Looking for Atlantis the Lost Continent ...

[debajo agua]

Try to follow this. Critias did not write it down. Plato did. That means no one wrote the story before Plato did. That means Plato wrote it first.

Let's say that I write that in 1863 Abraham Lincoln told my great great grandfather that there would in the future be a company named Starbucks selling coffee all across the country. Does that prove that Lincoln had great powers of prediction and was a personal friend of my great great grandfather, or does it prove that I am able to make up a story about Lincoln 150 years later?

You're obviously convinced that the story of Atlantis is made up because that's the implication here. If you wish to dismiss the writing as some "metaphor" and Plato's way of beating-around-the-bush, all the while secretly trying to illustrate some hidden moral, so he made up the Atlantis story... well... that's to me is a very simplistic view that doesn't have to stand up to much scrutiny. It seems uncharacteristic of Plato's other writings. To me, sorry, it just doesn't hold much weight. Would you like to explain to me and everyone else, what was the moral of Plato's story is? Maybe I'm over-looking something here.

How do you know he did? Although he was a prolific author in his day, nothing that he wrote along those lines exists today. The information to which you refer comes to us from a man named Procus, who told the story of Crantor visiting Egypt roughly 700 years later. In fact, the passage about seeing the hieroglyphics to which you refer is ambiguous and may not be referring to Crantor at all.

You asked for something, I provided you with something.

...and they repeated other stories from Greek mythology as if they were historically accurate as well. Again, this is all hundreds of years after Plato.

Additionally, although some did believe what Plato wrote, most did not. In his book Greek Mythography in the Roman World, historian Alan Cameron says, "It is only in modern times that people have taken the Atlantis story seriously; no one did so in antiquity."

What is Mr. Cameron basis for making such a broad all-encompassing statement?

 

[boulderjohn]

You're obviously convinced that the story of Atlantis is made up because that's the implication here. If you wish to dismiss the writing as some "metaphor" and Plato's way of beating-around-the-bush, all the while secretly trying to illustrate some hidden moral, so he made up the Atlantis story... well... that's to me is a very simplistic view that doesn't have to stand up to much scrutiny. It seems uncharacteristic of Plato's other writings. To me, sorry, it just doesn't hold much weight. Would you like to explain to me and everyone else, what was the moral of Plato's story is? Maybe I'm over-looking something here.

As I said before, it is totally characteristic of Plato's writing, and it was a common rhetorical strategy at the time. As I pointed out earlier, Sir Thomas More, whose ethics were such that the Catholic Church later decided he was a saint, did exactly the same thing when he wrote Utopia. Everyone understood that it was a fiction when he wrote it, even though he never says anywhere in it that it is a fiction. We have many, many books written throughout history and today in which people create fictions in order to make a point.

You asked for something, I provided you with something.

I asked you for evidence of something written before Plato. You gave me something that was supposedly written two generations after Plato but for which we have no real evidence for another 700 years.

What is Mr. Cameron basis for making such a broad all-encompassing statement?

He's a noted historian. It's his job to investigate these things and form those judgments. I gave you the link to the book. Go ahead and read it.

---------- Post added ----------

I did a quick glance at the Wikipedia article on Socrates so that you could get some more information on why what I said is so very characteristic of Plato. As you may know, Socrates was a philosopher in Athens, but he himself wrote nothing, and almost everything we know about him comes from his students, with the vast majority of that coming from Plato. Here is what the article says about that:

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy.[5] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate which Socrates Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization.​

In other words, if there is anything that is characteristic of Plato, it is fictionalizing history in order to depict and idealized person or society.

 

[debajo agua]

As I said before, it is totally characteristic of Plato's writing,

Which writing? Can you provide some sort of example?

As I pointed out earlier, Sir Thomas More,whose ethics were such that the Catholic Church later decided he was a saint, did exactly the same thing when he wrote Utopia. Everyone understood that it was a fiction when he wrote it, even though he never says anywhere in it that it is a fiction. We have many, many books written throughout history and today in which people create fictions in order to make a point.

I thought the book in question was Plato's and his account of Atlantis. More wrote a fictional account and everyone knew it was fiction... okay... did I miss something here? What does that have to do with Plato and Atlantis?

I'm still waiting on someone to tell me what the moral to "Plato's Atlantis story" is? Every story has a moral to it, what is the moral?

I asked you for evidence of something written before Plato. You gave me something that was supposedly written two generations after Plato but for which we have no real evidence for another 700 years.

Before Plato? You got me, there's none, but I thought that's why we were debating Plato's writing in the first place. Once again, I don't get your point. Every story is initially uncovered by someone, in this case, Plato is the only thing we have to go on. That doesn't mean other writings did not exist. Would you agree that most writings from the ancient world are lost or were destroyed? Plato's works are some of the oldest known in Western history. It's quite remarkable that his works survive the past 2300 years and can be read today. Here's a question: How many complete books, written in Western Civilization, precede Plato's?





---------- Post added ----------

I did a quick glance at the Wikipedia article on Socrates so that you could get some more information on why what I said is so very characteristic of Plato. As you may know, Socrates was a philosopher in Athens, but he himself wrote nothing, and almost everything we know about him comes from his students, with the vast majority of that coming from Plato. Here is what the article says about that:

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy.[5] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate which Socrates Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization.
​

In other words, if there is anything that is characteristic of Plato, it is fictionalizing history in order to depict and idealized person or society.

The quote says, "many scholars believe" Keywords: many and believe, then by using logic we must assume, some don't believe. As for me, I prefer to do my own interpretations of what I read.

---------- Post added ----------

He's a noted historian. It's his job to investigate these things and form those judgments. I gave you the link to the book. Go ahead and read it.

Have you read the book? if so, what convincing arguments did he make to sway you to agree with him, or is simply acceptance based on the fact that he said so? I want to know what you think?

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm giving up.

Believe what you want to believe. Atlantis, the tooth Fairy--anything you want. It is taking up too much of my time.

 

[debajo agua]

If all the world sat around nodding their heads in agreement, what a boring world it would be. As far as Atlantis, I myself, am not convinced one way or the other, but to me, since our main source of information comes from one of the oldest books in antiquity, it's worth taking a look at. To say the story is just a metaphor without providing a descent reason, well, that's just intellectually lazy. If the story was made up to illustrate some sort of moral, what is the moral to the story? The camp who claims it's a metaphor, never seems to have an answer to the question.

 

[boulderjohn]

If the story was made up to illustrate some sort of moral, what is the moral to the story? The camp who claims it's a metaphor, never seems to have an answer to the question.

One of the reasons I gave up is that I answered this question with great clarity earlier. The fact that you don't seem to realize it is indicative of the degree to which you are reading this with an effort toward understanding.

Plato wanted to create an ideal state with an ideal government. He wanted people to learn what that should be so that they would support the idea. By contrasting the government of Atlantis with the government of Athens, the reader was able to see the benefits of such an ideal government. As I pointed out earlier, he made an attempt to create the ideal government in Syracuse with Dionysius II, an attempt that backfired completely.

He did the same thing with what all scholars agree was his highly fictionalized and ideal depiction of Socrates. He was trying to show an ideal. He wanted his audience to learn from that and strive to be like that ideal.

This is my last attempt.

 

[debajo agua]

That's a great generalization, but under closer examination, it lacks any real substance. For example, if Plato's true intent was to compare the governments of Athens and Atlantis, how did they differ? In the lengthy descriptive narrative of Atlantis, as best as I can remember it, not much is mentioned about the Atlantian form of government or politics... If the true intent of the Atlantis story was to compare and contrast governments, shouldn't have Plato included more information about the Atlantian form of government? How does one compare, that of which, one does not know?

What we do read in the Atlantis narrative is an attempt to fix a geographical location e.g. beyond the Pilars of Hercules, an island surrounded by five successive rings, and so on and so forth. I'm quite positive that if anyone reads the Atlantis narrative for their self, they will see the point is valid.

An attempt at influencing a government in Syracuse with Dionysius II is hardly a smoking gun. If you would like to illustrate how it ties directly to the story of Atlantis being used as a metaphor, in a book that has nothing to do with Syracuse, I would be happy to listen, and consider any position you may present.

---------- Post added ----------

I touched on this earlier, and after doing some research, I came back with the following:

Critias claims to have heard the story from his great-grandfather Dropides, who in turn, heard the story from Solon himself. So let's do the math. Critias was born in 460 BC... Solon died approximately 100 years before Critias birth year in 558 BC. Counting backwards of three generations, it's easily conceivable that Dropides (Critias Great-Grandfather) would have live in the time of Solon, and therefore it's entirely conceivable, that Solon told his story to Dropides, who in turn told it to a young Critias, who in turn told it to Socrates, Plato and Timaeus.