No Greek historian mention Atlantis. No Greek myth or epic mention Atlantis.
We might also ask where the fabled cave from The Republic is actually located.
The story of 'Atlantis' as Plato knew it, came to him from Critias (the younger) through his father, Critias (the elder, also Plato's great grandfather), who got it from his father Dropides who received it directly from Solon, who learned of the story from his time in Egypt, specifically via priests in Sais who supposedly maintained an artifact from this lost civilization.
It's clear that Plato's recanting of the story is embellished, he probably made up a great number or all of details to support his ideas and what he was trying to get across, but it's also possible that there are germs of truth in the story, such an ancient civilization being destroyed that Egyptians were aware of.
It's not a stretch to imagine that Egyptians had knowledge of ancient civilizations, or that secret knowledge was revealed to Greeks, and it's not stretch that civilizations rose and fell all over the Earth. There isn't much to hang your hat on but I think we can charitably assume there was some real basis to the story that Plato based his writing on.
Did ancient Egyptians poses knowledge of the Americas and encounter its population? Or was it a story about a local group of people? Or perhaps it was a general story of a pre-historic civilization and the associated cataclysms that ended it? Who knows, but I don't think you can say with certainty that it existed, or it didn't exist at all.
Not that it means that Atlantis WAS historic, just we can't use absence of evidence to infer evidence of absence.
Was greek, staffed by Greek speaking scholars and stored works written in Greek. I’m not aware that they had many Ancient Egyptian texts there
> just we can't use absence of evidence to infer evidence of absence.
Can we apply this to pretty much anything we can’t disprove beyond a shadow of doubt? So pretty much everything including loads of conspiracy theories..
Honestly, I don't have a good answer for you. I just simply don't know. It's a problem that much smarter people than me have likely already wrestled with. I'm with you in that a blanket application of this can lead us to accepting all kinds of crackpot theories.
However there are things where it's literally true that just because we didn't have evidence of something doesn't mean it didn't exist, such as the coelocanth.
Certainty is a red hearing. You cannot say anything with absolute certainty. The question is whether there is evidence to support the conjecture. For Atlantis, there isn't much and so there really isn't any rational reason to believe it existed. If more compelling evidence arises, that is the time to believe, but not before.
Do as in, even in present day?
And of course people in the US often make things up and call it ancient Asian wisdom too, but usually aphorisms rather than whole books.
Rather the question today is OMG why do we care about 1000 years ago, we are more advanced!1111, whatever problem ancient people had, we have solved.
Which is equally silly
Apparently no more closely guarded than they told it to some Greek guy who told it to a famous author who put it a book.
Apparently the Egyptians hadn’t learned the secret about secrets: If you want to keep something a secret, you shouldnt tell people about it.
Why would you ask this question? I we might as well say “Did the aliens build the pyramids? Who knows” if we assume that nobody “knows” anything..
> Who knows, but I don't think you can say with certainty that it existed, or it didn't exist at all.
For instance we know that Troy existed
Certainly. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is clearly a metaphor for enlightenment, with no pretense of being a literal place. However, his depiction of Atlantis in "Timaeus" and "Critias" is detailed and concrete, lacking the overt symbolism of his allegories. This detail might imply that Plato intended for Atlantis to be considered as more than just a metaphorical construct, perhaps as a tale grounded in some form of historical tradition.
I’m sure that many cultures had some sort of ancient flood myths because of what happened after the last glacial period. But beyond that…
> detailed and concrete,
Which would be the opposite of one might expect? If we’re talking about thousand year old myths we should assume that anything “ detailed and concrete” must have been invented?
Plato mentions that the story was heard by Solon in Egypt, and transmitted orally over several generations through the family of Dropides, until it reached Critias( a dialogue speaker in Timaeus and Critias. )
Which is more likely, he completely made up Atlantis and all that detail in a very weird way, or he just reached for something that he thought was historically true that he came across during his life.
Oral histories extremely important in the time that lead up to the time of Plato's life (and afterwards as well.) In the absence of widespread literacy and accessible writing materials, these oral narratives served as the primary medium through which historical events, cultural norms, legal statutes, and philosophical ideas were transmitted across generations.
Socrates, Plato's teacher, famously never wrote anything down, his philosophy was preserved and passed down primarily through the oral accounts of his students. (Like Plato!)
in "Phaedrus," Plato discusses the art of rhetoric and the importance of the spoken word over the written word, which can be seen as a nod to the value of oral tradition.
So I don't think it's as binary as, fact or allegory. There are other facets, to how this description of Atlantis came to be.
It's likely that most of stories from oral tradition have never been put down to writing, and most of those who did were probably lost through the filter of time (along with the vast majority or ancient Greek literature).
- Plato conceived of it a as part of an allegory on the hubris of nations, OR
- it actually was real and there’s zero evidence for it
The story of Atlantis is told by Critias, who heard the story second hand.
You probably think your methodology is "evidence based" though.
whats strange is that plato's account of Atlantis is detialed with specific measurements and descriptions of the layout of the city, ( and its temples, and the organization of the society.) This level of detail interpreted by some as an attempt to describe a real place rather than a purely symbolic or allegorical one.
Unlike other Greek myths (or allegories), the story of atlantis is not populated with gods interfering in the affairs of men, mythical creatures, or heroes of divine descent. Plato didnt have a track record of fabricating tales completely, especially since he presents atlantis in a matter-of-fact way within dialogues that are otherwise serious philosophical texts.
Usually when a mythical city is described, the author highlights their mystery, utopian qualities, or moral lessons they impart, rather than providing a blueprint of their layout and structure.
For that matter Tolkien to claims that his world is actually set on our planet just thousands of years ago.
Not at all strange . The opposite, that’s exactly what I would expect from an author designing a sci-fi/fantasy/fictional world. If it was based on some old myth one would expect the complete opposite of that (vague and uncertain descriptions)
> Plato didnt have a track record of fabricating tales completel
Do you believe that’s what all people who write fiction do? Fabricate tales?
> especially since he presents atlantis in a matter-of-fact way within dialogues that are otherwise serious philosophical texts.
Yes, many authors did or still do that.
Example of the beautiful wash of mind (see talk page):
> Terra Australis is a legendary/theoretical continent, not based on sightings of the real Antarctica
Ah, such conviction for someone to have of a past that they never directly experienced. It's remarkable! Especially when the map is the same size of the object it represents. Lest you not think in haste, it is certainly not that which it is.
Which map? Most maps that have the hypothetical landmass place it with the South Pole at its center, with land spreading outward as far as will fit with the known landmasses.
They also make it many times larger than Australia (usually to conform to the theory that the hemispheres should have equal landmass).
> Especially when the map is the same size of the object it represents.
On an extremely superficial level.
Maybe it’s based on the last capital of the Western Roman Empire, Ravenna? It was situated between swampland and flooding was certainly a threat.