Thank you Kuldebar en NickC for providing links en proper references to the quotations given by Chris.
I'm still left wandering how valid the conclusions Chris makes from these quotes actually are.
First of all these quotes are from different dialogues of Plato, so can they be really lifted from these
separate texts and placed together as such as if they are connected?
Can they be actually used as such, and can they be disconnected from the context they were taken from?
Do they actually state as how Jowett has translated them, or might different translations give a different
perspective?
For instance Thomas Taylor, translates the bit about Phaeton in the Timaeus as such:
And upon his inquiring about ancient
affairs of those priests who possessed a knowledge in such particulars
superior to others, he perceived, that neither himself, nor any one of the
Greeks, (as he himself declared), had any knowledge of very remote
antiquity. Hence, when he once desired to excite them to the relation of
ancient transactions, he for this purpose began to discourse about those
most ancient events which formerly happened among us. I mean the
traditions concerning the first Phoroneus and Niobe, and after the deluge,
of Deucalion and Pyrrha, (as described by the mythologists,) together with
their posterity; at the same time paying a proper attention to the different
ages in which these events are said to have subsisted. But upon this one of
those more ancient priests exclaimed, O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are
always children, nor is there any such thing as an aged Grecian among you!
But Solon, when he heard this - What (says he) is the motive of your
exclamation? To whom the priest: - Because all your souls are juvenile;
neither containing any ancient opinion derived from remote tradition, nor
any discipline hoary from its existence in former periods of time. But the
reason of this is the multitude and variety of destructions of the human
race, which formerly have been, and again will be: the greatest of these,
indeed, arising from fire and water; but the lesser from ten thousand other
contingencies. For the relation subsisting among you, that Phæton, the
offspring of the Sun, on a certain time attempting to drive the chariot of his
father, and not being able to keep the track observed by his parent, burnt up
the natures belonging to the earth, and perished himself, blasted by thunder
- is indeed considered as fabulous, yet is in reality true. For it expresses the
mutation of the bodies revolving in the heavens about the earth; and
indicates that, through long periods of time, a destruction of terrestrial
natures ensues from the devastations of fire. Hence, those who either dwell
on mountains, or in lofty and dry places, perish more abundantly than those
who dwell near rivers, or on the borders of the sea. To us indeed the Nile is
both salutary in other respects, and liberates us from the fear of such-like
depredations. But when the Gods, purifying the earth by waters, deluge its
surface, then the herdsmen and shepherds inhabiting the mountains are
preserved, while the inhabitants of your cities are hurried away to the sea
by the impetuous inundation of the rivers. On the contrary, in our region,
neither then, nor at any other time, did the waters descending from on high
pour with desolation on the plains; but they are naturally impelled upwards
from the bosom of the earth. And from these causes the most ancient
traditions are preserved in our country.
So as you can see, that small part about Phaeton is a lot clearer and sound. For who yokes horses in a chariot?
But also if one would have actually read the whole context it relates about conflagrations and inundations of
certain regions of the earth. And if one might have taken the effort to see how it might more reasonably explained historically (leaving out the physical and also the philosophical explanation) as it being a comet.
But if Chris could give me his reasoning concerning it being a debry-field that returns to the earth after a catastrophe I would be very interested, as I'm always willing to learn new vantage points. And as how Plato is describing this unwittingly, I do not quite see how this is.
And again the same with the Statesman-quote, also by Thomas Taylor:
GUEST. Again, therefore, we must proceed in another way from another
beginning.
SOC. JUN. In what way?
GUEST. By nearly inserting a jest. For it is requisite to employ a copious
part of a long fable, and to act in the same manner with what remains of
our discussion, as we did above, viz. always to take away a part from a part,
till we arrive at the summit of our inquiry. Is it not proper to act in this
manner?
SOC. JUN. Entirely so.
GUEST. Give me then, after the manner of boys, all your attention to the
fable: for you are not very much removed from puerile years.
SOC. JUN. Only relate it.
GUEST. There were then, and still will be, many memorials of ancient
affairs; and among others, there is one prodigious relation respecting the
contention of Atreus and Thyestes. For you have heard and remember what
is then said to have happened.
SOC. JUN. Perhaps you speak of the prodigy respecting the golden ram.
GUEST. By no means: but respecting the mutation of the rising and setting
of the sun, and the other stars. For whence they now rise they did then set:
and their rising was from a contrary place. Divinity, therefore, then giving
a testimony to Atreus, changed the heavens into the present figure.
SOC. JUN. This also is reported.
GUEST. We have likewise heard from many respecting the kingdom of
which Saturn was the founder.
SOC. JUN. We have from very many.
GUEST. And were not those ancient men born from the earth, and not
generated from each other?
SOC. JUN. This also is one of the things which are said to have happened
formerly.
GUEST. All these things, therefore, proceed from the same circumstance,
and ten thousand others besides these, and which are still more wonderful.
But, through length of time, some of them have become extinct, and others
are related in a dispersed manner, separate from each other. But that
circumstance which is the cause of this taking place has not been
mentioned by any one. It must, however, now be related: for the relation
will contribute to the demonstration of the nature of a king.
SOC. JUN. You speak most beautifully. Speak, therefore, and do not omit
any thing.
GUEST. Hear, then. Divinity himself sometimes conducts this universe in
its progression, and convolves it: but at another time he remits the reins of
his government, when the periods of the universe have received a
convenient measure of time. But the world is again spontaneously led
round to things contrary, since it is an animal, and is allotted wisdom from
him who cooperated with it from the first in harmonizing all its parts with
the whole. This progression, however, to things contrary is naturally
implanted in it through the following cause.
SOC. JUN. Through what cause?
GUEST. To subsist always according to the same, and in a similar manner,
and to be the same, alone belongs to the most divine of all things: but the
nature of body is not of this order. But that which we call heaven and the
world, receives many and blessed gifts from its producing cause. However,
as it participates of body, it cannot be entirely void of mutation:
nevertheless, as far as it is able, it is moved in the same, and according to
the same, with one lation. Hence it is allotted a circular motion, because
there is the smallest mutation of its motion. But nearly nothing is able to
revolve itself, except that which is the leader of all things that are moved.
And it is not lawful that this should at one time move in one way, and at
another time in a different way. From all this, therefore, it must be said,
that the world neither always revolves itself, nor that the whole of it is
always convolved by Divinity with twofold and contrary convolutions: nor,
again, that two certain Gods convolve it, whose decisions are contrary to
each other. But that must be asserted which we just now said, and which
alone remains, that at one time it is conducted by another divine cause,
receiving again an externally acquired life, and a renewed immortality from
the demiurgus; but that at another time, when he remits the reins of
government, it proceeds by itself, and, being thus left for a time, performs
many myriads of retrograde revolutions, because it is most great, and most
equally balanced, and accomplishes its progressions with the smallest foot.
My apologies to give these lenghty quotes but this is just to put side to side with the Jowett-quote Kuldebar gave.
The dialogue goes a bit on for a few pages in exploring the fable and these revolutions of Cronos and Zeus, or Saturn and Jupiter if you wish. I hope it is clear how different the translations are, while the text is the same.
Now I'm still very curious how it is that Chris is so sure that Plato is so clear with these lines in refering the origins of myth to a planetary-scale catastrophe? And how he sees that the context wherein this fable is given by Plato in this dialogue is suitable for such explanations?
Again I'm merely trying to learn here and I'm not building an argument against something. As I don't have a
youtube-account and not intending to get one, it seemed this place was the only venue to put it. And I also don't
know who Chris is or who he is on the forum (even if he is on the forum), but as it was on the thunderbolts-channel, again it seemed like the proper place to put my questions.
Sincerely,
Stefan
