News: Aristotle not against existence of Atlantis

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
It's amazing and seems really to be true: Aristotle did *not* speak out against the existence of Atlantis, quite to the contrary!

Get the message from Atlantipedia.ie Dec 11, 2012:
atlantipedia.ie...

"... clearly demonstrating that there is implicit evidence that Aristotle was “rather inclined towards the existence of Atlantis”. However, he goes further and forensically demolishes the idea that the passages in Strabo’s Geographica (2.3.6) were quotations from Aristotle ..."

You rarely get *real* news on the field of Atlantis research (except new location hypotheses). This means that all the geographical information in Aristotle's books have to be reconsidered under a totally new perspective!!! It makes me crazy: He talks of earth quakes! Earth quakes and their effect on islands!!! And so much more.

classics.mit.edu...




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
There's nothing new here except a bad interpretation.

To quote from your website:

When I began my own research the prevailing understanding was that Aristotle had rejected the story of Atlantis as an invention. Franke’s study has turned this idea completely on its head, clearly demonstrating that there is implicit evidence that Aristotle was “rather inclined towards the existence of Atlantis”. However, he goes further and forensically demolishes the idea that the two passages in Strabo’s Geographica (2.3.6.& 13.1.36) were quotations from Aristotle and even if they had been, they were references to Homer not Plato.


So, being a scholar, I looked up Strabo's geography on a site that had the original text along with an English translation. This is the one I used:

Atlantis is NOT mentioned in Geographica 13.1.36

However, the Naval Station, still now so called, is so near the present Ilium that one might reasonably wonder at the witlessness of the Greeks and the faint-heartedness of the Trojans; witlessness, if the Greeks kept the Naval Station unwalled for so long a time, when they were near to the city and to so great a multitude, both that in the city and that of the allies; for Homer says that the wall had only recently been built (or else it was not built at all, but fabricated and then abolished by the poet, as Aristotle says); and faint-heartedness, if the Trojans, when the wall was built, could besiege it and break into the Naval Station itself and attack the ships, yet did not have the courage to march up and besiege the station when it was still unwalled and only a slight distance away; for it is near Sigeium, and the Scamander empties near it, at a distance of only twenty stadia from Ilium. But if one shall say that the Harbour of Achaeans, as it is now called, is the Naval Station, he will be speaking of a place that is still closer, only about twelve stadia from the city, even if one includes the plain by the sea, because the whole of this plain is a deposit of the rivers — I mean the plain by the sea in front of the city; so that, if the distance between the sea and the city is now twelve stadia, it must have been no more than half as great at that time. Further, the feigned story told by Odysseus to Eumaeus clearly indicates that the distance from the Naval Station to the city is great, for after saying, "as when we led our ambush beneath the walls of Troy," he adds a little below, "for we went very far from the ships." And spies are sent forth to find whether the Trojans will stay by the ships "far away," far separated from their own walls, "or will withdraw again to the city." And Polydamas says, "on both sides, friends, bethink ye well, for I, on my own part, bid you now to go to the city; afar from the walls are we." Demetrius cites also Hestiaea of Alexandreia as a witness, a woman who wrote a work on Homer's Iliad and inquired whether the war took place round the present Ilium and the Trojan Plain, which latter the poet places between the city and the sea; for, she said, the plain now to be seen in front of the present Ilium is a later deposit of the rivers.


He does mention Atlantis in 2.3.6 but it appears that Francke is attempting to tie the mention there with the section that does NOT mention Atlantis solely on the discussion of the city of Troy. If you read the whole chapter, it's clear that he's talking about Troy in Chapter 13 and that Atlantis never comes into it.

If you read all of Chapter 2, Aristotle is talking about how to tell real geography from fanciful tales. Aristotle says that the subsidence of land is known and uses the idea that Atlantis sank to support the case for "land sinks under the ocean sometimes." Aristotle says directly "Poseidonius thinks that it is better to put the matter in that way (i.e., "Solon said that Atlantis sank under the waves") than to say of Atlantis: "Its inventor caused it to disappear, just as did the Poet the wall of the Achaeans."

In other words, Aristotle's opinion is that his source (Poseidonius) has made a lot of mistakes in his books, and that rather than trying to explain "why we can't see Atlantis", Poseidonous did a nice job of explaining away the fiction -- just as Homer had a wall get swept away by the sea (a nonexistant wall that was keeping out Greek ships -- made for a great story but it was pure fiction.)

So no, he never says Atlantis is real.

And this is the problem about people using "a sentence here, a sentence there" as evidence.

You have to read the WHOLE chapter.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
There's nothing new here except a bad interpretation.
...... ..... ..... So no, he never says Atlantis is real.
And this is the problem about people using "a sentence here, a sentence there" as evidence.
You have to read the WHOLE chapter.

Unfortunately, you confuse a lot of things, what about YOU reading "the whole chapter"?!

It is *not* Aristotle quoting Posidonius, it is the other way round: Posidonius quotes Aristotle, and then, Posidonius is quoted by Strabo. O my god, you confuse the most simple things! Strabo quoting Posidonius clearly says, it is "better" to put the matter in that way ... (meant is: Atlantis as a reality).

What is really new here is the clear proof that the sentence in Strabo's chapter 2 that Atlantis was an invention is no quote from Aristotle but only uses a quote from Aristotle which does not say anything on Atlantis. Because: Exactly this is the claim of many scientists against the existence of Atlantis. Not the claim of Franke who rejects this claim here. Again you confuse things heavily. We all know this claim. This claim is wrong and many other scientists knew this well as we can see in many footnotes gathered in this nice work.

That Aristotle was in favour of the existence of Atlantis is derived by *other* considerations, not directly from Strabo's chapter 2.

You really should read the whole chapter before commenting ... it is really something new, here.
edit on 16-12-2012 by cicerone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Even if Aristotle DID think Atlantis was a real place, this isn't 'news'. Aristotle was still thousands of years removed from the events. Its an argument from authority to link the two together as evidence Atlantis was real.

And I say that as someone very open to the possibility of Atlantis.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Even if Aristotle DID think Atlantis was a real place, this isn't 'news'. Aristotle was still thousands of years removed from the events. Its an argument from authority to link the two together as evidence Atlantis was real.
And I say that as someone very open to the possibility of Atlantis.

Errrrr ... didn't we receive our knowledge on Atlantis from Plato? ... and how close was Aristotle to Plato? I think it really does matter if we can know what Aristotle thought on the case. And it really does matter if you can destabilize one of the dogmas of Atlantis skeptics.

And by the way: The time frame given by Plato cannot be taken literally, I hope you are aware of this fact? Otherwise is is pseudo-science. Plato's time frame has to be interpreted within his philosophy respectively within the Egyptian chronology, because the Atlantis story allegedly comes from Egypt. So please forget your many thousands of years - thank you.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cicerone
 


You must be joking, right?
You want a literal interpretation of Plato in regards to Atlantis being a real place, but not the timeframe he gives for its existence?
So basically you get to pick and choose what you want to believe and anything ELSE is pseudo science?

Haha



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cicerone
 


Double post
edit on 16-12-2012 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by cicerone
 

You must be joking, right?
You want a literal interpretation of Plato in regards to Atlantis being a real place, but not the timeframe he gives for its existence?
So basically you get to pick and choose what you want to believe and anything ELSE is pseudo science?
Haha

Well, scientifically uneducated persons know only two ways of interpretation: Either you take something literally, or you pick and choose what you want, which clearly would be ridiculous.

But educated persons know that ancient texts have to be interpreted within their context (well, not only ancient texts, to be precise). Behind a literal meaning there is a real meaning which sometimes can be derived.

Ah well, I think this is well-known from the interpretation of the bible? Neither is all true nor is all wrong in the bible, but you have to ask for the time, for the historical context, for excavations, etc., and then you will find out step by step what was really going on. Is this new for you?

Look here: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by cicerone
 


You must be joking, right?
You want a literal interpretation of Plato in regards to Atlantis being a real place, but not the timeframe he gives for its existence?
So basically you get to pick and choose what you want to believe and anything ELSE is pseudo science?

Haha

Atlantis was a real place, in a metaphoric way, it was the minoans and the city was akrotiri on thera, which in fact did sink under the waves.
The minoans empire was the largest of its time, stretching from anatolia all the way to iberia and the Atlantic north african coast.
After the theran eruptions devastated minoan shipping, the flow of tin stopped and the early bronze age civilization of the med collapsed. Without contact from the eastern med the western colonies collapsed as well. The med went into a " dark age " for several centuries and the minoans became the stuff of Egyptian legends that remembered their former trade partners.
When the mycenean Greeks got to thera just 50 years after the eruption they had no idea people were there before them.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Atlantis was a real place, in a metaphoric way, it was the minoans and the city was akrotiri on thera, which in fact did sink under the waves.
The minoans empire was the largest of its time, stretching from anatolia all the way to iberia and the Atlantic north african coast.
After the theran eruptions devastated minoan shipping, the flow of tin stopped and the early bronze age civilization of the med collapsed. Without contact from the eastern med the western colonies collapsed as well. The med went into a " dark age " for several centuries and the minoans became the stuff of Egyptian legends that remembered their former trade partners.
When the mycenean Greeks got to thera just 50 years after the eruption they had no idea people were there before them.

The Thera hypothesis is a good example of an attempt to find Atlantis as a real place considering the historical circumstances (although I am not convinced, but ok, this is not the point).

The point is: That Plato really had information of an ancient civilization was *not* denied by Aristotle, as many scholars tried to tell us, and so the Thera hypothesis, too, gains more credibility.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cicerone
The point is: That Plato really had information of an ancient civilization was *not* denied by Aristotle, as many scholars tried to tell us, and so the Thera hypothesis, too, gains more credibility.


Care to list the other things " 'not' denied by Aristotle?"

I mean, there has to be a few other things, right?

For example, Aristotle did "not" deny the existence of the boogyman. Hence, the boogyman must be a real thing?

Harte



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Care to list the other things " 'not' denied by Aristotle?"
For example, Aristotle did "not" deny the existence of the boogyman. Hence, the boogyman must be a real thing?

Quite right, but since academia again and again claimed that he denied it, it is news.
Furthermore, after the removal of this mistake, the old view on Aristotle's opinion comes back:
That his and his followers' work shows clear indication and evidence that Aristotle was rather inclined to accept the reality of Atlantis. After approx. 100 years of error it is time to regain proper views.

edit on 17-12-2012 by cicerone because: Changed "science" to "academia"



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by cicerone
 


In the linked material a passage hit me like a train,

(Outside the pillars of Heracles the sea is shallow owing to the mud, but calm, for it lies in a hollow.)

Clearly the pillars of heracles are not the straights of Gibralter, as there is no way those seas can be construed as shallow with mud flats. If Plato is taken literally, then the statement," beyond the pillars of heracles" cannot mean beyond the straights of Gibralter.
In a newer translation of Timeas and Criteas, that line has been changed to , " in the direction of the pillars of heracles.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cicerone

Originally posted by Byrd
There's nothing new here except a bad interpretation.
...... ..... ..... So no, he never says Atlantis is real.
And this is the problem about people using "a sentence here, a sentence there" as evidence.
You have to read the WHOLE chapter.

Unfortunately, you confuse a lot of things, what about YOU reading "the whole chapter"?!

It is *not* Aristotle quoting Posidonius, it is the other way round: Posidonius quotes Aristotle, and then, Posidonius is quoted by Strabo. O my god, you confuse the most simple things! Strabo quoting Posidonius clearly says, it is "better" to put the matter in that way ... (meant is: Atlantis as a reality).


Argh. Yes, you're right -- I don't know where my brain went wandering there, but I sure meant Strabo and instead looked at the word "Posidonius" on the page and typed that. Bah. Bad braincells. No cookies!

However, I did read the whole chapter (as well as the second chapter referred to) and the referring website and looked at the sentences he was promoting as being proof. There is no "Atlantis is real because ..." and there is only one mention of Atlantis that I see.

I don't see that it's new, though his interpretation is new. I think it hasn't been used before because it doesn't really provide any proof.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cicerone

Originally posted by Harte
Care to list the other things " 'not' denied by Aristotle?"
For example, Aristotle did "not" deny the existence of the boogyman. Hence, the boogyman must be a real thing?

Quite right, but since academia again and again claimed that he denied it, it is news.
Furthermore, after the removal of this mistake, the old view on Aristotle's opinion comes back:
That his and his followers' work shows clear indication and evidence that Aristotle was rather inclined to accept the reality of Atlantis. After approx. 100 years of error it is time to regain proper views.


So, can you support this view you claim Aristotle held? I doubt it.

You know, Aristotle knew Plato quite well. You'd think that if Aristotle believed Plato's tale was true, he'd likely have mentioned it somewhere.

Harte



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
@Byrd:
@Harte:

Let me first express my thanks that you invest some lines on the topic with some more background knowledge, which you surely have. I find myself often caught between the usual Atlantis searcher and the usual Atlantis skeptic: The ones cannot understand my ideas, the others don't like them ... what a fate :-)

You are completely right if you say that there is no proof for Atlantis in this all. This is not the point. The point is that many scholars just claimed that in Strabo 2.3.6 there was a statement of Aristotle against the existence of Atlantis - but there isn't.

This is news, although not the final big news ...
... but small news is better news, if there is proof.

And there is more:

Harte's question how to proof from Aristotle's works that he was in favour of Atlantis is a more difficult thing. Before the mistake concerning Strabo 2.3.6 crept into science, academia clearly saw Aristotle in favour of Atlantis because of several reasons. This argumentation has now its revival.

Basically the argument goes as follows: Aristotle agrees explicitly with a lot of details of the Atlantis story (cyclical catastrophism, land west of Gibraltar, mud before Gibraltar, sun's orbit changes, etc. etc.) and he never points out opposition to Plato; furthermore we have an explicit acceptance of Atlantis by Aristotle's follower Theophrastus. And Posidonius was close in many things to Aristotle. So the conclusion is, that the opinion of Posidonius in Strabo 2.3.6 reflects very well the opinion of Aristiotle: He does not know, but says, it is better to believe than to disbelief. ---- I hope Atlantis skeptics can live with this :-)

And what Atlantipedia.ie also pointed out: It is heavily interesting to see how the mistake crept into science, and which scientists silently disagreed but did not speak out clearly.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cicerone
And what Atlantipedia.ie also pointed out: It is heavily interesting to see how the mistake crept into science, and which scientists silently disagreed but did not speak out clearly.


It would be more correct to say "...crept into the study of classical literature..." since this has absolutely nothing to do with science.

It's not as if mainstream science says "Well, Aristotle didn't believe in Atlantis, therefore Atlantis can't be real."

There are mainstream scientists chasing Atlantis right now. Wasting their time and money, IMO.

Harte



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
It would be more correct to say "...crept into the study of classical literature..." since this has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Lucky Americans: You have "academia" and "science", we Germans have only one word for both, which results in funny (and not so funny) misunderstandings.

> It's not as if mainstream science says "Well, Aristotle didn't believe in Atlantis, therefore Atlantis can't be real."

Ah, well, I fear this is exactly the case, but of course academia has much more reasons, not only this one. Step by step we catch them all :-)

> There are mainstream scientists chasing Atlantis right now. Wasting their time and money, IMO.

Oh really? I don't think so. Who is it? Please not this biblical maximalist named Freund, he is not mainstream and I would reject to accept him a scientific person. The last ones I know and who were serious enough were John V. Luce and Eberhard Zangger. Both isolated, not really mainstream. Mainstream is today clearly against an existence of any kind of Atlantis.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cicerone

Originally posted by Harte
There are mainstream scientists chasing Atlantis right now. Wasting their time and money, IMO.

Oh really? I don't think so. Who is it?


The Atlantis Hypothesis:


The purpose of these conferences is to gather specialists of all the different disciplines involved in highlighting the scientific aspects of this greatly interesting subject, provide a greater understanding of key issues on the Atlantis Hypothesis and in the same time offer networking opportunities at an international level.

Atlantis’ locations in Europe, Africa, Aegean Sea and the Americas

Chair persons: Yannis Makris, Ioanna Papoulia and Stavros P. Papamarinopoulos

10.00-10.25 Was Atlantis located in the straits of Gibraltar? The Spartel Bank hypothesis: in situ-investigations and chronological contradictions
Mark Andre Gutscher, C.N.R.S, France

10.25-10.50 Atlantis in Puerto de Santa Maria/Cadiz/Spain
Juergen Karl Hepke, Independent Researcher, Germany

More at this pdf file of the conference program.

The program i linked is for the third such conference by that same group of mainstream scientists.

Harte



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cicerone
Before the mistake concerning Strabo 2.3.6 crept into science, academia clearly saw Aristotle in favour of Atlantis because of several reasons.


Except... I don't see any proof that there's a problem with the translation of Strabo 2.3.6

We have access to the same documents, and in addition, we can also take up our Latin and Greek grammars and dictionaries and read the original documents. Here is a link to Strabo in the original Greek

Your original source says this:

Perhaps even more important is Franke’s revelation of how the prevailing attitude regarding Aristotle’s opinion of the Atlantis story arose. He has carried out extensive research that brought him back to 1587 when a commentary on Strabo by Isaac Casaubon was published, which in turn was badly misinterpreted in 1816 by Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre who attributed a critical comment by Aristotle regarding Homer’s Achaean wall in the Illiad to be instead a reference to Plato’s Atlantis. This had far-reaching consequences as Delambre’s book was probably more generally available than Casaubon’s, resulting in Delambre’s error being widely disseminated and so in time his misinterpretation gained sufficient critical mass to become ‘received wisdom


Notice that Franke is simply reading up on translations of the Greek text. He's not reading the original Greek text. (I hope this is the link to Strabo 2.3.6)

Scholars don't take just one translation and declare it to be the best (and never translate things again.) Texts are constantly being retranslated by many people (here is a selection of currently available translations in many languages). Jones is the one that's most easily available, but as you see, ANYONE can go online and look up Strabo and translate the passage for themselves.

In looking through Wikipedia references I see that the person who actually translated book 2 was John Robert Sitlington Sterrett. Sterrett was a well-known archaeologist (who worked in Greece and Turkey and similar places) who knew how to read classical Greek. I don't think he "replicated an error" from someone else. I believe that he did his own translating (since it would have been as easy for him to translate Greek-to-English as it is for you to translate from your own language to English.)
edit on 20-12-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join