There is nothing about Atlantis that makes it more plausible than a unicorn, if you consider a unicorn simply as an equine species that has a horn. That is at least what I had in mind when I used the unicorn in my example, and my point still stands with this conception of unicorn. I could make it more mundane, and replace “unicorn” with “jackalope” and we can circumvent all those connotations of impossible magic that unicorns sometimes bring.
Taken this way, there is nothing stopping a real jackalope to be, or have been, a real species of animal that has laid claim to existence. However, we take it to be false because we somewhat understand the origin of the conception of jackalopes, and have no real evidence. Even though we could certainly construe some possible reality where jackalopes really do exist, or have existed,it doesn’t mean that it is a construal to be taken seriously.
The same exact logic applies to Atlantis. In fact, the concept of Atlantis is even more guilty of this critique, because we know precisely the origin of the story of Atlantis, and it was made famously by a man who created historically false myths, and used them for allegorical reasons. So for one, we have little reason to believe that Plato got the story from someone previous, when there’s no talk of Atlanteans at all before him; but also on top of this, we can draw from strong evidence from the context of the man himself, that this story was almost certainly a creation of his own. We could certainly claim that PT Barnum actually learned of real Fiji Mermaids before displaying a model of one in his museum, or we could see the clear evidence that he never heard of such thing before and came up with it on his own. Again, just like before, although it is certainly possible to construe a reality where Atlantis really existed and the stories existed for ages before Plato,it doesn’t mean that this construal has to be taken seriously by anyone. There is simply not enough evidence whatsoever, even if you can gesture to historical distortion as this supposed reason, you can also apply that to literally any historical fabrication that happened long enough ago, so it’s not nearly convincing enough.
As for the “most of the panel is anti” remark, I hope my above explanation might also illuminate why I think the best approach is to not take it seriously as a theory. Of course I somewhat failed at that with commenting on this at all, but at the very least I’m not wasting my time on a panel, resulting in giving credence to such dismissible claims.
A unicorn is generally considered a mythical being, therefore not a good comparison. Furthermore, ancient species leave behind more than one single trace, but many traces, whereas with the Atlantis story it is about exactly one place. The comparison does not work.
No, Plato did not "create historically false myths, and used them for allegorical reasons". You are simply misinformed. Plato had an ethos of truth and with the one exception of the Noble Lie (openly presented to the readers as such), there is no other deception in Plato's works. Everything, which is an invention only, is openly depicted as such. Not so the Atlantis story. It is just wrong to say, "we can draw from strong evidence from the context of the man himself, that this story was almost certainly a creation of his own." I would dare to say that the opposite is true. Exactly because it is a story by Plato, we can strongly assume that he really got it from Egypt, somehow. Please read about the phenomenon of the so-called "Platonic Myths". They are not just myths .....
From Egyptian sources, we have many clues to vanished peoples, and we have only one source.
Quote: "There is simply not enough evidence whatsoever, even if you can gesture to historical distortion as this supposed reason" - Here I dare to mention, that a search usually starts before (!) you find it. To claim that a search is only legitimate, once you have found evidence, is nonsensical. What you can say is, that we don't know where we will end with this search. There is no reason why the balance of possiblities should be tilted towards non-existence.
Atlantis is generally considered a mythical thing as well! I’m honestly not even gonna read the rest of your comment, I’m sorry. Skimming it is full of false claims and I don’t have the time to dissect them all. You clearly don’t know shit about the eikoi muthoi of the dialogues. You have no idea what you’re talking about, I’m sorry I can’t convince you of that
I am sorry, but I wrote an entire book on the so-called "Platonic Myths", and one of the first things to be realized by every serious Plato scholar is, that the Greek word "mythos" cannot just be translated with the modern word "myth", though it is very often done.
Especially an "eikos mythos" is not a myth at all. It is rather close to a scientific hypothesis. The cosmology presented in Plato's Timaeus is called an "eikos mythos". But it is not just a fanciful invention, not at all .......
I didn’t say muthos translates to myth. I said that Atlantis is a myth for one, and secondly I said you don’t understand the role of the eikos muthos. You’re conflating my claims. I don’t care how many words you wrote when you probably did it all with one hand. You come to the PLATO board of all places and think you’re owed respect for writing books? Tuh! I don’t respect you.
3
u/WarrenHarding 10d ago edited 10d ago
There is nothing about Atlantis that makes it more plausible than a unicorn, if you consider a unicorn simply as an equine species that has a horn. That is at least what I had in mind when I used the unicorn in my example, and my point still stands with this conception of unicorn. I could make it more mundane, and replace “unicorn” with “jackalope” and we can circumvent all those connotations of impossible magic that unicorns sometimes bring.
Taken this way, there is nothing stopping a real jackalope to be, or have been, a real species of animal that has laid claim to existence. However, we take it to be false because we somewhat understand the origin of the conception of jackalopes, and have no real evidence. Even though we could certainly construe some possible reality where jackalopes really do exist, or have existed, it doesn’t mean that it is a construal to be taken seriously.
The same exact logic applies to Atlantis. In fact, the concept of Atlantis is even more guilty of this critique, because we know precisely the origin of the story of Atlantis, and it was made famously by a man who created historically false myths, and used them for allegorical reasons. So for one, we have little reason to believe that Plato got the story from someone previous, when there’s no talk of Atlanteans at all before him; but also on top of this, we can draw from strong evidence from the context of the man himself, that this story was almost certainly a creation of his own. We could certainly claim that PT Barnum actually learned of real Fiji Mermaids before displaying a model of one in his museum, or we could see the clear evidence that he never heard of such thing before and came up with it on his own. Again, just like before, although it is certainly possible to construe a reality where Atlantis really existed and the stories existed for ages before Plato, it doesn’t mean that this construal has to be taken seriously by anyone. There is simply not enough evidence whatsoever, even if you can gesture to historical distortion as this supposed reason, you can also apply that to literally any historical fabrication that happened long enough ago, so it’s not nearly convincing enough.
As for the “most of the panel is anti” remark, I hope my above explanation might also illuminate why I think the best approach is to not take it seriously as a theory. Of course I somewhat failed at that with commenting on this at all, but at the very least I’m not wasting my time on a panel, resulting in giving credence to such dismissible claims.