Talk:Atlantis/Archive 9

Why does the article say that this was written by Plato as an allegory? Plato is explicitly clear in the text that he is recording a person who believes themselves to be making a statement of fact. From the translation on mit.edu - "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon" ... "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

Of course this does not mean the story is true, he may have been mistaken or deceived, but to state Plato's *motive* as being allegorical when the writing itself says that the intention is to relay a historical fact, is simply to lie. The language around this point is unambiguous, unless you want to contest the translation.

To re-iterate, I am not asserting that the story is true, I am asserting that the claim that it was meant to be an allegory only, in other words that even Critias and Plato themselves did not believe the story to be true, is an outright lie that is directly contradicted by the words of the original source text. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The Flashman books claim to be real, they are fiction. It is a common writing trick. So went with what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I do believe I said that twice, just because the author claims that it is true does not mean that it is. However that does not change the fact that the author of the text does in fact claim that it is true, and writing instead that his motive is allegorical, in direct contradiction to what the author of the text writes in the actual text, is a lie.

By all means, note that some/many/most/all historians believe that it serves only as an allegory. But there is a chasm of difference between a story being believed to be fictional and interpreted as an allegory by readers, and having been written as an allegory by the author. The latter is a claim about the motive of the author and is directly contradicted by what the author themselves wrote in the original text.

Weird to predict this exact response, pre-empt it twice, and still get it anyways, but let's try a third time I guess 76.93.169.54 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a matter of accurately representing the content of the text. Nobody would read the opening to this article and expect to find such quotes as I referenced above within; the claims of the author should be made clear, even if their truth is doubted. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say, and they say that it is in allegory. It isn't up to us to use our personal judgment to overrule that. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to overrule those sources, I am only saying to also make it clear what the content of the actual text is, in addition to how those sources have interpreted it. This only source I am relying on for the actual text is the mit.edu translation, are you suggesting that is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be included in the article? 76.93.169.54 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The author does not claim it is a true tale, only a character, Critias, in the dialogues does. Hypnôs (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the author claims to be "recording a person who believes themselves to be making a statement of fact", as I said. And the article ought to represent this, but does not, and instead merely includes an allegorical interpretation of the story, and leaves out the (evidently relevant) point that you just made, that the character telling the story claims that it is a true tale.

To hopefully clarify further why I believe this is misleading, even if only to myself, as after what appear to me as three consecutive non-sequiturs I am seriously doubting my understanding of the English language -

The article for the allegory of the cave states

'Plato's Cave is an allegory presented by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work Republic'

and the text reads,

"Socrates: And now allow me to draw a comparison in order to understand the effect of learning (or the lack thereof) upon our nature. Imagine that there are people living in a cave deep underground."

This is exactly what you would expect, having read the description - it is acknowledged by the character in the dialogue that he is going to be speaking of a fictional scenario.

Meanwhile, Atlantis is

'an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias'

where the text reads,

"Socrates: Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

This is the exact *reverse* of the previous case, where now, the character speaking in the dialogue claims that it is factual. And yet identical descriptions are given to both, without further clarification to prevent readers from being deceived as to what the text actually says.

I don't see how it could possibly be argued that this is anything other than misleading and that no further clarification is needed to distinguish between a self-admitted fiction and a proclaimed fact which is generally thought to be a fiction. But I must be an absolute fool, because the only other alternative here is too depressing to consider. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is all original research based on the primary source, which is against policy here. If you want to get the article changed in this fashion, you'll have to provide a reliable, secondary source that makes this point. MrOllie (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what the actual literal original text, written by Plato, about Atlantis, is not a valid source for an article on Atlantis? It's against policy to tell the truth about what the text says? That is absolutely WILD my dude. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, does he say it is true, or does he say someone else said it was true and he was repeating what they said? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I attempted to make this clear in the very first line, and second sentence, that I wrote about the subject. I accept that my communication is imperfect but nonetheless I would appreciate seeing some indications that my words are actually being read before they are replied to. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

So no then Plato does not say it is true, he says the person he is recording thinks it does. So then as he does not say he believes it, he attributes it, we treat this as nay other second-hand account. Now I suppose we could say "But Plato claimed Critias believed it", but really why? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Because as it stands, the article states that Plato was making the allegorical point. So I am glad that you agree that further clarification on what the text is actually saying, given this diversion into the fact that it is Critias saying it and Plato recording his words. Second, even Critias himself is not saying that he is making an allegorical claim, but a truth claim, albeit one which has been interpreted allegorically. The article does not represent either of these facts. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify - the article says the island is "mentioned in an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works", which could be read as Critias coming up with the allegory. The source noted for this first sentence says "Plato also wrote the myth of Atlantis as an allegory". Neither of these statements accurately describes the situation, hence the discussion we currently find ourselves in. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No, as it was written by Plato. And no I do not agree we need "further clarification on what the text is actually saying". We Please drop this now, you do not have any consensus and will not get any. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Where your interpretation conflicts with that of the experts, we can't use it here. This is like citing Gulliver's travels to state that Jonathan Swift was reporting facts about a land of people who were 6 inches tall. If you find that 'absolutely WILD', so be it. MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sure that you have only been tangentially paying attention to what I have written and so are not intentionally gaslighting me, and clearly I am a poor communicator, but I have already directly addressed that many times. Nonetheless, I will again - I am not claiming that the story is true because the text says it is true, I am merely claiming that the character in the text claims that it is true.

This is not a question of my interpretation, and the claim is not that the story is true because the text says it is true. The issue is that the wording of the article suggests that, as in the case of the cave allegory, the character in the dialogue is only making an allegorical point. In fact, the character in the dialogue is claiming to be telling a true tale, about which an allegorical interpretation has been made. This is an objectively and verifiable true fact about the content of the text, which is not made clear by the article, and is a point which, after having been repeated by me at least 5 times now, has still not even been attempted to be refuted by 3 different people in 6 different replies. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A character in a fictional movie saying "this is a true story", does not make the movie factual.

As to your point of Critias claiming the tale of Atlantis to be true, it's already in the article: "Critias mentions a tale he considered to be historical". Hypnôs (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"A character in a fictional movie saying "this is a true story", does not make the movie factual."

Oh, it must be intentional then. Cheers 76.93.169.54 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RS seem to think it is, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"I am not claiming that the story is true because the text says it is true"

"and the claim is not that the story is true because the text says it is true."

Like, I literally say exactly that twice, just in that one comment. What more do you want me to do? 76.93.169.54 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

At what point is this no longer considered good faith, because that is absolutely insane. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

When three users tell you you are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely the above interaction makes clear that this user did not even read what they were replying to. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that Plato's dialogues are works of fiction, right? He might've borrowed the names of historical people, but he is not recording actual conversations or things they said. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have one person asking me to clarify whether the claim was from Plato or Critias and now another criticizing me for making exactly that distinction. Incredible.

Yes, I understand. The issue at hand is about *how* he describes the story in the dialogue. He does not say, "let us take a hypothetical situation for the sake of comparison" or some such, as in the Allegory of the Cave. He says instead that "this is not a mere legend but an actual fact". Again, this does not mean it actually is, it simply means that is what he wrote, and it should be portrayed as such, of course without suggesting that it is automatically therefore factual. Such as, "He wrote the allegory through a character claiming it to be a fact", for instance. 76.93.169.54 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Socrates tends to be quite sarcastic (this is usually referred to as 'Socratic irony'). At any rate, when you have a secondary source to support this, we can consider adding it. But right now we have high-quality sources that say the opposite, and we must follow them. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be closed now as a time sink. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)