Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atlantis


stevemagegod
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your response to Questionmark and Cormac seemed needlessly snarky, being that they directly responded to your request.

Please clarify, to avoid further confusion, the purpose of your following post: "Could you please quote the passage of Plato's historical dialogues which mention that Atlantis "succumbed to tectonic activity"?"

You placed particular emphasis on "historical" and "succumbed to tectonic activity". Please expand.

I apologize, again, greatly, for any confusion in these statements. I emphasized "historical" to counter someone's allegation that Plato's accounts of Atlantis were fictional or philosophical in nature. As for the tectonic activity, a reading of either the Timaeus or the Critias would yield the requested references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitran, can you link me to the original Greek accounts that you are referring to?

I have only managed to find the accounts in a book I acquired from my local library. I have not even attempted to locate them on the computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I regret to say I didn't understand any of what I'm sure was a fascinating and conclusive statement. Please be so kind as to revise your wording.

I am aware of the above-quoted passage. What was your point?

My point is rather simple. If you don't understand what constitutes/or is associated with "tectonic activity" then perhaps you ought to bow out now and save yourself further embarassment. If your "research" were a boat, it'd be at the bottom of the Marianas Trench by now, sad to say.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is rather simple. If you don't understand what constitutes/or is associated with "tectonic activity" then perhaps you ought to bow out now and save yourself further embarassment. If your "research" were a boat, it'd be at the bottom of the Marianas Trench by now, sad to say.

cormac

I explained that misconception earlier. I apologize. It was rather vulgar of me to resort to sarcasm. Forgive me. I am well-aware of the tectonic activity present in Plato's texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I explained that misconception earlier. I apologize. It was rather vulgar of me to resort to sarcasm. Forgive me. I am well-aware of the tectonic activity present in Plato's texts.

That was no misconception, you're just flat out wrong. Which greatly suggests that your knowledge of Plato's works (Timaeus and Critias) is rather questionable, to say the least.

cormac

**Tone it down, Cormac. He apologized.**

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Allright then, if we have gotten the foot-in-mouth business out of the way, let's get back to a civil and adult discussion**

Arbitran, it has been about 15 years since I last looked at the Greek translation, however I can't say that I agree with whomever wrote the explanation you read. To the best of my recollection, the Greek did not have an "of" preposition, like we do in English, but rather the association of the word with the source indicated the possessive form. Directly translated, the original Greek would be "Atlantis Island" which, interpreted into English, would be "Island of Atlantis", with "of" indicating the derivation or source or the noun. It is actually more similar to the Japanese "no", which creates a possessive connection; "Atlantis no Island" meaning the "island which is Atlantis".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I read the Timaeus just yesterday, in Greek...

So you can read the original tale, in Attic Greek?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dates of the construction of the aforementioned temples is not concretely agreed upon. Would you also please cite the passages of the Timaeus which you allege claim that Egypt was attacked as well? I read the Timaeus just yesterday, in Greek, and recall no such detail. Nor do I recall an Athenian retaliation. Quotes would be greatly appreciated.

Indeed, it is a natural event described in the text. Have you actually studied the relevant period in history with regards to South America? Not only is there severe tectonic and volcanic activity, but drastic flooding as a result of glacial melt-off from the conclusion of the last ice age. And you call this "nothing comparable"?

Am unsure of your specific references, but it should be remembered that the Andes are upthrust formations, as clearly indicated in the immediate surroundings of Lake Poopo.

Pleased to learn that you are aware that the source of earthquakes is tectonic activity.

Thus, the geological factors are not consistent with your speculation (amongst numerous others).

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was no misconception, you're just flat out wrong. Which greatly suggests that your knowledge of Plato's works (Timaeus and Critias) is rather questionable, to say the least.

cormac

**Tone it down, Cormac. He apologized.**

What "was no misconception"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Allright then, if we have gotten the foot-in-mouth business out of the way, let's get back to a civil and adult discussion**

Arbitran, it has been about 15 years since I last looked at the Greek translation, however I can't say that I agree with whomever wrote the explanation you read. To the best of my recollection, the Greek did not have an "of" preposition, like we do in English, but rather the association of the word with the source indicated the possessive form. Directly translated, the original Greek would be "Atlantis Island" which, interpreted into English, would be "Island of Atlantis", with "of" indicating the derivation or source or the noun. It is actually more similar to the Japanese "no", which creates a possessive connection; "Atlantis no Island" meaning the "island which is Atlantis".

I will firstly thank you for your civility in these matters.

I must say that I certainly agree for the most part with your linguistic assessments. However, it remains quite clear in the original Greek form of the Timaeus and Critias that the "Isle Atlantis" referred to was almost certainly the island capital, not the continent (the "great island").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can read the original tale, in Attic Greek?

Indeed. I studied Greek years ago, with my uncle (and a colleague of his; credit where credit is due).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am unsure of your specific references, but it should be remembered that the Andes are upthrust formations, as clearly indicated in the immediate surroundings of Lake Poopo.

Pleased to learn that you are aware that the source of earthquakes is tectonic activity.

Thus, the geological factors are not consistent with your speculation (amongst numerous others).

.

How do you figure that "the geological factors are not consistent with your speculation"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "was no misconception"?

The implication (yours) in Post #1314 that you were unaware of any mention of Atlantis' succumbing to tectonic activity, per Timaeus, when Plato quite clearly spells it out. So either you're making it up as you go along or (more likely) you didn't understand what Plato said. Neither of which shows you to be as knowledgeable on the subject as you claim to be. And to add to that, as has already been mentioned, Plato locates Atlantis directly "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar while you have moved an island and turned it into a continent over 3500 miles away. That's not remotely what Plato claims nor where he claimed it to be.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that I certainly agree for the most part with your linguistic assessments. However, it remains quite clear in the original Greek form of the Timaeus and Critias that the "Isle Atlantis" referred to was almost certainly the island capital, not the continent (the "great island").

Could you clarify where the distinction between the two is made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication (yours) in Post #1314 that you were unaware of any mention of Atlantis' succumbing to tectonic activity, per Timaeus, when Plato quite clearly spells it out. So either you're making it up as you go along or (more likely) you didn't understand what Plato said. Neither of which shows you to be as knowledgeable on the subject as you claim to be. And to add to that, as has already been mentioned, Plato locates Atlantis directly "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar while you have moved an island and turned it into a continent over 3500 miles away. That's not remotely what Plato claims nor where he claimed it to be.

cormac

As I have said multiple times I am, and have all-the-while been aware of the tectonic activity in the Timaeus (and Critias of course). You seem not to possess an understanding of the original Greek in which the dialogues were written. You claim that Plato states that Atlantis was "in front of" the Pillars of Hercules--when in fact, in the Greek it would be more accurately rendered as "across from", "ahead of", or "before". Any way you slice it, in Greek, South America is a perfect match for Atlantis.

The word in question, by the way, is "προτού"--transliterated as "protoi".

Edited by Arbitran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You claim that Plato states that Atlantis was "in front of" the Pillars of Hercules--when in fact, in the Greek it would be more accurately rendered as "across from", "ahead of", or "before". Any way you slice it, in Greek, South America is a perfect match for Atlantis.

Which would be in agreement, particularly the last two, with Atlantis being "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar. Something South America has never been in human history, so no, South America IS NOT a perfect match.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you clarify where the distinction between the two is made?

Certainly.

If one reads the Timaeus passage:

"But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was a continent situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the continent was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia."

The word used for "continent" is "ἤπειρον" (or ""). The word used for "islands" is "νήσους" (or "nisous").

I hope this was helpful.

Edited by Arbitran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would be in agreement, particularly the last two, with Atlantis being "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar. Something South America has never been in human history, so no, South America IS NOT a perfect match.

cormac

No actual proximity is necessarily implied by "before" or "ahead of", is it? If so, please explain for us the exact measure of distant indicated by either of these words.

In reality, it only implies direction, in the vaguest of possible ways. My theses remain unchallenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you and Could you stop saying the word Theses. You have no put forth any theses. you have put forth some theory/speculation. but never a theses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly.

If one reads the Timaeus passage:

"But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was a continent situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the continent was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia."

The word used for "continent" is "ἤπειρον" (or ""). The word used for "islands" is "νήσους" (or "nisous").

I hope this was helpful.

Arbitran,

I gather you have an explanation for why Plato wrote the following...

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire...

Which is in the exerpt you posted above and in which Plato refers to "the continent" as "the island of Atlantis"?

And, furthermore, he specifically noted that an empire of Atlantis existed within the island Atlantis. Thus rendering false your claim that "Atlantis" applies only to the empire (or a city), and not the island.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you and Could you stop saying the word Theses. You have no put forth any theses. you have put forth some theory/speculation. but never a theses.

we are not concerned with composition and essays.

So, Arbitran, when a proposition is discussed, it has to be proved or maintained against objections.

Proof requires references to the subject of the thesis. the proposition has to be defended, using the proofs against the discussions from those who oppose the idea of your thesis.

You have neither provided proof, nor defended your "thesis" wiith viable arguments.

even white taking no.3 definitions above, a thesis is a dissertion of a subject in which you have to do original research.

I don't find any originality in your so called "thesis" the matter been here and have been doing its rounds for decades. nothing original to it.

So, stop calling your ideas as theses and call them by whatever other names you please - call it theory, revelation, etc etc. not theses, because there are many UMers here who has actually submitted actual theses and are even Phd holders. when you say theses in whatever sense you are aiming for, it is like a genuine insult for the actual Phd holders.

Once more, i request you to Please, provide relevant references to your points of discussions.

haven't you yourself noticed, Arbitran, that in 100% of your post, you have never ever given a single external reference to validate your points.

My "theories" as you call them, are nothing of the kind. I refrain from using such a term as much as possible, as it carries various scientific and colloquial connotations, not all of which would appropriately describe my theses. I am fully aware of the definition of thesis, and there is simply no other term which can be accurately applied (with the possible exception of treatise).

As I have mentioned, and requested your forgiveness for multiple times, I am not well-acquainted with computers; I do not know how to provide links. As for references, they have almost exclusively dealt with the Timaeus and Critias--texts which I trust all of us here are familiar with. Was mine a wrong presumption in this respect? If so, I apologize. If asked in the future, I will do my best to provide whatever information you solicit. I simply found it unnecessary, as we are all quite well-read here, as I can see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitran,

I gather you have an explanation for why Plato wrote the following...

Which is in the exerpt you posted above and in which Plato refers to "the continent" as "the island of Atlantis"?

And, furthermore, he specifically noted that an empire of Atlantis existed within the island Atlantis. Thus rendering false your claim that "Atlantis" applies only to the empire, and not the island.

You have misunderstood my post. The continent, island capital, and empire, are all referred to as Atlantis. It seems that there is some confusion here; I sincerely apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have misunderstood my post. The continent, island capital, and empire, are all referred to as Atlantis. It seems that there is some confusion here; I sincerely apologize.

No problem, I understand that internet communication is not as nuanced as verbal communication, and much can be lost due to that.

There is little doubt that, while Plato did sometimes refer to Atlantis as a 'continent', he also referred to the same Atlantis as 'an island'. This is not to say he was referring to seperate islands 'owned' by a continental empire - he was referring to the same land-mass when he used the interchangeable terms 'continent' and 'island'.

His reason for using 'continent' was to emphasise the size of the island and to thereby make it distinct (in the Greek mind) from the numerous small islands in the Mediterranean and, more specifically, the Aegean. We should not presume his use of the word equals how we use the word today.

The capital city of Atlantis was located on the island/continent of Atlantis. It was never a separate island unless you were to count the canals dug by the Atlanteans as making it so, but even then it was fully encompassed by the large island/continent of Atlantis.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the continent was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean

If we assume that "the true ocean" is what we call the Atlantic, then "the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean" implies a large continent that acts as the edge of the ocean - to me that's a nicely poetic description of the Americas, they literally encompass the breadth of the Atlantic. So that makes continental Atlantis something between Europe/Africa and the Americas. Something that's no longer with us. I can accept that the Capital Island (the place with the concentric harbours) might have disappeared due to rising sea levels (as there's oral history of that happening amongst at the very least the Indigenous Australian community) but an entire continent stretches my credulity too far, we'd be able to detect such a continent with sonar and such forth, and we've looked and found not a dicky-bird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would be in agreement, particularly the last two, with Atlantis being "in front of" the Straits of Gibraltar. Something South America has never been in human history, so no, South America IS NOT a perfect match.

cormac

And it's not even a new theory: Jim Allen had similar ideas, years ago.

http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/atlantisboliviapart1.htm

atlantisone.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.