Atlantis, races, and magic.

[Theweirdtophat]

They are all listed as mythology but I never understood why some people think legend means fantasy. Legend is legend, not fantasy and all legends have some truth in it, otherwise they wouldn't be legends to begin with.

Such as with Atlantis. I don't understand why the idea of an island being destroyed is impossible and that perhaps in some time, there was an advanced group of people that could have destroyed themselves. Sometimes that happens with advanced societies. When something goes wrong, the consequences are greater. There is always debate whether Plato and the others did talk as if Atlantis existed or just made it up, but really it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make it up in the first place.

Whether Atlanteans were humans, demi-gods or another race entirely, who knows, but I highly doubt an advanced race would be completly wiped out in one fell swoop. Who's to say there aren't Atlanteans still down there. We haven't explored every square inch of the planet after all.

Same with other races. I seriously doubt that with all of the different creatures in mythology, they are all made up and there wasn't at least one creature in mythology that existed? Like, elves, dwarves, fairies, ect. I mean after all, we've already discovered the remains and skeletons that clearly are not human, such as the ones with elongated skulls and are definitely not human, due to them having larger craniums as well as the 10-15 foot skeletons or even the tiny skeletons, but I guess they conveniently brush that aside or it's all locked away in basements in museums instead. Who's to say one of these races did not exist? Perhaps some due, as some races are known to be in hiding. And again, we haven't explored every inch of the planet yet. There's a lot of things that we thought were just legends and turned out to be true when we started discovering ruins of cities.

Or magic for that matter and I guess it depends on what you consider to be magic. Magic is real and I never understood why people thought it would be false. Nevermind that almost every society in each religion practiced a form of magic and still do today. But when people think of magic, they think of magic in hollywood, where they do things that would not be feasible, where real magic doesn't work like that anyway. It's more subtle. And of course mentioned in mythology numerous times. I find it especially strange that some would doubt it, despite that scientists and other thinkers practiced it or at least believed in it like Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, George Washington Carver who all practiced energy work or mysticism.

I wonder when did mythology and fantasy became the same thing when they are clearly not. Fantasy is something we all know is fake. Legends are debatable but still have some truth in them.

 

[Riverwolf]

They are all listed as mythology but I never understood why some people think legend means fantasy. Legend is legend, not fantasy and all legends have some truth in it, otherwise they wouldn't be legends to begin with.

...yes, but I'd caution against the idea that the current forms of many such legends are accurate depictions of the hypothetical historical events they originate from. Storytellers have a knack for exaggeration.

Such as with Atlantis. I don't understand why the idea of an island being destroyed is impossible and that perhaps in some time, there was an advanced group of people that could have destroyed themselves. Sometimes that happens with advanced societies. When something goes wrong, the consequences are greater. There is always debate whether Plato and the others did talk as if Atlantis existed or just made it up, but really it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make it up in the first place.

If you read his story in context, it actually does.

The two books where Atlantis is spoken of, Timaeus and Criteus, are sort of "sequels" to his Republic. The purpose of the story was to highlight the superiority of the "ideal" society outlined in Republic (here represented by Athens) even against such a mighty force as his fictional Atlantis. (BTW, his "ideal" society is actually VERY fascist.) It's also worth remembering that the second book was never finished, and so we don't really know all the details of what he originally planned. But what is clear is that this was a morality lesson.

As for any "historical" Atlantis, there's a few different hypotheses. Personally, I'm on the side that believes "Atlantis" was actually the island of Santorini, who's then-inhabitants were destroyed when its supervolcano Mt. Thera erupted circa 1500 BCE, and which also nearly wiped out the comparatively advanced Minoan civilization on Crete... "in a single day and night of misfortune." However, the only other plausibilities are ones that exist in the Mediterranean; any of the ones that suggest Atlantis is in North America, or the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, are so outlandish that they can safely be discarded as (often subtly racist) nonsense. (Notice, for example, that when it comes to many popular notions about who built the Egyptian pyramids, it's all kinds of people, of many different groups, from Atlanteans to Aliens... except, of course, the Egyptians themselves).

BTW, the Minoans were fully human, as human as the rest of us. And while they were technologically sophisticated for their time, they were still a bronze-age people.

Fantasy is something we all know is fake.

"Fake" is not the word I'd use. There's an old addage: artists use lies to tell the truth.

Anglo-American "High" Fantasy (i.e., stories such as, and inspired by, Lord of the Rings, Conan stories, and Dungeons and Dragons) is almost always an imagined ancient or medieval Europe, or the imagined mythology thereof.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The problem is knowing which kernel of the story is the "real" one/s, and which kernels of the story are not. There might be physical evidence; for instance, a city that more or less matches the description of Troy was discovered, and appears to have been sacked and burned. We have multiple historical sources on Attila the Hun, as well as artifacts. The Bible mentions individual rulers and various places that have been verified through other ancient sources and archaeology. Does any of that make the rest of the stories related to each True? Unlikely. seeds of the legend/myth.

 

[Riverwolf]

The problem is knowing which kernel of the story is the "real" one/s, and which kernels of the story are not. There might be physical evidence; for instance, a city that more or less matches the description of Troy was discovered, and appears to have been sacked and burned. We have multiple historical sources on Attila the Hun, as well as artifacts. The Bible mentions individual rulers and various places that have been verified through other ancient sources and archaeology. Does any of that make the rest of the stories related to each True? Unlikely. seeds of the legend/myth.

When my father first told me the story of the Trojan War, for example, he told me that the war was largely about an unfair taxation of a trade route that the Trojans imposed upon the Greeks who were trying to trade with the people who lived in the upper part of modern Turkey. I never heard the story of it being about rescuing some dude's girlfriend until much later. Frankly, the version I heard first sounds significantly more plausible historically speaking. (Not to say that major, world-changing wars haven't been started by petty people being petty, just look at how the first Punic War started; just that it's not terribly common.)

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way, about the "races" thing: that's a VERY complex topic, to be sure, but the entire notion is a very, very modern one. What race we're part of is largely arbitrary; I'm white, my parents are white, my grandparents were white when they died but not when they were born. (I'm mostly Irish and Greek; neither were considered "white" until fairly recently.) There is absolutely no scientific basis for the concept; it's 100% cultural.

Skull shape is not a determiner of whether a skeleton is human or not; DNA is. All living humans are homo sapiens sapiens; we're the only surviving hominid species known in the fossil record (and if it's not in the fossil record, there's no reason to regard it as scientifically existent). Furthermore, artificial skull elongation is a Thing in some cultures.

Confirmation bias is also a Thing. Be careful of it.

 

[rocala]

I'm white, my parents are white, my grandparents were white when they died but not when they were born. (I'm mostly Irish and Greek; neither were considered "white" until fairly recently.)

This is absolutely new to me, would you be good enough to elaborate?

There is absolutely no scientific basis for the concept; it's 100% cultural.

Cultural to who exactly?

 

[Riverwolf]

This is absolutely new to me, would you be good enough to elaborate?

It is admittedly based on very brief research into "who is considered white?" that I did at some point, because to be honest the entire concept seems... completely arbitrary.

People who are native to the Mediterranean region tend to have darker skin than us Northerners. So I always wondered... are Greeks considered white? I don't actually know. (Apparently they are, because modern consensus includes everyone from Europe and... Arabia, of all places? See what I mean by arbitrary?!)

Irish immigrants are historically known to have been treated much like Mexican immigrants are today, and based on that brief research mentioned earlier, Irish people weren't considered "white" until sometime during or after World War II.

Apparently, "white race" in America were also called the "Anglo-Saxon race," and basically referred to anyone of British ancestry; nowadays this group is sometimes called "white Anglo-Saxon Protestants" or WASPs. This, therefore, could not have included either the Irish or Greek peoples, who are my primary ancestors.

Cultural to who exactly?

Anglo-American culture, specifically. It means that the concept only exists within a cultural conception, not actual biology. That does NOT mean non-existent, mind. It's just not a biological existence.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is admittedly based on very brief research into "who is considered white?" that I did at some point, because to be honest the entire concept seems... completely arbitrary.

People who are native to the Mediterranean region tend to have darker skin than us Northerners. So I always wondered... are Greeks considered white? I don't actually know. (Apparently they are, because modern consensus includes everyone from Europe and... Arabia, of all places? See what I mean by arbitrary?!)

Irish immigrants are historically known to have been treated much like Mexican immigrants are today, and based on that brief research mentioned earlier, Irish people weren't considered "white" until sometime during or after World War II.

Apparently, "white race" in America were also called the "Anglo-Saxon race," and basically referred to anyone of British ancestry; nowadays this group is sometimes called "white Anglo-Saxon Protestants" or WASPs. This, therefore, could not have included either the Irish or Greek peoples, who are my primary ancestors.



Anglo-American culture, specifically. It means that the concept only exists within a cultural conception, not actual biology. That does NOT mean non-existent, mind. It's just not a biological existence.

At one time in many areas of America (especially the American South), anyone with "even one drop" (1/64th, mostly) of African ancestry would make them "colored" or "black." However, there were also other categories, especially in the former Spanish and French areas (such as Louisiana), where there were LOTS of categories; mulatto was one of those categories, and often someone of mixed ancestry, or just dark skin (eg Mediterranean ancestry), was considered mulatto. A white who married anyone who was not white was often reclassified as mulatto as well.

 

[rocala]

@Riverwolf
Thanks for your reply, My curiosity arose as I have always lived in London which has sizeable Irish and Greek communities. In addition my paternal grandmother was half Irish and I have had a Greek girlfriend. Yet never have I heard racist references to colour in this context. My area, East London, has always had it's share of racist individuals and organisations. So if this prejudice existed here I am sure I would have come across it by now.

An Irish friend of mine was as a child, called by his mother a 'black b------' whenever he misbehaved. This was due to his black hair. His mother and two siblings were blond.
I do not know if this was common among Irish people but if so, it may have been a contributing factor to this cultural oddity?

 

[Riverwolf]

@Riverwolf
Thanks for your reply, My curiosity arose as I have always lived in London which has sizeable Irish and Greek communities. In addition my paternal grandmother was half Irish and I have had a Greek girlfriend. Yet never have I heard racist references to colour in this context. My area, East London, has always had it's share of racist individuals and organisations. So if this prejudice existed here I am sure I would have come across it by now.

I can't speak at all to what the situation was/is in England. Even in America, much of the racism against the Irish was, to my knowledge, focused during the Potato Famine, and in New York. My own Irish great-great-grandmother came straight to California well after the Famine, and so probably didn't have to face any of that racism.

I, myself, have faced absolutely no real racism against myself for being Irish or Greek, and I've never seen it, either. I've only heard about it as an historical thing, that I find to be a fascinating parallel to what Mexican immigrants have to deal with today.

An Irish friend of mine was as a child, called by his mother a 'black b------' whenever he misbehaved. This was due to his black hair. His mother and two siblings were blond.
I do not know if this was common among Irish people but if so, it may have been a contributing factor to this cultural oddity?

I honestly have no idea.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Did Plato himself said it was fictional or is that people are saying? Doesn't make much sense to mention it if it never existed. If you look around the Earth and especially with satellites, you can tell that there were some islands, especially in the shape of Atlantis that was drawn, were under the ocean, or it looks as if some lands sunk. Didn't Plato specifically say that the island sunk underneath the ocean?

 

[Riverwolf]

Did Plato himself said it was fictional or is that people are saying?

Plato never even finished it, so he very well may have just lost interest in the whole matter.

No joke, the second book literally ends mid-sentence, just as Zeus is about to say something.

Doesn't make much sense to mention it if it never existed. If you look around the Earth and especially with satellites, you can tell that there were some islands, especially in the shape of Atlantis that was drawn, were under the ocean, or it looks as if some lands sunk. Didn't Plato specifically say that the island sunk underneath the ocean?

No, he didn't. At least, not quite.

Plato was writing from the perspective of his teacher, Socrates. Therefore, it's Socrates who is (supposedly) telling this story. But remember, if Socrates actually wrote anything, none of it survived.

Furthermore, in the story, it's one of Socrates' discussion buddies who comes forward with the story, and HE said that he got it from an Egyptian priest.

In other words, we're dealing with THREE degrees of separation here. At minimum. If you've ever played Telephone, you know that even just this can cause key bits of information to get muddled and lost.

Besides, I already gave a possible "real" Atlantis: the island of Santorini. Look at the island from Google maps: it TOTALLY fits the concentric rings description, and the civilization that was on it when Mt. Thera erupted circa 1500 BCE was destroyed, along with much of the island, "in a single day and night of misfortune."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Plato never even finished it, so he very well may have just lost interest in the whole matter.

No joke, the second book literally ends mid-sentence, just as Zeus is about to say something.



No, he didn't. At least, not quite.

Plato was writing from the perspective of his teacher, Socrates. Therefore, it's Socrates who is (supposedly) telling this story. But remember, if Socrates actually wrote anything, none of it survived.

Furthermore, in the story, it's one of Socrates' discussion buddies who comes forward with the story, and HE said that he got it from an Egyptian priest.

In other words, we're dealing with THREE degrees of separation here. At minimum. If you've ever played Telephone, you know that even just this can cause key bits of information to get muddled and lost.

Besides, I already gave a possible "real" Atlantis: the island of Santorini. Look at the island from Google maps: it TOTALLY fits the concentric rings description, and the civilization that was on it when Mt. Thera erupted circa 1500 BCE was destroyed, along with much of the island, "in a single day and night of misfortune."

There are also a number of other cities and regions which have been sunk beneath the oceans...Venice is doing so as we speak, rather slowly. It's not unusual for earthquakes in certain ares to raise or lower the sea level by many feet, or for volcanoes to have erupted and buried communities--Thera and the Minoan civlization (which included Crete and many other islands) were destroyed by the eruption and resulting tsunami, and there are other examples from around the Mediterranean and elsewhere. There are also those that have been inundated by tsunami, and eroded away by rivers and/or severe storms and flooding.