Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- From: "Lars Wilson" <siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:41:53 -0600
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:479c4295$0$24111$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lars Wilson wrote:
This is not treated as a known "myth" but an actual event. SeveralThat's a joke. The fact that there is a legend of Plato being an adult
at the time the Peloponnesian War began is proof enough.
As was pointed out to you, you are reporting a known myth and there is no
evidence to support. It is in fact a legend. There was no such thing. It
was invented later. You have to produce evidence that it was
contemporaneous with Plato.
historians
mention it and the person who actually solved the problem, Archytas, was
criticized by Plato as to his methodology. So it is not known if this is
based on a myth or a real event.
However, the eclipse mentioned to have occurred in the first year of the war
is the real problem. It doesn't work in 431 BCE. The total eclipse track
has to occur close enough to Athens so that the stars come out even though
a crescent remains visible. The 431 BCE eclipse occurs over Asia Minor.
FR Stephenson has dismissed this eclipse as not possible in 431 BCE.
However, using the above reference whether myth or not, requires redating
the PPW to a position where Plato would be an adult. Thus we searched
for an eclipse after 408 BCE and found one in 402 BCE. The 431 BCE
eclipse is an "annular" eclipse, the 402 BCE eclipse is TOTAL. See
comparison below:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/403darkcomp.JPG
When the PPW is redated to 403 BCE then Plato is 25 years of age
at the time this happens. That allows this "legend" to be possible.
Again, as noted, those saying it is a legend don't say anything about
it has to be a legend because Plato wasn't born yet. So the presumption
that it may be based on fact or could be legend is in the context that
Plato must have been an adult when the war began. Regardless,
the PPW would be redated to 403 BCE by the eclipse anyway. This is
just the tip of the historical iceberg though. Lots of discrepancies like
this exist.
But you are intelligent, so ASSESS this: This is a quote from Aristotle:
Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics book 7, section 1235a
Others hold that only what is useful is a friend, the proof being that all
men actually do pursue the useful, and discard what is useless even in their
own persons (as the old Socrates used to say, instancing spittle, hair and
nails), and that we throw away even parts of the body that are of no use,
and finally the body itself, when it dies, as a corpse is useless-but people
that have a use for it keep it, as in Egypt. (2.74)
Question is why would Aristotle, who allegedly was born 15 years after
the death of Socrates, refer to him as "old"? Further he is quoting him.
It is
pertinent because when you redate the PPW down to 403, then Socrates is born
in 435 BCE and dies in 366 BCE. That means instead of dying 15 years before
Aristotle is born (399, 384 BCE), it means Socrates died when Aristotle was
18
years of age and thus presumably knew him. If so, he would indeed have
known
him as an old man.
So sure, you could say he was quoting from some source, but usually a
reference
to a person's age when saying something is not included. If he witnessed
in-person
Socrates saying this, then the reference makes sense, thus arguing that he
knew him.
Here's another for you:
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (ed. H. Rackham) bekker page 1145b, bekker
line 20
In fact Socrates used to combat the view altogether, implying that there is
no such thing as Unrestraint, since no one, he held, acts contrary to what
is best, believing what he does to be bad, but only through ignorance.
(2.06)
If Socrates was dead, Aristotle had the option of speaking in the present
tense, i.e. "In fact, Socrates combats the view altogether."
But if this was a personally observed reference from his personal
relationship with Socrates, then the above expression of
what he "used to" do reflects the context of Socrates having recently died
and been known to Aristotle. That is, he is speaking
from personal experience.
And why bring this up? Because Socrates' boy-lover was Phaedo, who was his
charge from
about 10 years of age until 18, when he became a student of Plato.
Aristotle, likewise as orphan
from about 10 also becomes a student of Plato at about age 18. Aristotle
was 18 when Socrates
died. This suggests Phaedo was an invention, a "myth" substituting for
Aristotle himself, who was
actually the boy-lover of Socrates. But when Xenophon revised the history,
Socrates dies 15 years
before Aristotle so, what to do?
Aristotle quotes or references Socrates some 80 times in his works,
oftentimes in the context of
being an authority. That doesn't help those who claim Socrates and
Aristotle were not lovers or
didn't know each other.
Not directly related to "archaeology" but this is why archaeologsits need to
consult historians if
they are going to use historical timelines in place. They need to know ALL
the timelines for comparison
and not be biased. If they are, then they are subject to the criticism for
that timeline.
Lars
.
- References:
- Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- From: Lars Wilson
- Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- From: Matt Giwer
- Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- From: Lars Wilson
- Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- From: Lars Wilson
- Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- Prev by Date: Did Akhenaten give two gold statues to existing Jews?
- Next by Date: Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- Previous by thread: Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- Next by thread: Re: Xenophon's 56-year Greek revision still tripping up archaeologists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|