Crantor must be wrong, a liar, etc. (By the way: Is Theophrastus a liar, too? He also mentioned Atlantis positivly, and as I demonstrated elsewhere, Aristotle, too -- they are no witnesses but they are close to Plato.)

Atlantis skeptics have to get used to the idea that the ancients generally did not consider Atlantis to be an invention by Plato. This claim by some modern scholars is plainly wrong.

_

Edited January 19, 2013 by Proclus

[Proclus]

Aside from your odd opinion that ................

No, I did not say that Atlantis skeptics in general have a political agenda. Would you please be so kind not to confuse my words? Thank you.

I really have difficulties with your statements. It looks to me as if you use your authority as a scholar of Egyptology to debunk the Atlantis story, but in an evil way. Sorry to say this, of course I do not think this is the case. It only seems so.

You say that it is not possible that Solon or Plato got knowledge about the Sea Peoples in Egypt. You claim that in Sais there was no knowledge about this. How do you know this? This is pure nonsense. Of course it is possible that in the capital of Egypt there was a papyrus on this. Oh my god ... you only think of temple walls like in Medient Habu, I assume ... Egyptians did not write on walls, only! And you think that the story had to have been handed down over time only within Sais - why? You create artificial obstacles which are not there. The same thing with your other arguments. For example you write that the texts in Egypt were not historical but religious - but of course! This is exactly my claim! From there comes a good part of distortions of traditions!

You do not debunk my statements, you support them! Thank you for this.

The rest is silence.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Proclus

[Big Bad Voodoo]

@docyabut2

Great observation on Keftiu and Kleito. I can swallow that person and island are same.

@Harte

Is noble lie by defention means badly written alternative history? Do you think Plato was bad writter for his time?

@Kmt

Atlantis isnt fable. Fable have others charactheristics. There is difference between myth and fairies. People go on different colleges for each.

For myths you go on Sociology or Anthropology. And to fairies you go on comperative literature, languages and similar.

In fables, fairies we often have animals who help main protagonist. Or even sun or wind. Its often revenge story. Myths have basis on real events. Facts. It was a way that ancient describe what they saw. Its up to us to see what writter wanted to say.

About Sea peoples, they might attacked Greece. In my opinion no one knows for sure.

Strategy and tactic of battle isnt quite irrelevant. Its relevant. Outcome sure does matter but if historians and ancient writters did think that way then we wouldnt know that Hannibal have had 50 % Gauls in Hannibal army at Cannae, that he made cresent shape Spanish and Guals, that mount soldiers close circle, that 100 people were killed in minute. 5 000 Chartagians died and 50 000 Romans. We would only have one note-Hannibal won three major victories.He was defeated by Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama. Because , to you, thats what matter. We wouldnt know about famous quotes from that war. We wouldnt know about Fabian strategy, and others info I mentioned and I didnt mentioned.

War and battle often drive people to wrote. You mentioned Herodotus. I wouldnt agree with you. He start to wrote wanted to understand why Greek and Persians fight and why Greeks won. When he was born in 454 BC in Ionia it was Persia. When he was kid Xerxes ruled it.In many cases he is modern historian because he give us details. Polybius wrote about Rome Chartage conflict. So war and battles are often fire starters. If I listen story recite about Atlantis by Plato or Critias or any greek I would ask countless questions. Such as, how many people involve, who was in charge, where battle happened, how many deaths...and tactics and strategy...Seems to me that Plato was smart guy. I think if he wanted ot invent story and to looks like real, he would give some accounts. But he didnt. Probably because he didnt know.

You didnt answer question. Nor you nor Harte nor anyone.

I think that smart Athenains would say that Salamis was their greatest victory were AthensThemistocles and Spartan Eurybiades in late 480 BC work toghether. They sent slaves to Xerxes and they said that Greeks wanna run away.

Xerxes eats the bate and Greeks crush them. Only Xerxes woman general Artemisia I of Caria, greek woman warn Xerxes.

After Battle Xerxes said-"My men have become women and my women, men."

Again, if only outcome was crucial then we wouldnt know anything from above.

Furthermore, Herodotus and Livy wrote about some things that todays historians thinks it isnt true like Romul and Rem story.

Some later historian thinks that if isnt true it isnt important. They are bad historians. They are important because we can understand how people think.

Plato was historian. In certain sense all man are historians. Bible is also history book. Four people recorded life of Jesus. They even died because they didnt want to say that they lied. But some people reject it. Because they see it as one book. Bible. But forgeting that Bible is tome of books.

Also we have accounts of Jesus beyond Bible.

History works in way history writings works. History needs time distance from event to put final word on it. Legacy of it. People in Rome consider Atlantis story was true.

History is science and therefore is self correcting. Because we dont have archaeological evidence doesnt mean that Atlantis didnt existed.

Maybe we have some vase from it just we link it to others culture because we found it there. Forgeting that Atlantis might trade with those cultures.

@Proclus

You are right. Sceptics are romantics. They, in fact, see Atlantis as giant white gold pyramid in Ocean which was ruined 10 000 BC. Irony.

@all

Do we know why Solon went in Egypt?

Edited January 19, 2013 by the L

[Big Bad Voodoo]

The Shardana helmets fit better:

Then we have the Nuragic helmets:

And all those are from the immediate vicinity of Egypt.

You think that sea people were Nurgaics?

According to you Shardana and Sea people are same?

Edited January 19, 2013 by the L

[questionmark]

You think that sea people were Nurgaics?

According to you Shardana and Sea people are same?

We don't know. That is the point. They could have all of the above, including some Germanic tribe that also used horned helmets around the time (but sadly we have no evidence of their capability of using a boat).

[Harte]

Am I allowed to run mad over this ever-repeated stubbornness? How many postings did I write to show how this fits together, and then you come again. This is one of my basic experiences with internet forums: There is no progress in them. Not from the one side, not from the other. You just can get there superficial opinions, but you cannot build one argument on another because there is always somebody who starts again at zero-point.

I certainly can't disagree with this Atlantis has been debated here for a decade, from every angle (including yours.) Yet here we go again.

.

Proclus: "Crantor adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars [which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still preserved."

Correct is, that Crantor did not claim to have seen the pillars himself. But he is anyway a witness. And the "Pillars" he did not get from Plato, Plato does not talk of pillars. He is a witness. Whether trustworthy or not, he is a witness. You can discuss it but not ignore it.

Nobody is ignoring anything. Crantor is no witness. Crantor claims the Egyptians told Solon what Plato claims they told Solon. That the records exist. Why Crantor would mention pillars can be found in the Critias itself, where Plato states that the Atlanteans had their laws and their kings list inscribed on pillars of orichalcum.

As to offices and honours, the following was the arrangement from the first. Each of the ten kings in his own division and in his own city had the absolute control of the citizens, and, in most cases, of the laws, punishing and slaying whomsoever he would. Now the order of precedence among them and their mutual relations were regulated by the commands of Poseidon which the law had handed down. These were inscribed by the first kings on a pillar of orichalcum, which was situated in the middle of the island, at the temple of Poseidon, whither the kings were gathered together every fifth and every sixth year alternately, thus giving equal honour to the odd and to the even number.

SNIP

Now on the pillar, besides the laws, there was inscribed an oath invoking mighty curses on the disobedient. When therefore, after slaying the bull in the accustomed manner, they had burnt its limbs, they filled a bowl of wine and cast in a clot of blood for each of them; the rest of the victim they put in the fire, after having purified the column all round. Then they drew from the bowl in golden cups and pouring a libation on the fire, they swore that they would judge according to the laws on the pillar, and would punish him who in any point had already transgressed them, and that for the future they would not, if they could help, offend against the writing on the pillar, and would neither command others, nor obey any ruler who commanded them, to act otherwise than according to the laws of their father Poseidon.

Source - Critias

Harte

Edited January 20, 2013 by Harte

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Crantor ...Theophrastus....Aristotle

Problem I have following you is that I still dont see where either of them talk positivly about Atlantis as you said.

Maybe Im uneducated and didnt read what you did but I see you as person who wants to test his theories with sceptics only on same level. Often dont providing links, quotes for rest of mortals, which I include myself.

You are focus on changing mind of sceptics instead providing evidencies you claim to have.

Maybe it is common knowledge to you but to me is Sci Fi.

Thats probably because you think that if we are not sceptics that we are able to believe in anything. And that you find boring. Be sure that isnt a case.

Maybe I need to read more then come back to discuss.

Eitherway UM is eyeopener. Either you learn something or you realize how much do you know.

More and more you read, you know less.

Im newbie.

Edited January 20, 2013 by the L

[Harte]

Problem I have following you is that I still dont see where either of them talk positivly about Atlantis as you said.

Maybe Im uneducated and didnt read what you did but I see you as person who wants to test his theories with sceptics only on same level. Often dont providing links, quotes for rest of mortals, which I include myself.

You are focus on changing mind of sceptics instead providing evidencies you claim to have.

Maybe it is common knowledge to you but to me is Sci Fi.

Thats probably because you think that if we are not sceptics that we are able to believe in anything. And that you find boring. Be sure that isnt a case.

Maybe I need to read more then come back to discuss.

Eitherway UM is eyeopener. Either you learn something or you realize how much do you know.

More and more you read, you know less.

Im newbie.

L,

You can read everything you could possibly ever need to know about Atlantis right here at U-M, in the posts or in the links provided in the posts.

Harte

[Proclus]

Nobody is ignoring anything. Crantor is no witness. Crantor claims the Egyptians told Solon what Plato claims they told Solon. That the records exist. Why Crantor would mention pillars can be found in the Critias itself, where Plato states that the Atlanteans had their laws and their kings list inscribed on pillars of orichalcum.

Crantor does not talk of Atlantean pillars but of Egyptian pillars, i.e. he is clearly claiming to have knowledge of Atlantis independently from Plato. So he is (by his own claim, but this is normal with all witnesses) a witness for the Atlantis story independent from Plato -- of course you are allowed to doubt him and call him a wrong witness, but even a wrong witness is a witness. Hope you can live with that.

[TheSearcher]

With respect to the whole of this narration about the Atlantics, some

say, that it is a mere history, which was the opinion of Crantor, the first

interpreter of Plato, who says, that Plato was derided by those of his

time, as not being the inventor of the

Republic, but transcribing what the

Egyptians had written on this subject; and that he so far regards

what is said by these deriders as to refer to the Egyptians this history

about the Athenians and Atlantics, and to believe that the Athenians

once lived conformably to this polity. Crantor adds, that this is testified

by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars

[which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still

preserved.

Sorry Proclus, but I'm unsure what we can call Crantor, since he himself has never seen the Atlantean or Egyptian pillars (whichever it was, since this was never clarified in the text itself, so a moot point), that are being talked about. He just recounts what he heard from Egyptian prophets.

I'm not saying that either Proclus (the ancient Greek one, not you) or Crantor are liars, or cover up the truth, but they recount second hand knowledge. To me this means, that their testimony, has to be taken with a pinch of salt. For all we know, the Egyptian prophets could have been lying to them.

[Proclus]

Sorry Proclus, but I'm unsure what we can call Crantor, since he himself has never seen the Atlantean or Egyptian pillars (whichever it was, since this was never clarified in the text itself, so a moot point), that are being talked about. He just recounts what he heard from Egyptian prophets.

I'm not saying that either Proclus (the ancient Greek one, not you) or Crantor are liars, or cover up the truth, but they recount second hand knowledge. To me this means, that their testimony, has to be taken with a pinch of salt. For all we know, the Egyptian prophets could have been lying to them.

Thank you, TheSearcher, that you agree with me, that Crantor is an independent witness, although maybe not a credible one. Because you exactly said what I said: Crantor got his knowledge allegedly directly from Egypt, from "prophets" (and they from Egyptian pillars), similar to Plato. So, Crantor is an independent witness, although maybe not credible like Plato.

Thank you for your agreement, TheSearcher. But why did you begin your statement with "Sorry"?

_