News: Aristotle not against existence of Atlantis

@Byrd:

> Notice that Franke is simply reading up on translations of the Greek text.
> He's not reading the original Greek text.

O my god, o my god, you still have not got the point!
The Greek original sentences are examined word by word!

Your problem is: You think Franke construed an artificial problem in order to dissolve it, later, and thus to impress less educated readers. This is not the case.

Everybody who is familiar with the scientific literature on Plato's Atlantis knows all-to-well the statement: "Aristotle is/was/seems to be/likely/surely/easy to see/without any doubt/most probably ...... was against the existence of Atlantis, what we easily can see from Strabo 2.3.6 and 13.1.36. Period." Did you never read this?!

You yourself recognized above, that there is something wrong with this ... thank you, Byrd! With some more effort (much more effort!) you could have written the same book! :-)

See also here (Jason Colavito wrote this one year after the German version was released):
www.jasoncolavito.com...

@Harte:

Most of the university scientists on this Atlantis conference where there to *deny* rather than to support this or that Altantis hypothesis. Mark Andre Gutscher did deny the Spartel bank hypothesis. Or they concentrated on an aspect of the Atlantis story without an existence hypothesis.

Hypotheses on this conference were mostly put forward by "independent researchers" (like I am, too). The organizers are university scientists, but not philologists, they are geologists and engineering university teachers.

Ok, you are right under a certain perspective: There are such scientists.
This biblical maximalist Freund is also a university scientist, if you will.
But still these are few, and they are not classical philologists, archaeologists. The last ones of this sort were John V. Luce and Eberhard Zangger, I think.

PS: Thank you for your continued discussion!

cicerone i havent read plato's critias and timaeus for a long time but i remember from his description of atlantis that he said the sinking of the island left behind a sea of ​​mud that it was impossible to sail on it. could he be (in fact the story was passed to Solon by a priest in Sais and then to him) talking of the sargassos sea near the azores?

were there any more plato's comtemporary accounts of this "sea of mud" ?

Originally posted by Picollo30
cicerone i havent read plato's critias and timaeus for a long time but i remember from his description of atlantis that he said the sinking of the island left behind a sea of ​​mud that it was impossible to sail on it. could he be (in fact the story was passed to Solon by a priest in Sais and then to him) talking of the sargassos sea near the azores?

were there any more plato's comtemporary accounts of this "sea of mud" ?

edit on 22-12-2012 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2012 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

Hello Picollo,
no I do not think that the Sargasso Sea is meant, because of several reasons:
(a) The Sargasso Sea consistst of sea weed, not of mud.
(b) The mud which allegedly prevents (!) sailing into the outer sea is a legend created by the Carthaginians; this is likely.

Yes, Aristotle mentioned this mud, also Herodotus at two other places. And later authors.