27-06-2014, 04:14 AM
RE: Anyone here interested in Plato's Atlantis?
(26-06-2014 07:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:
(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...
Finally you are getting me, i think. Yes this is ALL that I have claimed. Atlantis was based on a legend of oral tradition and I do not believe the legend originated from nothing - few legends do, if any.
(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.
Yes the 'Atlanteans' are unknown because we don't know who they were. There are neolithic socieities that we know a little about and I am suggesting that one of these is where the legend originated. I find it very hard to believe the name 'Atlantis' was not applied to them by the Greeks themselves.
It's a stunningly huge leap of logic to go from "there was once a faraway people" to "THEREFORE ATLANTIS WAS BASED ON THEM".
There is no leap because there are steps in between made of things I have reaad in my research and you have not. I am saying my beliefs are based on my own conclusions of having read literature on the topic. If what you say here is true, for example, why would I say that I believe they were based West of Egypt? (Just one example of how much more thought has gone into it and as much as you'd like this to be a single 'leap' of logic it is in fact based on far more information than I could ever rewrite here for your edification).
(26-06-2014 06:07 AM)barcelonic Wrote: They had a settlement with impressive features.
Like what? How do you know?
Lol - read my post again - I said this is what I "believe" - in other words these are the conclusions I have arrived at using reasoning. It goes with saying I do not want others to believe what I believe because they'd be taking it on faith and I myself do not even know these things to be true. But you ASKED for my opinions and I gave them to you!!
(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.
There is a town in the Rio Tinto valley, near Huelva called 'Tharsis' which is over 5000 years old. This region was rich in copper and pyrite. It is one of many things that leads me to believe Iberia may be the site of the civilisation from whence the legend originated. I'm not claiming what I say is gospel but mere opinion.
(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.
(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.
Exactly - do you think Robin Hood really robbed from the rich to give to the poor? Did he wear green tights and was he the best archer in the land? Legends originate and then they are fictionalised over time into a story almost unrecognisable from the truth. Point to me where I've claimed anything beyond this about the Atlantis legend!
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?
FGS Cjlr please do yourself a favour and read a book on the subject beyond the tiny Critias. Learn the mysteries connected to this fable and you will see why there is very much a reason to advocate the idea this story had origins in pre-history.
Because that's already admitting that everything in the dialogues is invented for allegory anyway.
No, lol. It is not.
Invention is one thing and dramatisation and uncertainty are other things entirely. I doubt even they intentionally embellished stories back then as much as Hollywood does today when basing movies around true stories. But still it of course does occur. Oral traditions are far more romantic too than any written historical fact. Do i wish the details were of more importance to the ancient carriers of this tale - yes. Can we only believe the entire sotry was INVENTED? Absolutely not!
(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.
You don't know the info I applied reasoning to, so frankly that statement has no merit whatsoever.
(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.
You're right I am not a skeptic as far as this legend having an origin is concerned. I have opinions on the matter which are not founded on evidence. Perhaps one day there will be more solid evidence to support these beliefs and perhaps not.
But in the general sense of the word I am a skeptic; I do not believe in ghosts, gods, weird Bermuda Triangle theories, ancient aliens or that UFOs are alien spacecraft. In fact, there is pretty much nothing I believe which falls squarely into the realm of the paranormal.
But here is where I have read a lot of compelling information about a topic and formed opinions based on what we do and don't know about ancient pre-history. I've not claimed to know these things I've stated - only that I believe them. The details of these beliefs have changed a great many times throughout my research.
I'm simply asking BB to show a little more love and a little less hate to a guy who likely shares 99% of the same opinions in general. We may be skeptics and atheists but it does not mean we are not free to speculate about the historically ambigiuous.
I've replied in bold
for my convenience. Please expand the quote to read.
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)