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 -
Van Gorp

Is this Atlantis ... at the coast of Spain?

2,216 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ThereWeAreThen
1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

Apologies accepted, partially.

And I agree it's not in Spain, and I say that over and over myself, but I would not go as far as not being anywhere else. As somewhere in time it exists, and very evidently too.

But please, stop repeating things you have heard, and go read Plato for yourself. You might even learn something from him which may be of service to you, fable or not. But don't isolate yourself to the story of Atlantis, when it comes to Plato.

Best regards!

There is no evidence to suggest it exists. Yes archeologists may have found some vases or actual structures in the sea which they have failed to identify as of yet. Doesn't mean its Atlantis. (You might not be on about what I just said but it's still relevant)

Funny you ask someone to stop repeating themselves when that is what you do constantly with the same driv....ugh evidence which seems to be constantly debunked. Just seems like you're grossly misinterpreting Plato.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Quote

cormac,

Your proposal, that Atlas extorted the original inheritances of his 9 siblings, is poorly chosen.

You championed a vague translation of this particular passage, 114d (i.e Jowett's 114d).  Then you twisted the passage's meaning, to infer extortion.  Then you needed an additional change - to claim that the phrase "all these" should mean "all these except Atlas". 

{Jowett 114d} Now Atlas had a numerous and honourable family, and they retained the kingdom, the eldest son handing it on to his eldest for many generations;

But the Bury translation of 114d explains far more elegantly Plato's statement, about was handed down uniquely among descendants of Atlas:  merely the "scepter" or diadem (i.e symbolic of a leadership office) was uniquely handed down among Atlas's descendants.  

[114d] but it was the eldest, who, as king, always passed on the scepter to the eldest of his sons, and thus they preserved the sovereignty for many generations

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dbasilei%2Fa2

Nope, not what I said. I said Eumelus' portion would have likely reverted to Atlas, whose lot was considered "the largest and best" anyway, upon Eumelus' death, but that's only as far as "rulership", as Eumelus would have been (at least for a time) the "Heir Apparent". He and his descendants would have retained their lands on Atlantis but much like the other, later, siblings they would have "ruled" over nothing on Atlantis. They would have only been property owners. None of the remaining siblings would have been relevant to the chain of rulership.

Nope, no extortion implied nor inferred. How could Atlas extort what was essentially his, at least as far as rulership?

No change necessary as Atlas had no need to rule other "divers islands" since he was ALREADY ruler of Atlantis. None of the rest were rulers of Atlantis. 

The scepter was the symbol of rulership. Which means that rulership transferred from Atlas to his direct male heirs. Did you NOT know that? 

As Heir Apparent Eumelus would have had greater say in the affairs of Atlantis than the rest of his siblings, thus why he and his allotment were singled out for notice and not those of his younger siblings. Something else of which you either don't know or ignore. 

Next complaint?

cormac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
14 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

You are not providing what you were asked in reference to this. You have failed to show just where I have claimed to be Jesus, even in jest. You must be lying about it.

And if you are not lying but merely assumed it, just think of a particular scenario, if I were actually what you erroneously assumed.

This scenario.

On judgement day you came up in front of my Father, and I being your assumed Jesus, and therefore your assigned legal counselor for your defense, what are the odds that I would do my best to defend you? 

Matthew 10:33

But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.

I answered this question once before, and apparently it was spicy enough to warrant removal. 

That being the Management’s response, I won’t repeat it, so people can imagine their own. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
14 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

It's not a question of the royal we, as much as it's all about the royal shaft of the king's chambers of that old and falling apart pyramid with a chimera in front of it. But the great corporation, "ink" LTD, although a global allegory giant now, will eventually be taken down by a little Ma and Pa shop.

 

Amazing. One veritably quivers at the sheer profundity of your insights. You have clearly demonstrated that it does indeed require 86 pancakes to shingle a doghouse (because elephants only wear tennis shoes on Samhain). The implications are staggering.

.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
4 minutes ago, Swede said:

Amazing. One veritably quivers at the sheer profundity of your insights. You have clearly demonstrated that it does indeed require 86 pancakes to shingle a doghouse (because elephants only wear tennis shoes on Samhain). The implications are staggering.

.

That was hilarious Swede, 10 out of 10. :D

cormac

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
atalante
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Nope, not what I said. I said Eumelus' portion would have likely reverted to Atlas, whose lot was considered "the largest and best" anyway, upon Eumelus' death, but that's only as far as "rulership", as Eumelus would have been (at least for a time) the "Heir Apparent". He and his descendants would have retained their lands on Atlantis but much like the other, later, siblings they would have "ruled" over nothing on Atlantis. They would have only been property owners. None of the remaining siblings would have been relevant to the chain of rulership.

Nope, no extortion implied nor inferred. How could Atlas extort what was essentially his, at least as far as rulership?

No change necessary as Atlas had no need to rule other "divers islands" since he was ALREADY ruler of Atlantis. None of the rest were rulers of Atlantis. 

The scepter was the symbol of rulership. Which means that rulership transferred from Atlas to his direct male heirs. Did you NOT know that? 

As Heir Apparent Eumelus would have had greater say in the affairs of Atlantis than the rest of his siblings, thus why he and his allotment were singled out for notice and not those of his younger siblings. Something else of which you either don't know or ignore. 

Next complaint?

cormac

cormac,

The clarified statement of your views violates (and mostly reverses) what Plato says in 114a about how Atlantis was ruled.  

[Bury, 114a]  ...and him he [Poseidon] appointed to be king [basileus] over the rest [of the siblings], and the others to be rulers [archons], granting to each the rule over many men and a large tract of country. 

[Jowett, 114a] ...and [Poseidon] made him king over the rest; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory. 

 

Thus Plato said (in 114a) that the other 9 siblings were the "rulers" of Atlantis.  And each of those nine siblings (which the Greek text of 114a calls "archons") ruled over both "men" and "a large tract of country".   Atlas (the "basileus") was only supervising his 9 siblings, according to 114a. 

In that situation, Eumelus was not an "heir apparent" to Atlas. 

 

 

Plato's descriptive words for this style of Atlantis government were borrowed from the nomenclature for government offices at Athens; therefore 114a would be understood by Plato's contemporary Greek audience, ca 360 BC.

At Athens, a "basileus archon" supervised the other "archons".    http://agathe.gr/democracy/state_religion.html

 

 

 

 

Edited by atalante
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hey, that's NOTHING. 

I've found Mordor. It's in Birmingham ! 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
53 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hey, that's NOTHING. 

I've found Mordor. It's in Birmingham ! 

Don't tell @acute........:unsure2:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hey, that's NOTHING. 

I've found Mordor. It's in Birmingham ! 

Mordor was based on the Black Country, next to Birmingham. I do live a mile away from the Two Towers though!  and the Ivy Bush is still standing.

https://www.timeout.com/birmingham/blog/how-birmingham-inspired-j-r-r-tolkien

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, acute said:

Mordor was based on the Black Country,

Somehow I can see a Brummie being a Orc. :huh:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
8 minutes ago, Piney said:

Somehow I can see a Brummie being a Orc. :huh:

Yes. We have Orcs and Oiks. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Piney said:

Somehow I can see a Brummie being a Orc. :huh:

Why do you have no respect for Orcs. You know there orphans right?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
13 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Why do you have no respect for Orc. You know there orphans right?

Sorry...

Please don't send The Voles....:unsure2:

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Piney said:

Sorry...

Please don't send The Voles....:unsure2:

 

Damn one of them got out while we were preparing them.

Edited to add:

No problem we found him on the beach with his lunch he had gotten his teeth into a blue whale. We got him back.

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
11 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

No problem we found him on the beach with his lunch he had gotten his teeth into a blue whale. We got her back.

 

Whew!!! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hey, that's NOTHING. 

I've found Mordor. It's in Birmingham ! 

That fits in with my knowledge...

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On 8/12/2019 at 12:23 AM, jaylemurph said:

He thinks he’s Jesus, so maybe God the Father and the Holy Ghost are helping split the rent...

—Jaylemurph 

I thought he was Plato??

Now he is Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, AND Plato?

Must be crowded in that skull.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
50 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Must be crowded in that skull.

No room for intellect. :yes:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, atalante said:

cormac,

The clarified statement of your views violates (and mostly reverses) what Plato says in 114a about how Atlantis was ruled.  

[Bury, 114a]  ...and him he [Poseidon] appointed to be king [basileus] over the rest [of the siblings], and the others to be rulers [archons], granting to each the rule over many men and a large tract of country. 

[Jowett, 114a] ...and [Poseidon] made him king over the rest; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory. 

Thus Plato said (in 114a) that the other 9 siblings were the "rulers" of Atlantis.  And each of those nine siblings (which the Greek text of 114a calls "archons") ruled over both "men" and "a large tract of country".   Atlas (the "basileus") was only supervising his 9 siblings, according to 114a. 

In that situation, Eumelus was not an "heir apparent" to Atlas. 

Plato's descriptive words for this style of Atlantis government were borrowed from the nomenclature for government offices at Athens; therefore 114a would be understood by Plato's contemporary Greek audience, ca 360 BC.

At Athens, a "basileus archon" supervised the other "archons".    http://agathe.gr/democracy/state_religion.html

You're hilarious. It's bad enough that there is no evidence that Atlantis existed WHERE, WHEN OR EVEN ON THE SCALE Plato said it did but you think a Classical Greek understanding of religio-political rule is relevant to 1)  a peoples (Atlanteans) WHO SUPPOSEDLY WEREN'T GREEK to begin with and 2) who predated anything Classically Greek by some 9000 years. One CAN'T apply such understandings to a people so distant in time and place, or at least they shouldn't. And that's not even taking into account that no such story has ever been evidenced as having existed in Egypt to begin with. If Eumelus was not "heir apparent' then there would have been no reason to single him out as to his importance in the Atlantis story above his lesser siblings. 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

 again If the story of  Atlantis is true its only has to be

 To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles facing the country which is now called the region of Gades

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html

map-of-gades.jpg

it had  to be a temple next to this small city of Gades

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awlsew
13 hours ago, Piney said:

Somehow I can see a Brummie being a Orc. :huh:

Don't you mean: 'Orck'?

Sorry, I just had to post that:rofl:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
4 hours ago, Awlsew said:

Don't you mean: 'Orck'?

Sorry, I just had to post that:rofl:

Hi Awlsew

Well if it had a vowel between the r and c then maybe.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
On 8/12/2019 at 2:49 PM, Swede said:

Amazing. One veritably quivers at the sheer profundity of your insights. You have clearly demonstrated that it does indeed require 86 pancakes to shingle a doghouse (because elephants only wear tennis shoes on Samhain). The implications are staggering.

.

Did you say something important? I could not quite grasp the essence and intent. Has it to do with Atlantis in Spain? And if it's a doghouse for my dog, after the shingles are on, please coat them with red cherry marmalade rather than plain pancake syrup.

 

 

snoopy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I thought he was Plato??

Now he is Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, AND Plato?

Must be crowded in that skull.

Baby, there is always room for you there, all of you! My Father's house has many mansions, and if it were not so, I would not tell you this. Besides, Socrates has to be God, if I really turn out to be Plato after all. Besides, Jesus is not God The Father, as that's all petty talk about the trinity. And the Holy Ghost is only a metaphor about the soul and its reincarnation, The Holy Soul. And the story of Atlantis is all about proving the existence of the soul and the myriad of reincarnations it goes through. The body is only an outer covering for the soul, like clothes to the physical body. After all, would Socrates have wasted his last day in that physical life trying to discuss and argue in favor of the existence of the soul, and its immortality? Remember the Republic? And the connection to the Atlantis dialogues? The Phaedo is there to show many things, but more so for showing that a man, knowing that his physical death was set for the end of the day, would spend that last day enjoying what he considered more enjoyable, or more passionate about, or a combination of what the man had considered worth living all his life....reason, justice, truth, and the love of those 3, which are parts of what Socrates considered as  True Philosophy, along with the absolutes of those. The absolute truth of the absolute existence of the soul, its immortality.

All of Plato's work, reading between the lines, and into the many layered, and deeper meaning, boils down to that, in the end. Proving reincarnation through the existence of the soul and its immortality. All you smart people here do not perceive that we are all gods, the immortals.

And for you science minded souls, the God particle, that essence which cannot be further subdivided, and is the current hot quest of science, thought to be that simple and uncompounded substance from which our physical universe is built with, and although not known to them, it is really the soul they are seeking.

And I don't know why the mollusk is trying to make me into Jesus, as I'm fine with just being Plato, because that's crazy enough for me. But if I would ever contemplate and entertain the idea as having being Jesus, I would request a straight jacket myself, with my last ounce of reason.

Plato's Republic.

True, I said; if the inherent natural vice or evil of the soul is unable to kill or
destroy her, hardly will that which is appointed to be the destruction of some
other body, destroy a soul or anything else except that of which it was appointed
to be the destruction.
Yes, that can hardly be.
But the soul which cannot be destroyed by an evil, whether inherent or
external, must exist for ever, and if existing for ever, must be immortal?
Certainly.
That is the conclusion, I said; and, if a true conclusion, then the souls must
always be the same, for if none be destroyed they will not diminish in number.
Neither will they increase, for the increase of the immortal natures must come
from something mortal, and all things would thus end in immortality.
Very true.
But this we cannot believe–reason will not allow us– any more than we can
believe the soul, in her truest nature, to be full of variety and difference and
dissimilarity.
What do you mean? he said.
The soul, I said, being, as is now proven, immortal, must be the fairest of
compositions and cannot be compounded of many elements?
Certainly not.
Her immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument, and there are
many other proofs; but to see her as she really is, not as we now behold her,
marred by communion with the body and other miseries, you must contemplate
her with the eye of reason, in her original purity; and then her beauty will be
revealed, and justice and injustice and all the things which we have described
will be manifested more clearly. Thus far, we have spoken the truth concerning
her as she appears at present, but we must remember also that we have seen
her only in a condition which may be compared to that of the sea-god Glaucus,
whose original image can hardly be discerned because his natural members are
broken off and crushed and damaged by the waves in all sorts of ways, and
incrustations have grown over them of seaweed and shells and stones, so that
he is more like some monster than he is to his own natural form. And the soul
which we behold is in a similar condition, disfigured by ten thousand ills. But
not there, Glaucon, not there must we look.
Where then?
At her love of wisdom. Let us see whom she affects, and what society and
converse she seeks in virtue of her near kindred with the immortal and eternal
and divine; also how different she would become if wholly following this superior
principle, and borne by a divine impulse out of the ocean in which she now is,
and disengaged from the stones and shells and things of earth and rock which in
wild variety spring up around her because she feeds upon earth, and is overgrown
by the good things of this life as they are termed: then you would see her as
she is, and know whether she has one shape only or many, or what her nature
is. Of her affections and of the forms which she takes in this present life I think
that we have now said enough......

Yes, I said, my dear Glaucon, for great is the issue at stake, greater than
appears, whether a man is to be good or bad. And what will any one be profited
if under the influence of honour or money or power, aye, or under the excitement
of
poetry, he neglect justice and virtue?
Yes, he said; I have been convinced by the argument, as I believe that any
one else would have been.
And yet no mention has been made of the greatest prizes and rewards which
await virtue.
What, are there any greater still? If there are, they must be of an inconceivable
greatness.
Why, I said, what was ever great in a short time? The whole period of
threescore years and ten is surely but a little thing in comparison with eternity?
Say rather ‘nothing,’ he replied.
And should an immortal being seriously think of this little space rather than
of the whole?
Of the whole, certainly. But why do you ask?
Are you not aware, I said, that the soul of man is immortal and imperishable?
He looked at me in astonishment, and said: No, by heaven: And are you
really prepared to maintain this?

Yes, I said, I ought to be, and you too–there is no difficulty in proving it.
I see a great difficulty; but I should like to hear you state this argument of
which you make so light.

 

Edited by Pettytalk
dedication song.
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
26 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Baby, there is always room for you there, all of you! My Father's house has many mansions, and if it were not so, I would not tell you this. Besides, Socrates has to be God, if I really turn out to be Plato after all. Besides, Jesus is not God The Father, as that's all petty talk about the trinity. And

Anti-Trinitarian. Very Unitarian....or Quaker, but on the obverse of things it would Make you ICOC or a Jehovah Witness. As for your "connection" with "God" we just can't see it. 

26 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

the Holy Ghost is only a metaphor about the soul and its reincarnation, The Holy Soul

The "Holy Ghost" started out as "Asherah" Yaweh's feminine aspect, whose symbol was a dove. It became the symbol of Yaweh's connection with man. His caring spirit. 

26 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

 

. And the story of Atlantis is all about proving the existence of the soul and the myriad of reincarnations it goes through.

The story of Atlantis was about the arrogance of Athens. Nothing more

26 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

The body is only an outer covering for the soul, like clothes to the physical body. After all, would Socrates have wasted his last day in that physical life trying to discuss and argue in favor of the existence of the soul, and its immortality? Remember the Republic? And the connection to the Atlantis dialogues? The Phaedo is there to show many things, but more so for showing that a man, knowing that his physical death was set for the end of the day, would spend that last day enjoying what he considered more enjoyable, or more passionate about, or a combination of what the man had considered worth living all his life....reason, justice, truth, and the love of those 3, which are parts of what Socrates considered as  True Philosophy, along with the absolutes of those.

Word salad. There's nothing enlightening here. 

26 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

The absolute truth of the absolute existence of the soul, its immortality.

A idea which can never be proven or known by the living

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.