Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 06:32 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 06:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes you would have had to believe precisely that they were a great REAL power, if they were actually to pose a REAL threat to the Athenians.

And why is that exactly?

They could have been no power at all. The Hittites were a great power. One story merges with another and yet another still and we end up with a mashup of legends - all I'm positing is that the legends began somewhere.

We know that the deluge most likely has etiological basis. Noah's Ark is one of many many such stories from around the world, all depicting great floods. In most cases these were attributed to a divine power because that is how it would have been understood back then.

And for the record I'm not trying to present history; I'm trying to present a mystery.

I can't think of a single legend that has no etiological basis at all. It is part and parcel of how myths are generated in the first place.

I still don't understand why you believe that Altantis has to be a real superpower if it were to have existed at all.

And also, Plato's account of 'Atlantis' may have been the only one at that time which referred to it by that name. What if he is talking about the Bell Beaker civilisation of Iberia?

It is as though you are assuming I believe Plato's tale is truth, when that is not at all what I've been saying. Robin Hood was not a real person but it doesn't mean the story came purely from the mind of a fiction writer.

What you are saying is similar to somebogy in the future saying that, having watched the movie Titanic, there was no such ship/event because Jack and Rose could not have existed. That movie was dramatised for entertainment. A narrative was created around an event that actually did happen.

I also believe you are undervaluing the effect that significant periods of time (centuries) can have on an 'old wives' tale', particularly in an epoch of history when oral tradition was strong and written historical record-keeping was in its infancy.

Do I believe Noahd was 900 years old? No. Do i believe all animals were shepherded onto the ark two-by-two? No. Do i believe the flood spanned the whole world? No. Do I believe God arranged all this? No. Do I believe it was done for some divine reason to do with sin and our wickedness? No.

But do I believe that there was a flood a very long time ago (pre-Bronze Age) that was spoken of and recounted for centuries and spawned many different legends - some of a divine nature? Yes I most certainly do! I do not believe the Noah's Ark story was simply created out of thin air to make for a nice story.

** Jingo Planet **
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes barcelonic's post
21-06-2014, 06:46 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(20-06-2014 07:22 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  Chas seems pretty sure of himself lol Smile

Underground -- Iberia is on the map. There are plenty of signs of it and I've been there. Plus, I live in the British Isles. Plato's tale could have been a tale of either of those places plus many more. So what you are saying is either Plato's generations-old account, which was undoubtedly fragmented through time, is either spot on or entirely fictional?

And the 19th Century is recent, yes. Remember we're talking about a city from the Bronze Age which people have been talking about ever since. F
For most of that time it's been considered nothing more than legend.

And as I have said, there ARE other accounts of Atlantis in historical texts. In fact, they are often cited in books about Atlantis but I'm not much in the mood to trawl my books to give you an example, mainly because of this all-or-nothing approach you seem to have on the matter.

I don't know if Atlantis was an island at all. Imagine this.... a Somali slave escapes Africa and seeks asylum in America. Her arrives at Manhattan and, a gifted poet, begins to write about the skyscrapers and neon lights that surround him.

Now imagine he sends his story home in a postcard, and that that postcard gets handed around and down to every family member for three centuries - all the while this family never seeing or hearing of these things from anywhere else.

I bet it'd make one hell of a colossal story but would no doubt contain a shred of truth. All-or-nothing is helpful if you feel you need to rid yourself of the mystery.
Myself I quite enjoy a good mystery so I prefer to pick apart the postcard and question which, if any, pieces of the postcard contain a shred of truth.

Yes, I am quite sure. There are no accounts of Atlantis prior to Plato. So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:01 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And why is that exactly?

They could have been no power at all.

Then they could not have possibly met the criteria as spelled out in Plato.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  The Hittites were a great power.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  One story merges with another and yet another still and we end up with a mashup of legends - all I'm positing is that the legends began somewhere.

No they don't.We know precisely a LOT about the Hittites. Nothing "merges" about anything, for REAL historians. You have provided not one example.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  We know that the deluge most likely has etiological basis. Noah's Ark is one of many many such stories from around the world, all depicting great floods. In most cases these were attributed to a divine power because that is how it would have been understood back then.

No. Many cultures had flood MYTHS, because many cultures experienced FLOODS, not ONE flood. The fact there were many flood STORIES in no way says they were referencing ONE specific flood.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And for the record I'm not trying to present history; I'm trying to present a mystery.

No. You are attempting to pretend your "mystery, (which no one has agreed IS a "mystery") has historical roots. You have IN NO WAY presented any FACTS to support your story, and it seems you don't even seem to know what you're trying to say.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I can't think of a single legend that has no etiological basis at all. It is part and parcel of how myths are generated in the first place.

Zeus. By your reasoning, Zeus, and all the gods of Olympus have some real historical reference. (BTW, look up the word "etiology". You're using it incorrectly).

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I still don't understand why you believe that Altantis has to be a real superpower if it were to have existed at all.

Because ANY ancient settlement, ANY AT ALL, then meets your (non-existent) criteria, and ANY city could have been the referenced city, and THAT defeats your point, now doesn't it. YOU are making a SPECIFIC claim, (even though you keep backing away from it). You really have no clue what you're trying say, it seems.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And also, Plato's account of 'Atlantis' may have been the only one at that time which referred to it by that name. What if he is talking about the Bell Beaker civilization of Iberia?

Exactly. You defeat yourself. Then if he could have been talking about ANYTHING, there is no point to all this, is there.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  It is as though you are assuming I believe Plato's tale is truth, when that is not at all what I've been saying. Robin Hood was not a real person but it doesn't mean the story came purely from the mind of a fiction writer.

There are real EXTERNAL references to the person who may may been referenced in the Robin Hood story. You analogy is AGAIN, (just like your Somali one) a fallacy. They are NOT the same situation.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  What you are saying is similar to somebody in the future saying that, having watched the movie Titanic, there was no such ship/event because Jack and Rose could not have existed. That movie was dramatized for entertainment. A narrative was created around an event that actually did happen.

No. Another false analogy. There are external RECORDS for the Titanic, and the ship that went down.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I also believe you are undervaluing the effect that significant periods of time (centuries) can have on an 'old wives' tale', particularly in an epoch of history when oral tradition was strong and written historical record-keeping was in its infancy.

You clearly know nothing about archaeology and ancient history. By your methodology ANY "old wives' tale" could be true, there are no standards for research.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Do I believe Noahd was 900 years old? No. Do i believe all animals were shepherded onto the ark two-by-two? No. Do i believe the flood spanned the whole world? No. Do I believe God arranged all this? No. Do I believe it was done for some divine reason to do with sin and our wickedness? No.

Good for you. Your Atlantis myth has NO more evidence for it, than Naoh's flood does.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  But do I believe that there was a flood a very long time ago (pre-Bronze Age) that was spoken of and recounted for centuries and spawned many different legends - some of a divine nature? Yes I most certainly do! I do not believe the Noah's Ark story was simply created out of thin air to make for a nice story.

No. There were countless floods. All cultures had flood myths. There was no world-wide flood and science has good, very specific reasons for knowing that. You're attempting to say there really WAS a world-wide flood, (which archaeology have PROVEN didn't happen), and then use THAT fallacy to say it's applicable to YOUR myth, Atlantis. It's not. If there was no world-wide flood your point is meaningless.

By your reasoning, the fact that ALL ancient cultures had creation myths, must mean there was one creation event, by a creator.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2014, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 07:43 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
If it's justed based on some city power that was on coasts of Spain and sunk into the sea, but wasn't overly powerful it's mainly irrelevant of as a historical place.

That's why Platos description of the place has purpose. If it wasn't a massive force then all the extra gravitas Plato added in his story is what makes it have grand significance to history.

Wow.. Just read more if what you said. Are you unaware of human creativeness and it's unlimited potential for metaphorical stories? If you so strongly think that similar stories across cultures mean or must exist I'm sorry for you.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-06-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 07:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And why is that exactly?

They could have been no power at all.

Then they could not have possibly met the criteria as spelled out in Plato.

Exactly BB - I'm not at ALL saying that is the case. Why can't you understand that?
Plato's tale is a grandiose story - I don't believe there was this massifve war between Athens and Atlantis. I've already said I don't believe it was necessarily an island and I've already discounted most of the tale.



(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  One story merges with another and yet another still and we end up with a mashup of legends - all I'm positing is that the legends began somewhere.

No they don't.We know precisely a LOT about the Hittites. Nothing "merges" about anything, for REAL historians. You have provided not one example.

There is NO proof of Atlantis. Why can't you underststand I'm not talking about history here but about myth and etiology? I'm not looking to prove anything at all.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  We know that the deluge most likely has etiological basis. Noah's Ark is one of many many such stories from around the world, all depicting great floods. In most cases these were attributed to a divine power because that is how it would have been understood back then.

No. Many cultures had flood MYTHS, because many cultures experienced FLOODS, not ONE flood. The fact there were many flood STORIES in no way says they were referencing ONE specific flood.

Yes BB - I agree with you once again. Why are you assuming I believe there was one flood alone. That is the most preposterous idea I've ever heard. A deluge can happen almost anywhere in the world. I'm simply explaining how the ancients would have interpreted it as a divine spectacle.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And for the record I'm not trying to present history; I'm trying to present a mystery.

No. You are attempting to pretend your "mystery, (which no one has agreed IS a "mystery") has historical roots. You have IN NO WAY presented any FACTS to support your story, and it seems you don't even seem to know what you're trying to say.

No BB - it is you who doesn't know what I'm trying to say. You keep asking for facts and I keep telling you there are none but you seem to feel that means there is no place for discussion. There is an absence of facts all throughout history about a lot of things. Are we not free tpo speculate?
And just because nobody in this thread has agreed there is a mystery element to all of this, does not mean that a great number of people around the world would not chime in to support me here.


(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I can't think of a single legend that has no etiological basis at all. It is part and parcel of how myths are generated in the first place.

Zeus. By your reasoning, Zeus, and all the gods of Olympus have some real historical reference. (BTW, look up the word "etiology". You're using it incorrectly).

Absolutely Zeus had a historical basis. That basis being sunshine and rain etc... The story was created to explain observable phenomena. It was not created for allegory or entertainment.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I still don't understand why you believe that Altantis has to be a real superpower if it were to have existed at all.

Because ANY ancient settlement, ANY AT ALL, then meets your (non-existent) criteria, and ANY city could have been the referenced city, and THAT defeats your point, now doesn't it. YOU are making a SPECIFIC claim, (even though you keep backing away from it). You really have no clue what you're trying say, it seems.

Tell me then - what is my specific claim? I've claimed nothing except Plato believed what he was saying about Atlantis was not pure fiction.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And also, Plato's account of 'Atlantis' may have been the only one at that time which referred to it by that name. What if he is talking about the Bell Beaker civilization of Iberia?

Exactly. You defeat yourself. Then if he could have been talking about ANYTHING, there is no point to all this, is there.

How ridiculous BB. If Plato's 'chinese-whispers' account was based on a real place and embellished over the years then my "specific claim" is clearly demonstrated to be true. You seem to keep thinking I believe Plato's Atlantis verbatim, which couldn't be farther from the truth, as I've stated countless times now.
So I "defeat myself" if the Greek Plato happened to have elements of a story right but the name changed over time through oral tradition? The location was different, the events were different etc... Rather than defeating myself it would seem I am successfully showing how the tale could have been based on a civilisation or place that is known to us, and therefore contain elements of truth and NOT be pure allegory.

If you accept that Atlantis may have been the Bell Beaker civilisation then surely that is my point proven? Unless you are insistent on continuing to misinterpret my position, believing I am purporting Plato's Atlantis to be true to the lettter.


(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  It is as though you are assuming I believe Plato's tale is truth, when that is not at all what I've been saying. Robin Hood was not a real person but it doesn't mean the story came purely from the mind of a fiction writer.

There are real EXTERNAL references to the person who may may been referenced in the Robin Hood story. You analogy is AGAIN, (just like your Somali one) a fallacy. They are NOT the same situation.

Oh do explain to me the fallacious nature of my Somali analogy! I'd truly love to hear that.

And no there are no external references to a 'Robin Hood' but instead there are references to a similar-named person of that time and place. So why should the whole myth of 'Atlantis' be tied to its name whilst we are free to speculate (without evidence) of the origins of the 'Robin Hood' myth?


(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  What you are saying is similar to somebody in the future saying that, having watched the movie Titanic, there was no such ship/event because Jack and Rose could not have existed. That movie was dramatized for entertainment. A narrative was created around an event that actually did happen.

No. Another false analogy. There are external RECORDS for the Titanic, and the ship that went down.

Having ONLY watched the movie. It is not a false analogy if you give me a little more credit. Thousands of years BCE they did not have the historical record we have today. Just like with the Somali analogy, it is significant to its purpose to assume the family had not heard or seen anything about skyscrapers from any other source - and here it is equally (and clearly) vital to analogy that the movie is the only source the people had to go on.
That is very hard to misinterpret unless doing so deliberately.


(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I also believe you are undervaluing the effect that significant periods of time (centuries) can have on an 'old wives' tale', particularly in an epoch of history when oral tradition was strong and written historical record-keeping was in its infancy.

You clearly know nothing about archaeology and ancient history. By your methodology ANY "old wives' tale" could be true, there are no standards for research.

What in the world do you think I am saying? "TRUE"? Did I at any point say that Plato's Atlantis is "true"? No.
Is it so hard to believe that there is a genesis to myths and legends? Just because we have some information about various candidates from England who may have been the one on whom the Robin Hood myth was based on, does that mean that if we didn't then the myth must be entirely without origin, by default?
That is a ludicrous claim BB.


(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Do I believe Noahd was 900 years old? No. Do i believe all animals were shepherded onto the ark two-by-two? No. Do i believe the flood spanned the whole world? No. Do I believe God arranged all this? No. Do I believe it was done for some divine reason to do with sin and our wickedness? No.

Good for you. Your Atlantis myth has NO more evidence for it, than Naoh's flood does.

Completely agreed. I've already posted there is NO evidence for Atlantis whatsoever. If you require evidence to believe any particular myth has any origin at all besides a writer of pure fiction then you're little different from the religious who MUST have an answer and cannot simply allow something to remain unknown. Either it is true or untrue, is what you are effectively saying; that no tale can be simply 'chinese-whispered' so much that it ends up 99% inaccurate.

(21-06-2014 06:32 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  But do I believe that there was a flood a very long time ago (pre-Bronze Age) that was spoken of and recounted for centuries and spawned many different legends - some of a divine nature? Yes I most certainly do! I do not believe the Noah's Ark story was simply created out of thin air to make for a nice story.

No. There were countless floods. All cultures had flood myths. There was no world-wide flood and science has good, very specific reasons for knowing that. You're attempting to say there really WAS a world-wide flood, (which archaeology have PROVEN didn't happen), and then use THAT fallacy to say it's applicable to YOUR myth, Atlantis. It's not. If there was no world-wide flood your point is meaningless.

You are an outright liar or are not reading my posts with the same level of respect with which I am reading yours. THERE WAS NO SINGLE FLOOD WHICH AFFECTED THE WHOLE WORLD. Such an idea is insane beyond words and now you are claiming this is my supposition!! How insulting BB!

By your reasoning, the fact that ALL ancient cultures had creation myths, must mean there was one creation event, by a creator.

For someone who isn't reading/interpreting my posts correctly, you sure have a lot to say about my reasoning. I can only assume this remark here is based on your unfounded allegation that for some reason I believe there was one enormous flood that swallowed the world.

If you dare to brand me a creationist you should read what I have to say and not continue to put words in my mouth.

Please expand the above - I've responded to your post but it is collapsed.

Frankly, if you continue to present wacky claims as though I have made them and treat me with contempt because of your misunderstanding of my position on the origins of myths then I'm done - I can discuss and debate but I can't have a conversation with speech-recognition software and so similarly I cannot have a conversation with somebody who incorrectly deciphers what it is I am saying.


Nb. Above all in bold for my convenience

** Jingo Planet **
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
I agree with Barcelonic.

I think Plato's writing about Atlantis was his impression of a mysterious legend which effected him. Kind of the way many people discuss the legends of King Arthur.

I don't really see what the big deal is. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
21-06-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 10:42 AM)kim Wrote:  I agree with Barcelonic.

I think Plato's writing about Atlantis was his impression of a mysterious legend which effected him. Kind of the way many people discuss the legends of King Arthur.

I don't really see what the big deal is. Drinking Beverage

The tenuous supposition that there need be more than vague cultural memory behind the story? Greek cities had fallen into the sea many times over. That's what small volcanic islands do...

But also, among the classical Greeks, there was some (very hazy - they reverted to a purely oral culture during the dark age) social memory of the bronze age Cretans/Minoans - an island people destroyed by volcanoes and tsunamis (yes), who had had conflicts with the mainland Myceneans.

So that's about the limit of what's credible; "there was once an advanced rival people on an island who perished in natural disasters". And from that one sentence we get the rhetorical device Plato put into the dialogues.

Which, seriously barcelonic, is really obviously just a framing device. Socrates is talking about his ideal society and wonders what it would be like in the real world, and along come Critias who just happens to know a story about exactly that, with the pitch-perfect antagonist to boot?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
21-06-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Exactly BB - I'm not at ALL saying that is the case. Why can't you understand that?
Plato's tale is a grandiose story - I don't believe there was this massifve war between Athens and Atlantis. I've already said I don't believe it was necessarily an island and I've already discounted most of the tale.

Than what IS you point exactly ?

(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  There is NO proof of Atlantis. Why can't you underststand I'm not talking about history here but about myth and etiology? I'm not looking to prove anything at all.

It appears you don't know what you're trying to say.

(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  A deluge can happen almost anywhere in the world. I'm simply explaining how the ancients would have interpreted it as a divine spectacle.

Then why didn't you say that ? It also appears you cannot express yourself very well. Igf all you're trying to say is soe myths have possible historical origins, then I ask "who cares" ? Anyone who has taken a class on Comparative Mythology KNOWS THAT.

(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Absolutely Zeus had a historical basis. That basis being sunshine and rain etc... The story was created to explain observable phenomena. It was not created for allegory or entertainment.

I see your problem. Zeus was an anthropomorphized deity, who had many attributes. Rain, thunder and lightning are not "historical" roots. They are natural phenomena, that happen ALL the time, everywhere.


(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Tell me then - what is my specific claim? I've claimed nothing except Plato believed what he was saying about Atlantis was not pure fiction.

THAT IS a specificclaim, and you have no evidence for it.

(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  So I "defeat myself" if the Greek Plato happened to have elements of a story right but the name changed over time through oral tradition? The location was different, the events were different etc... Rather than defeating myself it would seem I am successfully showing how the tale could have been based on a civilisation or place that is known to us, and therefore contain elements of truth and NOT be pure allegory.

WHAT civilization, and WHAT time. You have failed to both demonstrate them, or name them, just claim them as possibilities. So WHAT IS THE DAMN POINT ?

(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Oh do explain to me the fallacious nature of my Somali analogy! I'd truly love to hear that.

If you can't see it, you're beyond help.

(21-06-2014 07:42 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Completely agreed. I've already posted there is NO evidence for Atlantis whatsoever. If you require evidence to believe any particular myth has any origin at all besides a writer of pure fiction then you're little different from the religious who MUST have an answer and cannot simply allow something to remain unknown. Either it is true or untrue, is what you are effectively saying; that no tale can be simply 'chinese-whispered' so much that it ends up 99% inaccurate.[/b]

Stop putting words in my mouth. First you claim Plato's Atlantis may have had real historical origins, Then you say there's no evidence for any of it. So what the fuck are you on about ? Who cares ? What is your POINT ? If it's that some myths may have historical (such as Troy in Homer), yeah, so what ? Everyone KNOWS that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 01:58 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 03:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 11:23 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So that's about the limit of what's credible; "there was once an advanced rival people on an island who perished in natural disasters". And from that one sentence we get the rhetorical device Plato put into the dialogues.

I disagree.
If there really had been an advanced "rival" people SOMEONE ELSE would have said something about it, or somehow we would know about it, other than Plato.
I submit that is beyond the limit of what is credible. A rival to Athens would have to be large enough to have left some trace, and if it's not a real rival, and could just be "any ole city" WTF is the point of all this ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 11:23 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Which, seriously barcelonic, is really obviously just a framing device. Socrates is talking about his ideal society and wonders what it would be like in the real world, and along come Critias who just happens to know a story about exactly that, with the pitch-perfect antagonist to boot?

If ever it could be determined which land Solon was really learning about then we may well have an insight into an ancient civilisation that we didn't have before.

Ill say again though that the only thing I've been trying to frame is my belief that there is a basis to the myth that Plato heard, and it was not just another allegory.

There is, in fact, plenty of reasons to believe this and I strongly encourage anyone reading this to read a book about Atlantis besides Critias - you can see line after line of this ancient work broken down and analysed by scholars of Plato and classical works in general. Put your skepticism to the test.

I'm beginning to feel as though I'm the only person in all of time who thinks Plato didn't concoct the whole story, lol. There are scientists alive today who are still fascinated by this and researching possible locations. There is a mystery, and be it the case that one thinks they have solved the mystery solely with their own skepticism, that doesn't mean there is no mystery after all.

Every single minute detail of Plato's Atlantis will be debated until the end of time, and although I am openly confessing I find almost all of it untrue or grossly inaccurate, I am having such fragments of the story put to me as though I am to defend them.

It's insane really lol, and BB putting words in my mouth without the relevant quote, and asking me to repeat my position as opposed to going back to older posts to reread it - well that is the final straw for me I'm afraid to say in a discussion that perhaps it seems I never should have engaged in.

For the most part the replies have been relatively civil but BB doesn't seem to believe that a single detail of the story could possibly be true without the dots already having been connected.

Btw BB - evidence doesn't just fall out of the sky; it requires study and the kind of inquistion some of us have been demonstrating by trying to have a discussion on the subject. If you still think I've been making no sense then I respectfully request you look again at what it is I've been writing as opposed to throwing insults my way. Save them for the religiously-insane. Smile
(Oh and take a look at a book about Atlantis besides Critias because if that is all you have to go on I'm not all that surprised at your foregone conclusions).

** Jingo Planet **
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes barcelonic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: