Homer vs Plato

I thought to myself the other day: 'What is it that seperates the stories told by Homer of Odysseus and the stories told by Plato of Atlantis?' I mean to say is why are so many people suceptible to believe in some fraction of Plato's story as truth but completly write off, at the same time, any chance of truth to Homer's story of Ulysees?

I don't understand how people can claim Atlantis to be anything other than a fictional creation and begin to deny the existence of Homer's story. What is it that makes Plato so much more believable? Unless that is, there are people who believe what Homer spoke of was truth.

It could be due to the fact that there are THREE distinct times in the tale where Plato affirms that it is a FACT and not fiction....

Or the fact that there is a city location, and continent, that correspond exactly to Plato's words...(i.e. Altiplano in Bolivia, and South America)

We already know that Homer's tale of Troy isn't exactly ALL fiction, as Troy has been found. It's hardly unimaginable that a general named Ulysses also existed, though no doubt the tales of his voyage home are embellished to quite a degree....(an alluring temptress becomes a Siren or sorceress, etc. etc.) in Homer's tale.

At least in the Dialogue of Critius, Plato makes it QUITE CLEAR that he is changing some details of a FACTUAL place, to fit the audience. He CLEARLY states he is using Hellenic names of gods, etc. instead of those used by the natives. There are so many instances of such care taken, and repeated mentioning of it's historic significance, that yes, it is perfectly logical that this is regarded as an account of a historical occurance, and not a fable.

Here, don't take my word for it, read it for yourself! Take heed though, first the Athenians of the time are described, and THEN you'll see him transition into describing the Atlanteans....

www.geocities.com...

Don't you think its been the other way around? The greeks and historians long thought the Trojan War and such occured. For a short while it was rejected in modern times, but then schliemann made his exciting discoveries.


Well, there probably was some truth backing it up, an historical core upon which this big oral legend was wrapped around.


I agree that a person need not be illogical or irrational to beleive platos tale, outside of a continent submerging, and outside of the scope and involvement of atlantean control of europe. Much like the Iliad and Odyssey, there might very well be an historical core to it.

I am inclined, for what its worth, to think that plato knew about the story from other greek sources (not exactly an origianl tale anyways) and beleived it, or recognized that it was generally beleived. Atop of that, he created the fictional story of solon getting it from the egyptians and telling the story etc etc, and had his characters state that it was true, because he was experimenting with a form of writting or some such, trying to give the moral/lesson more impact by it being real and immedaite rather than hypothetical as with 'The Republic'. However, its not irrational to say that Plato meant what he was having his characters say.

Gazrok

If Atlantis was in the Altiplano in Bolivia, how could they have cannals going from the sea to the city if the city was at a height of some 10,000 feet ?

That would be more impressive than conquer all Europe and North Africa and be defeated by the Atheneans.

I always though that Plato was a philosopher and Homer was just an epic writer.

Got is been such a long time I forgot about them, but anyway I think one was more credible than the other one.

One of Homer's deals has already born true though....(i.e. Troy), well, at least that it's based on a real place....but otherwise, you are correct.



Here's a site that might clear that up....

www.geocities.com...



And here for the comparisons of the text...

www.geocities.com...

Gazrok

I do not understand it.

Does that site mean that Atlantis, the city, was an island in a sea in the Altiplano, and what sank in the sea was that island?

I am sorry, but sometimes my poor understanding of the English language stops me from understand what the other people mean.

I think many people are starting to believe that Atlantis was infact large parts of South America. That the Bolivian Altiplano was the central city in the crown of Atlantis which was spread all over South America.

Many of Platos descriptions of Atlantis match S America. Also when we find Cocaine in Mummies in Egypt it proves there was some cross atlantic trade going on.

Damn,I thought it was "Homer Simpsons vs Plato"!haha!my bad!

Actually, while nobody believes that Odysseus existed, there are OTHER things that pointed to Troy being a real city:

There were a number of plays about the fall of Troy, which would have been written within 500 years or so of its downfall.

There were sculptures and other pieces of art relating to the heroes of Troy and to the story as well that still existed in Greece.

(by the way, none of this evidence exists for Atlantis, which is why it's dismissed as a teaching fable.)

The significant portion of the Trojan Legend.

"Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.61–62) states that Dardanus' original home was in Arcadia where Dardanus and his elder brother Iasus (elsewhere more commonly called Iasion) reigned as kings following Atlas. Dardanus married Chryse daughter of Pallas by whom he fathered two sons: Idaeus and Deimas. When a great flood occurred, the survivors, who were living on mountains that had now become islands, split into two groups: one group remained and took Deimas as king while the other sailed away, eventually settling in the island of Samothrace. There Iasus (Iasion) was slain by Zeus for lying with Demeter. Dardanus and his people found the land poor and so most of them set sail for Asia.
However another account by Virgil in his Aeneid (3.163f), has Aeneas in a dream learn from his ancestral Penates that "Dardanus and Father Iasius" and the Penates themselves originally came from Hesperia which was afterward renamed as Italy.
Other accounts make no mention of Arcadia or Hesperia, though they sometimes mention a flood and speak of Dardanus sailing on a hide-raft (as part of the flood story?) from Samothrace to the Troad near Abydos."

en.wikipedia.org...


Plato relates the tale of Atlantis given to him by Solon who in turn obtained the legend by Egptian priests. Here's yet another legend by the Trojans who say their founder Dardanus came from a land which sank into the ocean and the mountain tops became the islands. Montezuma told Cortez that the Aztecs knew of a prophecy that Queztecoalt would return because he and his peope taught the Meso-Americans how to build these great temples. It so happened that Queztecoalt and his people were white just like the Europeans. Did someone who was similar to Dardanus begin the Ancient American Empire's advancement? The Islands of the Caribbean have been associated with the legend of the Hesperades.

How can South America be Atlantis? I thought the Atlanteans were supposedly well advanced, and when Europeaners conquered S.A., there were nothing but primitive stone aged tribes. Hardly the Atlantis invisioned by Plato.

Cocaine in mummies hardly proves anything about a trans atlantic trade route. the egyptians more than likley would have kept tabs on such events.

Another interesting point made by many of you is the fact that there have been exavations of Troy but non yet of Atlantis. Why is this?