Atlantis :D

I will now defend my argument and move on to rebuttals. But firstly, I would like to point out that source 1 of my opponent’s argument is from a walkthrough of the excellent LucasArts video game Fate of Atlantis, which is where my username comes from. I now have more respect for my opponent ^^ Defense of my Minoan claim as a whole My opponent states,“the Atlantis my opponent and I are talking about is the one SPECIFICALLY described by Plato in the Timaeus and the Critias. [. .. ]This means it is presupposed that any geographic and historical events envisoned by Plato are correct otherwise, it would not be Plato's Atlantis. ” I am not going to call semantics on my opponent, but what I meant in that definition is that we were not talking about Stargate: Atlantis or the Atlantis space shuttle or anything like that – we were talking about an ancient culture which became a mighty civilization and then was destroyed. In my defense, however, I do believe I can argue that the Minoans were Atlantis based on this definition. We are discussing whether the subject of the dialogues existed; if I can prove that Plato was describing the Minoan civilization (with historical errors), then I still fit this definition because it is still the city Plato describes, even if major details are off. For instance, if I wrote a book describing a ruler who conquered vast lands but was then killed by his friends on the Ides of March, one can still argue I am describing Julius Caesar even if I proceed to list historical details that do not correlate with actual fact. Atlantis was the Minoan civilization. My opponent argues that based on my response, “we must also assume Plato is genuinely communicating factual information about Atlantis's demise, literally, sinking into the ocean. ” My opponent is correct in that Plato describes Atlantis as sinking into the ocean: “[…] the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared, and was sunk beneath the sea. ”1 He also states that I am contradicting myself by picking what to choose as true. No – I am merely saying that because of historiographical errors, we can assume much of Plato’s tale is incorrect, but this does not mean the story has no truth whatsoever. My argument is based off the skeleton outline of Plato’s Atlantis, the only parts which we can assume are actually true (the rise, trade, and fall of the civilization). As for my rebuttal 2, I was only seeking to prove that Plato’s tone was that of a historian and not a philosopher; I was responding to an argument about the motivation behind Plato’s writing (that of history and not philosophy) rather than the description themselves. My opponent then goes on to explain: “[…] since Atlantis conquered Algeria, then Crete would have had to also, since, they are the same. Crete did not, thus they cannot be the same. ” My opponent argues that the Minoans had no army. However, the Minoans had well-established military bases on at least seven islands, including Thera,2 as well as a dominant navy, “the power of which is acclaimed by Greek historians. ”3 The Greek historian Thoucydides wrote of the Minoan navy, “And the first person known to us by tradition as having established a navy is Minos [the Cretan king from which the Minoans get their name]. He made himself master of what is now called the Hellenic sea, and ruled over the Cyclades, into most of which he sent the first colonies, expelling the Carians and appointing his own sons governors; and thus did his best to put down piracy in those waters, a necessary step to secure the revenues for his own use. ”4 Moreover, it is documented that the Minoans reached North Africa. The Minoans had a well-documented co-evolution with the Egyptians.5 My opponent then claims that “[…] it is an uncontested fact that Atlantis had a powerful army and navy…” However, this is not true. Plato describes Atlantis as a naval power. On Atlantis’s ports, Plato describes, “[…] there were guard-houses at intervals for the body-guard, the more trusted of whom had their duties appointed to them in the lesser zone, which was nearer the Acropolis; while the most trusted of all had houses given them within the citadel, and about the persons of the kings. The docks were full of triremes and naval stores, and all things were quite ready for use. ”1 The Atlanteans had a navy and no documentation of an army; the Minoans had a navy and no documentation of an army. Therefore, Atlantis existed. My opponent seems to think that either we must take a literal account of every specific detail Plato describes or assume that the entire story was nothing more than an allegory. I am arguing that because Plato uses a factual tone in his discussion, he is not creating an allegory; however, because of the passing of the story through many generations as described in the text itself, we cannot trust every aspect, either. I am saying Plato was a bad historian, as was Homer or Herodotus. However, this does not necessarily mean the events, locations, or people they described never happened or existed. For instance, Homer describes the Trojan War in the Iliad, and this was thought to be mythical among historians for quite a while – until the city of Troy was found by German archeologist Heinrich Schliemann in 1873.6 Homer described what many thought was a fictional place in a purely fictional work; however, Troy has been found, and there is evidence for the Trojan War, but that does not necessarily mean we should trust the legend of Helen or the divine intervention described in the Iliad. Again, I am arguing that Plato was a bad historian, his chronicle of Atlantis was based on a story from Solon who originally received it from Egyptian kings1 – which is interesting because as aforementioned the Minoans had an established relationship with the Egyptians. However, this historiographical error does not mean we should dismiss the entire tale as legend. Rebuttal 1: Size and location Plato’s tone of historical fact does not necessarily mean that everything he said was historical fact. I am merely showing that Plato was not telling a legend but, as you quote later on in your response, “adamant that the story was absolutely true. ”7 This does not necessarily mean that his entire story was absolutely true, just that the basis of it at least was, which is again what I am basing my argument on. Historical error can account for the mistakes in the passing of legend by word of mouth. As stated before, exaggeration often takes place especially in the works of Greek historians such as Herodotus. Rebuttal 2: Philosophical point I find it amusing my opponent used the Iliad and Odyssey as an example of supposed obvious fiction masquerading as history. As I have already shown, Schliemann discovered the legendary city of Troy in the nineteenth-century, but this does not necessarily mean the entire Iliad is true. To reiterate, Plato’s tone was historical, but we should be cautious when following his description as tales passed by word-of-mouth can often result in the corruption of historical truth. This does not, however, mean Plato was creating an allegory or parable. Rebuttal 3: Destruction date My opponent claims that I am picking and choosing what is right or wrong. I am, however, merely following the frame of Plato’s story and not the detail as we cannot completely trust his account as the total truth – as evident by other historians such as Herodotus or Homer. Details such as the size of Atlantis, the date of Atlantis, etc. , would be easily misconstrued. Therefore, we should follow only the basics of Plato’s story, which are again the rise of a Greek-esque civilization, its expansive trade and influence, and its eventual destruction due to some cataclysm. I now turn it over to my opponent for the final round. References1. . http://goo.gl...2. . http://goo.gl...3. . http://goo.gl...4. . http://goo.gl...5. . http://goo.gl...6. . http://goo.gl...7. . http://goo.gl...