Following the publication of an English translation of Roland Horn’s review of Thorwald C. Franke’s book about Platonic Myths, Thorwald wrote to me as follows;<\/p>\n
“Hello Tony, I am happy to accede to his request and have now published the amended text, with highlights, below.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n =======================================================<\/p>\n The author approaches the not quite simple topic by dealing with the vague concept of the To this end, he first deals with the basic concepts of mythos<\/span> and logos. These are, mind you, ancient Franke notes that mythos in Plato\u2019 The author deals intensively with the term eikos mythos.<\/span> This term refers to a \u201cprobable myth\u201d and According to Franke, philosophers such as Timaeus and Critias, who spoke about Atlantis in the Franke continues to deal with typical misconceptions about mythos<\/span> and logos. Thus, he addresses The author goes on to discuss historical wrong courses in detail and another approach of Franke is Franke describes Plato as a \u201ctruthful<\/span> weaver of knowledge\u201d who wants to free the mythoi from its At the end of the main part, Franke deals with the topic of Atlantis and clarifies that the Atlantis The main part of the book ends on p. 114. This is followed by numerous long appendices with With regard to the Nomoi Dialogue, Franke refers to the explicit statement in the text that Egypt is In another appendix, Franke compiles the group of Platonic myths and in yet another, he discusses I consider the book to be absolutely recommendable, as it clears up numerous misunderstandings. It Following the publication of an English translation of Roland Horn’s review of Thorwald C. Franke’s book about Platonic Myths, Thorwald wrote to me as follows; “Hello Tony,thank you for the translation of Roland’s review. But there is something important lost in translation: You will find in Roland Horn’s text many occurrences of “mythos” and “logos” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5322],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archive"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54332"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54332\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54333,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54332\/revisions\/54333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
thank you for the translation of Roland’s review. But there is something important lost in translation: You will find in Roland Horn’s text many occurrences of “mythos” and “logos” with small first letter and in Italics: This represents the original Greek word, in contrast to the modern word “myth” (German as well as English) which is derived from the Greek “mythos” but has a different meaning today than it had in Plato’s time.
Therefore, you should write “mythos” everywhere where Roland Horn did it. I prepared a corrected translation for you in the attachment, doc and pdf. The red words are the corrections.
The word “myth” is used only in the modern concept of a “Platonic Myth”, and in the short names of these “Platonic Myths”, such as Phaeton myth, Atlantis myth, etc. The Atlantis myth is not a myth, it is a Platonic Myth, and “Atlantis myth” is just an abbreviated form of saying: “Platonic Myth of Atlantis”, or even better: “Platonic Myth of primaeval Athens and Atlantis”.
In the eyes of Plato, the concept of a Platonic Myth did not exist. He just wrote “stories” of various qualities: mythos, logos, and analogy (e.g. the Cave). Only much later, they were all lumped together as Platonic Myths.
<\/span>Yes, it is confusing …. the idea of Atlantis being “just a myth” lives for a good part from this confusion.
With best regards
Thorwald”<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n
\n\u201cPlatonic myth\u201d and presenting an empirical finding. Among other things, the narrative perspective
\nand the level of meaning are important to him. Franke provides an overview of the range of
\nvariations in Platonic myths, notes that some aspects seem to contradict each other, and wonders
\nhow all these explanations in Plato\u2019s dialogues could be understood under a term of Platonic myth.
\nThere is a lack of a common thread that allows all these different explanations to be brought into a
\nlogical order and to form a concept of Platonic myth that is not arbitrary but understandable and
\ncomprehensible.<\/p>\n
\nGreek terms that do not have too much to do with the definition of the word \u201cmyth\u201d in the German
\n(or English)<\/span> language. A complete dissolution of familiar mythical<\/del> concepts of myth<\/span> is necessary in
\norder to understand Plato.<\/p>\ns core<\/del> essentially<\/span> means an unsupported statement \u2013 a statement
\nwithout evidence, without witnesses, without argumentation and without certification; a statement
\nthat stands as a mere assertion by its spokesman, who does not have sufficient trustworthiness
\namong his listeners that could be regarded as support for the statement. Therefore, this statement
\ncould be wrong \u2013 but it does not have to be. It may as well be true. It could also be simply invented.
\n\u201cA true mythos<\/span> would cease to be a mythos<\/span> the moment it became known to be true. Also<\/del> <\/span>The same <\/em>
\nfor a false mythos<\/span>. The essence of the mythos<\/span> is the ambiguity about whether it is true or false.\u201d(p. <\/em>
\n36)<\/em><\/p>\n
\nFranke emphasizes explicitly that this eikos mythos<\/span> is explicitly used in the scientific presentation in
\nthe Timaeus myth. One must assign a much more sober meaning to the word mythos<\/span> than the
\nmodern word myth has. The logos differs from the mythos<\/span> in that it has an underpinning.<\/p>\n
\nrespective dialogues, are able to \u201ctell probable mythoi [plural of mythos<\/span>, note RMH] because of
\ntheir quality as philosophers and because of their expertise, which approach the actual truth, as in
\nthe Timaeus myth.\u201d(p. 52)<\/p>\n
\nthe claim of many Plato researchers that in Plato logos and mythos<\/span> merge into each other or
\ndisappear and merge. It is simply wrong. In Plato\u2019s case, the two terms are clearly separated and
\ndistinct separated<\/del><\/span>, as Franke notes. Moreover, parables are no mythoiical.<\/del><\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe term \u201cPlatonic myth\u201d itself. In painstaking detail work, Franke finally finds his common thread.
\nHe states: \u201cThe central aspect of all Platonic myths is the question of trust in their truth, of the
\nconfidence of probability in the respective presentation. This is the common thread that connects all
\nPlatonic myths and with which one can unite all Platonic myths in a common order scheme.\u201d (p. 81)<\/p>\n
\nuntruth and no longer want to see untruth spread. In addition, he credibly explains that a poet does
\nnot necessarily have to be an inventor, as is often claimed. On the contrary, within the framework of
\n\u201cPlato\u2019s Truth Program,\u201d \u201cpoets, as those who \u2018make\u2019 mythos<\/span>, are obliged to approach the truth as
\nclosely as possible in their poetry.\u201dFurthermore, Franke recognizes in the writings of Plato \u2013 with
\nclear references \u2013 that untrue mythoi are \u201cforbidden\u201d. In summary, Franke rightly states that Plato as
\na philosopher is to be taken completely seriously.<\/p>\n
\nstory is one of the Platonic myths and is probably the most complex Platonic myth of all. Franke
\nwas able to lay a foundation for the fact that \u201ca theory of Atlantis can be considered well-founded if
\nit can build on the secure foundation of a thoughtful conception of the phenomenon of Platonic
\nmyth.\u201d<\/p>\n
\ntopics such as \u201cConstellation and Analysis of Platonic Myths\u201d. In addition to all other Platonic
\nmyths, Franke discusses here in detail the Theut myth, which is based on an Egyptian folk tale
\naccording to which, after the god Theut in Egypt invented the script. This topic is dealt with by Plato
\nin the Phaedrus Dialogue. For Plato, this is at least a real tradition from Egypt.
\nAlso interesting are Franke\u2019s explanations of the Phaeton myth, which is part of the Atlantis myth.
\nFranke notes that Plato exceptionally demythologizes the Phaeton myth and emphasizes that this
\nmythos does not imply a fall of a celestial body such as a comet to Earth, especially since Phaeton
\nand the chariot of the sun god \u201cclearly stands for the sun itself and not for celestial bodies, as they
\nactually, fall to earth again and again.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nten thousand years old and that this statement is not meant in a figurative sense. This 10,000 years is
\nto be regarded as a lower limit so that this figure \u201cfits perfectly with the 11,340 and more years of
\nHerodotus for the age of Egypt\u201d. However, Franke brushes aside this interesting statement with the
\nwords \u201cIn truth, of course, Egypt was not founded until around 3000 BC, as we know today\u201d and
\nassumes a \u201ctypical misperception from the Egyptian late period\u201d. I believe that there is more room
\nfor manoeuvre on this issue.<\/p>\n
\nin detail different opinions on the subject. Particularly interesting are his views on the
\nWikipedia page on the keyword \u201cPlatonic myth\u201d. The book is completed by two reviews that have it
\nall!<\/p>\n
\nis an exemplary and absolutely thorough research work, as you rarely find it!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"