Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 05:40 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  Btw BB - evidence doesn't just fall out of the sky; it requires study and the kind of inquisition 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.

Then show us the evidence. Show me where there is evidence in the ancient world for this city/culture, OUTSIDE a form of literature that generally ONLY used myths, and why this should be the exception.

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, 08:04 PM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 01:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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 ?

I meant rival in the sense of "they are not us". A different society. Which the Minoans certainly were, from the Mycenaean perspective...

It's not like Athens even existed in the time-frame the supposed story is purportedly set in, after all.

... 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, 08:08 PM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 05:40 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  
(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.

Which presupposes Solon really learned about a real civilisation. Do you see why that assumption is unfounded?

(21-06-2014 05:40 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  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.

That basis is the Greek cultural memory of cities destroyed by natural disasters. That happened all the time (Santorini is the classic, but the likes of Helike were during Plato's lifetime).

Hell, we can even draw parallels to the Athenian expedition to Syracuse.

(21-06-2014 05:40 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  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.

"There are plenty of reasons to believe this", eh?

And I suppose anyone who doesn't believe is just "closed-minded"? Dare I say "brainwashed"?

That is the rhetoric of the crank. A friendly warning...

(21-06-2014 05:40 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  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.

There are self-professed "scientists" who are fascinated by and conduct research into literally anything and everything which has ever happened or been mentioned.

(21-06-2014 05:40 PM)barcelonic Wrote:  \
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).

There is no point consulting much beyond Timaeus and Critias. Those are the only primary sources.

The theosophists wrote reams and reams about Atlantis; there is no reason why we should ever take them even remotely seriously.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-06-2014, 04:16 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(21-06-2014 08:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no point consulting much beyond Timaeus and Critias. Those are the only primary sources.

Couldn't disagree more.

What I am suggesting is that whether right or wrong, greater minds than us have delved through every line of Platos tale and examined it in detail. They've found things that simply don't fit the explanation of 'pure allegory'; they've found connections between things known about pre-history and these things could simply not have been known by Plato at that time.

Obviously I can't rewrite the book in this thread for your attention. And of course there's a risk that any book recommendation might come off in the way you've taken it, but it is simply untrue that one can come to a firm conclusion on this without venturing any farther than Timaeus and Critias.

If we don't preassume anything about the work then we may actually be talking about a time before written history, when nothing is known about the world or the civilisations who inhabited it (outside of Egypt where everything is so perfectly preserved for archelogy).

I find it hard to believe that outside of the middle east we were stil little more than neolithic cave-dwellers during that period, while Egypt was building monuments to touch the sky.

** Jingo Planet **
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 05:45 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 05:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  What I am suggesting is that whether right or wrong, greater minds than us have delved through every line of Platos tale and examined it in detail. They've found things that simply don't fit the explanation of 'pure allegory'; they've found connections between things known about pre-history and these things could simply not have been known by Plato at that time.

Obviously I can't rewrite the book in this thread for your attention. preserved for archelogy).

I find it hard to believe that outside of the middle east we were stil little more than neolithic cave-dwellers during that period, while Egypt was building monuments to touch the sky.

Dude comes here. Engages in NOTHING else except his ONE little pet craziness. Can't spell, ("archelogy" etc etc etc, + many many other examples), does this "greater minds than us" bullshit, as his ONLY evidence. Sorry. Just the latest in the very LONG line of "Ellis-type" internet drive-by nuts with a pet crazy theory, who thinks because people are atheists, they'll buy into the nutty crap. I say bullshit. He has no evidence. Doesn't know how real History is studied by real historians.

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
22-06-2014, 07:59 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 08:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no point consulting much beyond Timaeus and Critias. Those are the only primary sources.

Couldn't disagree more.

Too bad. Your disagreeing doesn't change facts.

Those are the only primary sources.

(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  What I am suggesting is that whether right or wrong, greater minds than us have delved through every line of Platos tale and examined it in detail. They've found things that simply don't fit the explanation of 'pure allegory'; they've found connections between things known about pre-history and these things could simply not have been known by Plato at that time.

I grant that various cranks think they've found some "mystery".

People like whom, dare I ask? Donnely and Blavatsky? 'Cause they're the exact opposite of compelling...

(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Obviously I can't rewrite the book in this thread for your attention. And of course there's a risk that any book recommendation might come off in the way you've taken it, but it is simply untrue that one can come to a firm conclusion on this without venturing any farther than Timaeus and Critias.

It's demonstrably true.

(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  If we don't preassume anything about the work then we may actually be talking about a time before written history, when nothing is known about the world or the civilisations who inhabited it (outside of Egypt where everything is so perfectly preserved for archelogy).

Mesopotamia predates Egypt. There were contemporary cities in Pakistan, in China, in all sorts of other places. There are vast quantities of artifacts from pre-literate Europe.

(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that outside of the middle east we were stil little more than neolithic cave-dwellers during that period, while Egypt was building monuments to touch the sky.

And what you find hard to believe doesn't determine what's true.

...

You've been very evasive about actually stating what you believe. So: what do you believe? What was Atlantis? Where and when? What evidence is there? What sources have you consulted? And we'll see whether it's just crankery...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-06-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(22-06-2014 05:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 04:16 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  What I am suggesting is that whether right or wrong, greater minds than us have delved through every line of Platos tale and examined it in detail. They've found things that simply don't fit the explanation of 'pure allegory'; they've found connections between things known about pre-history and these things could simply not have been known by Plato at that time.

Obviously I can't rewrite the book in this thread for your attention. preserved for archelogy).

I find it hard to believe that outside of the middle east we were stil little more than neolithic cave-dwellers during that period, while Egypt was building monuments to touch the sky.

Dude comes here. Engages in NOTHING else except his ONE little pet craziness. Can't spell, ("archelogy" etc etc etc, + many many other examples), does this "greater minds than us" bullshit, as his ONLY evidence. Sorry. Just the latest in the very LONG line of "Ellis-type" internet drive-by nuts with a pet crazy theory, who thinks because people are atheists, they'll buy into the nutty crap. I say bullshit. He has no evidence. Doesn't know how real History is studied by real historians.

TTA must look like the Ellisian Fields to these nuts. Dodgy

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
22-06-2014, 10:35 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
Platayto, Platahto

That's my two cents. Tongue

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2014, 06:07 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2014 06:11 AM by barcelonic.)
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(22-06-2014 07:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You've been very evasive about actually stating what you believe. So: what do you believe? What was Atlantis? Where and when? What evidence is there? What sources have you consulted? And we'll see whether it's just crankery...

I resent that - if you are asking what I "believe" about Atlantis it is for the first time.

The only point I've tried to make is that is wasn't made up by Plato

And you know Plato wrote a lot of allegory so it means something to me when he states clearly that his tale has the "advantage of being a fact and not a fiction"

It baffles me how certain some of you seem to be about a time that preceeded written history by centuries. We are not talking about the time of Plato but of a time many centuries before him.

You want to know what I believe; this is what I believe...

There never was a place known as 'Atlantis'.
Centuries before Hellenic beginnings there was a civilisation the Egyptians were aware of and heard well-travelled stories about.
That place was somewhere to the West of them.
They were no superpower nor were they particularly advanced for their time.
They did not launch a massive invasion effort to colonise Europe.
They did not have anything bearing a utopian society.
They did not worship the same gods as the early Greeks.
They were accomplished miners of metal.
They were most likely inhabitants of Iberia or Lusitania.
They existed thousands of years BCE.
Experts of pre-history know of them but by a different name or classification.
They had a settlement with impressive features.
They had no contact with early Hellenic peoples or the Egyptians.
Their early days may have been at around the same time as the mid-late Sumerian era.
They did not live on an island that was swallowed by the sea, due to tidal waves, earthquakes or volcanoes.
They were illiterate, as most societies of that time would have been, perhaps barring the Cuneiform of Sumeria.
They were not the most advanced civilisation of their time, nor were they the least.
They may have been the ancestors of the people of Tartessos.
They never had contact with the Americas.
They were not a great maritime force but were seafarers.

And as for evidence I've repeatedly told you that this is all purely speculative and I am basing it on at least three books I have read which you have not. If you expect me to re-write the books in this thread you're out of your mind. These are reasonable conclusions I have come to based on speculation about a time we understand very poorly due to it being thousands of years before written history began in the West.

And finally BB - I have just joined the forums and one of my first posts just happened to be about Atlantis. I am not a kook who goes from forum to forum sprouting nonsense. I am a skeptic same as you. The difference is that you see no value in having opinions on something without concrete evidence to support it. Science trumps philosophy every time where you're concerned and that's fine but you've made me fit into exactly who you wanted me to be in order to try to justify your behaviour.

Like i said, save it for the real wackos who believe in fairy tales and not those who have arrived at conclusions using reasoning.


EDIT: Oh and lol about the spelling attack - I type a lot and I type quickly. I can spell archeology just fine but another thing I can clearly do (better than you I dare say) is identify a typo when I see one. Are you a grown person who uses typos - or even legitimate spelling errors - as a way of refuting someone's intellectualism? How sad for you BB.

** Jingo Planet **
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  It baffles me how certain some of you seem to be about a time that preceeded written history by centuries. We are not talking about the time of Plato but of a time many centuries before him.

Indeed. Archaeology still applies. You can't just make things up to fill gaps in the historical record. I'll respond to your points as I read them.

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  You want to know what I believe; this is what I believe...

There never was a place known as 'Atlantis'.
Centuries before Hellenic beginnings there was a civilisation the Egyptians were aware of and heard well-travelled stories about.

Centuries before? Before what? Is this dark age? Late bronze age? Earlier?

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  That place was somewhere to the West of them.
They were no superpower nor were they particularly advanced for their time.
They did not launch a massive invasion effort to colonise Europe.
They did not have anything bearing a utopian society.
They did not worship the same gods as the early Greeks.
They were accomplished miners of metal.

In other words, literally nothing like the Atlantis story. One wonders why you're so determined to force connections...

There cannot possibly be some "unknown superpower" at any point in historical times; that's entirely untenable. So we are left with "a far-away people with a different culture" - that could be literally anyone.

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  They were most likely inhabitants of Iberia or Lusitania.

Oh, so you're just talking about the Tartessians. Gotcha.

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  They existed thousands of years BCE.
Experts of pre-history know of them but by a different name or classification.

So now they're explicitly not unknown.

It's a stunningly huge leap of logic to go from "there was once a faraway people" to "THEREFORE ATLANTIS WAS BASED ON THEM".

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  They had a settlement with impressive features.

Like what? How do you know?

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  They had no contact with early Hellenic peoples or the Egyptians.

Before the new Kingdom the Egyptians were pretty insular. That's a reasonable supposition.

Except now we're talking early bronze age. There is no material evidence for urbanised metal-using peoples anywhere in Europe yet at that time. The Iberians were still building megaliths, and they were barely getting started using copper.

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  Their early days may have been at around the same time as the mid-late Sumerian era.

Here's the extent of what was happening in Spain at that time.
(except not even - that's a millennium after the Sumerians)

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  They did not live on an island that was swallowed by the sea, due to tidal waves, earthquakes or volcanoes.
They were illiterate, as most societies of that time would have been, perhaps barring the Cuneiform of Sumeria.
They were not the most advanced civilisation of their time, nor were they the least.
They may have been the ancestors of the people of Tartessos.
They never had contact with the Americas.
They were not a great maritime force but were seafarers.

So maybe the stories about Atlantis were based on cultural transmission from thousands of years ago regarding people who had nothing in common with the actual stories.

That's unfalsifiable, so I guess there's that.

There also seems to be no reason whatsoever to advocate it. I don't see the appeal. You've explicitly said that none of the details matter or are even plausible. So why the hell draw the connection? Shits and giggles?

Because that's already admitting that everything in the dialogues is invented for allegory anyway.

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And as for evidence I've repeatedly told you that this is all purely speculative and I am basing it on at least three books I have read which you have not. If you expect me to re-write the books in this thread you're out of your mind.

Actually mentioning a single argument or detail might help. That wouldn't entail re-writing a whole book.

Also, you could name the books. That would also help.
(you mentioned one of them)

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  These are reasonable conclusions I have come to based on speculation about a time we understand very poorly due to it being thousands of years before written history began in the West.

I don't think "reasonable" quite applies.

"There was once a faraway people, THEREFORE ATLANTIS" is not reasonable.

(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  And finally BB - I have just joined the forums and one of my first posts just happened to be about Atlantis. I am not a kook who goes from forum to forum sprouting nonsense. I am a skeptic same as you. The difference is that you see no value in having opinions on something without concrete evidence to support it. Science trumps philosophy every time where you're concerned and that's fine but you've made me fit into exactly who you wanted me to be in order to try to justify your behaviour.

Like i said, save it for the real wackos who believe in fairy tales and not those who have arrived at conclusions using reasoning.

If you believe something without evidence that's the exact opposite of skeptical.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: