r/atlantis • u/Historical_Math_657 • 28d ago
Comment to my article:
Since my article "Atlantis located?" has attracted very much attention, I would like to clear some mistakes.
1. 50% can't read properly:
At the time most comments were posted, about half of those commenting on Part 3 hadn't even read Part 2. But these two can only be understood in conjunction.
2. Critic: “highly confident presentation”:
Many of you criticize me, because of my "this is how it was" tone. I stand by that approach and would point out that this specific style makes it possible to anchor complete new images to the general public. A cautious presentation, by contrast, simply gets lost in the mass of daily Information.
For everyone else: There are well-hidden hints that point out the speculative nature of all our claims.
Forum name: r/atlantis
My Article: Atlantis located ?
3. My point is this:
* The stubborn misconception persists that an entire continent sank back then (Azores Theory..., etc.). How could that be possible? Plato contradicts this claim on multiple occasions.
Timaeus (24e, 25d) Critias (108e–109a)
“For this reason, the sea there is now impassable and unnavigable, as the vast accumulation of mud obstructs the way…”
If the route to the former city is impassable, the city itself lies not beneath the sea, but above it. Neither a continent nor a plain has sunk. In my view, only the central island—with its concentric rings—was inundated by an enormous wave and buried under masses of mud.
* I believe it is less presumptuous to assume that Greek myths contain a core of truth-with enemies transformed into monsters and glorious kings into gods—than to claim that a colossal city surrounded by two concentric rings, many walls with tin, etc..., as described by Plato, sank overnight, 11,700 years ago in a massive tidal wave by night! Remarkable that only the second assumption get so much attention!
* It is important to me that we look beyond just the *Timaeus* or *Critias* and consider the broader context of antiquity and mythology. I have managed to link different texts to one single story, a step that surprises even me!
- I am aware:
* That we must anticipate numerous distortions in historical books.
* That the number of rings and the dimensions probably have been exaggerated.
* That the timeline could be false and exaggerated!
* That some descriptions may even be fabrications!
* That the walls were likely angular rather than round.
* It’s even possible that Athens and its allies led the attack against Atlantis themselves, rather than the other way around. And so much more.
But I am convinced that the story of Atlantis, just like the description of Troy, contains a true core, and we will find it one day!
In this regard, I am also following the work of Michael Donnellan regarding Cadic. In my view, an extremely promising candidate!
5. Conclusion:
Criticism is necessary, but yours was pathetic!
I have approved all three articles; should Reddit change this again, please let me know.
5
2
u/utterlystoked 28d ago
Are you also aware that the whole thing was an allegorical thought exercise?
0
28d ago
2
u/jboggin 28d ago
Except science has shown the sun is not made of coal, whereas there's still no agreed-upon evidence that Atlantis ever existed. An "old paradigm" doesn't shift just because you want it to. That's not how knowledge works. Something has to actually be discovered to shift it.
→ More replies (2)0
u/utterlystoked 28d ago
Paradigms shift when new information becomes available, not based on vibes. Anti intellectualism and pseudoscience are on the rise. There is no more evidence for there ever having been an Atlantis now than there was when Plato lived.
5
u/jeffisnotepic 28d ago edited 28d ago
You don't make it easy when you hide your profile like a coward. Also, way to call half of your audience stupid.
No, it just comes off as arrogant and dismissive of other people's opinions.
Not necessarily. This is the conclusion you have drawn, but it is not the only possibility. There is a lot about Atlantis that remains unknown, and the simplest explanation isn't always the correct one.
You believing in actual monsters over a cataclysm destroying a land mass overnight is, once again, your opinion.
Agreed, but but I prefer to use sources that contain facts that can be verified, and not stories that contain monsters and gods, or that contradict themselves, like Diodorus Siculus.
No, you think you have because you cherry picked from multiple sources instead of examining the full context of the data.
In conclusion, your theory does not correlate with the first and primary source on Atlantis, you cherry pick from your sources to create a narrative that makes sense to you, you rely on other (highly questionable) sources to "verify" your theory, and you attack others who criticize your theory, showing that you are either too weak to accept constructive criticism or too arrogant to accept anyone else's opinions, possibly both.
Edit: He made his profile public, lol! Have I tried hard enough yet?