I've seen enough about how the melting at the end of the last ice age could have inundated the continent (or island - whatever the latest
pseudohistorian is saying) of Atlantis.
When an ice age "ends," it's not like someone turned on the heat. It would take hundreds, maybe thousands of years for icemelt to cover a
continent with water. Unless the Atlanteans were stupid or legless, they certainly would have escaped that fate.
Maybe Atlantis wasn't real. What? Someone need to say it. There are many islands in Mediterranean that flood and some the have been covered in water.
The story was fiction, so why not try and find that all elusive Jurassic Park while you are at it?
When did Plato ever suggest that his story was anything other than fiction?
I'm with you, Frosty. I don't believe Atlantis ever existed. There is just no reason at all to believe it. None.
But, in fact, Plato
did assert all through the Critias that the story was true. As Byrd said, Plato often asserted the truth of stories he
told. Stories we
know to be fiction. So Plato's assertions are not a reason to believe in Atlantis.
The following is quoted from the first post in this thread:
Around 600 B.C., a famous Greek political leader by the name Solon traveled to Egypt and met with high priests of Isis and Osiris. Solon was
one of the “seven wise men” of ancient Greece and is still remembered as one of the founding fathers of democracy; his statue is displayed in the
Capitol Hill building in Washington D.C. The Egyptian priests told Solon that there was once an advanced civilization peopled by a superior race that
lived on an island named Atlantis about 12,000 years ago. He was shown the ancient records of the Egyptians and was told that the story is based on
fact, faithfully passed on for thousands of years. Solon was so fascinated by the tale that he translated it to his native tongue and brought it back
to Greece. This precious document was kept by his illustrious family for over two hundred years and was later presented to Plato, who wrote about it
around 400 B.C.
These statements could be left out of the first post and nothing would be lost. There was no "precious document" that was brought home by Solon.
The Egyptians never asserted that the Atlanteans were "superior," unless you consider that the Egyptians also thought of the Athenians as
"superior" as well. The entire point of what the Egyptians were saying to Solon, as told in the Critias, is that Solon was unaware of the vaunted
history of his own city-state (Athens.)
Also, if "Solon was so fascinated by the tale that he translated it to his native tongue and brought it back to Greece," then why didn't he write
about it? Why didn't anyone else write about it? Why didn't any Greek ever know of the tale in the times between Solon and Plato? Why didn't
Plato talk about this "precious document" from Solon?
While I understand that the original post here was meant to generate discussion, the content in that post is mainly just embarassing fluff. So to the
poster that wants to criticize Frosty (and me too, I guess) because the title of this thread is "Reviewing Plato's Descriptions," not "Let's All
Believe in Atlantis," perhaps you should read Plato's Dialogues. If you did, you would see that, despite the title of this thread, the opening post
rewrites Plato's descriptions, it does not "review" them.
Harte
edit - typos
[edit on 12/16/2005 by Harte]