With 'Atlantika', graduate engineer (Diplom-Ingenieur) Andreas Möhn, alias Codex Regius, has written a work that is exemplary for the way 'technical intelligence' deals with the subject of Atlantis. Thankfully, the author himself writes that Plato should be read in this book 'with the eyes of a technician and scientist' (p. 9, "mit den Augen des Technikers und Naturwissenschaftlers"). That's exactly it!
'Technical intelligence' is a term from Soviet terminology, which we want to understand here as follows: It refers to thoroughly intelligent and educated people who have studied maths, science or technology. For example, engineers, physicists, mathematicians, biologists, geologists. But they also include doctors, insofar as they are nothing more than human biologists and medical technicians. These people have a very self-confident, irreverent, 'material' and reasonable approach to everything. They want 'hard' facts and evidence on everything.
The 'technical intelligence' has a sceptical attitude towards authority and tradition. They somehow see themselves as left-wing and progressive. They have an involuntary aversion to anything conservative. Often an opinion is only held because it is against authority and tradition. Only 'the science' is often recognised as an unquestionable authority. Other authorities are painted in the darkest colours: priests deceive people. Politicians anyway. Poets only invent and lie. And entrepreneurs are always greedy. The fact that there are also theologians who believe in their own ideas, or politicians who actually care about their country, or entrepreneurs with a social streak – these are not included in such a world view. At the same time, the 'technical intelligence' looks at scientists as if they were saints proclaiming the word of God.
It may well be that members of the 'technical intelligence' have learnt Latin or Greek. But they have a very 'material' relationship to reality. They are not comfortable with 'intellectual' things. The 'technical intelligence' lacks education in this area. They have no idea about philosophy and religion and therefore have a very superficial understanding of science and the theory of science. They know nothing about historical science and historical criticism. They do not understand how something can be science if it cannot be worked with 'hard' facts and evidence. They also have no understanding of the 'place in life' ('Sitz im Leben') of old texts and interpret them as if they were contemporary texts. They also have no idea about literature and regularly misinterpret literary texts. Sometimes this turns into the opposite, and the technical intelligentsia, in its scepticism, wants to see irony everywhere where there is none. The 'technical intelligence'adopts a flippant and mocking attitude towards all questions relating to the humanities. The humanities are not taken seriously because they are not concerned with 'hard' facts and evidence.
It is no coincidence that many Islamists who read the Quran as if it were a literal contemporary text belong to the technical intelligentsia. The same applies to those critics of Islam whose criticism of Islam is based on a literal reading of the Quran, regardless of the historical context and the historical development of the Islamic religion. Here, two antipodes confirm each other in their common errors.
The bibliography of this book already reveals much about the shortcomings of the present publication: For example, the seminal work by Edwin S. Ramage: 'Atlantis – Fact or Ficton?', in which important literary aspects are discussed, is missing. In particular, it would have included the groundbreaking essay 'The Literary Perspective – The Sources and Literary Form of Plato's Atlantis Narrative' by John V. Luce, which is indispensable for clarifying the question of Atlantis. But a literary perspective does not fit with 'technical intelligence'. Instead, the pseudo-scientific book by the engineer Otto Muck is included in the bibliography.
It is also noticeable that the bibliography lists practically no scientific invention hypothesis on Atlantis. Neither by Pierre Vidal-Naquet nor by Heinz-Günther Nesselrath nor by Reinhold Bichler. Only the Critias commentary by Nesselrath is included, which is of course implicitly sceptical, but this is not Nesselrath's invention hypothesis. How is it possible that a book as sceptical and science-oriented as this one does not list an invention hypothesis by a scientific author? The reason is simple: the 'technical intelligence'is so sure of itself in its scepticism that it does not consider it necessary to consult the arguments of a scientific invention hypothesis. What's more, the arguments of a scientific invention hypothesis would probably be far too 'literary' for the 'technical intelligence'to understand and take seriously.
And so Plato's dialogues are read as if they were contemporary texts, and an attempt is made to interpret them without taking the historical context into account. This is the case, for example, with the 9,000 years of Atlantis (pp. 89-102). Firstly, the hypothesis is tested completely rationally as to whether it is possible that Atlantis existed 9,000 years before Solon. It is of course not possible, for various reasons. Such a plausibility consideration is certainly valuable, but actually superfluous. Because it is clear to a real historian anyway. – But the only alternative that is examined is the deletion of a zero, i.e. the hypothesis of an error in the numerical representation. Certainly not the most intelligent hypothesis.
The true meaning of the 9,000 years is of course to be found in the historical context, namely in the collective error of the ancient Greeks about the age of Egypt. If the ancient Greeks placed the legendary first Pharaoh Menes at a time more than 11,000 years before their time, but in reality he is to be placed at 3,000 BC, then the conclusion is compelling that the number of 9,000 years naturally points to a time after 3,000 BC. – The present book does indeed mention that, according to Herodotus, Egypt was founded 11,000+ years ago (p. 93). But although the facts are right in front of the eyes of the technical intelligentsia, they do not see them: the obvious conclusion is not drawn.
A lot of space in this book is taken by mathematical and scientific considerations: Geography, geology, oceanography, volcanology, climate science, astronomy, biology, mathematics, geometry, physics, metallurgy.
But a lot of space in this book is also taken by poking around in all kinds of myths and vague traditions. But the understanding of myths and traditions is completely inadequate. It is flippantly argued that each generation has simply pieced together information from its predecessors. This is where the exaggerated scepticism towards authorities comes to the fore: 'Storytellers' are fundamentally not to be taken seriously by the technical intelligentsia. Not a second thought is wasted on what motivations and ideas of truth the respective authors may have had. Right down to the faux pas of treating the Atlantis story as a myth – although the Atlantis story is certainly not one thing: a myth.
The mindset of the 'technical intelligence' unfolds in full bloom in Internet discussions. Arguments are pushed back and forth, and 'hard' facts and evidence are always in demand. There, authorities and the humanities are flippantly ignored. You feel left-wing, progressive, enlightened – and yet you are completely on the wrong track. It is no coincidence that this book is also a dialogue. It was inspired by Internet discussions that actually took place.
Unfortunately, the dialogue form leads to great confusion. The book is not organised thematically in this way, but the topics are taken up along a discussion of Plato's two Atlantis dialogues. This is not very systematic and the chapter headings reflect the content of the dialogues more than the theses discussed. As in an internet forum, the book does not proceed according to content and topics, but jumps around associatively. In this way, however, significant potential insights have been wasted that can only arise from a systematic synopsis.
References have been largely omitted. Only rarely is the name of an author interspersed. These authors are indeed listed in the bibliography, but the names are always given without page references.
It is claimed that the Atlantis story inspired numerous European legends and Arab fairy tales (p. 8). However, nothing is known of such legends and fairy tales. They do not exist. – In the late Middle Ages Atlantis would have been marked on maps as an existing island (p. 8). No, Atlantis was mentioned again and again in the Middle Ages, even as a real place, as I was able to show in 2016 with my book 'Kritische Geschichte ...', but always only as a sunken island. – It goes on to say that the Spaniards hoped to come across Atlantis on their way to America (p. 8). This is also wrong, Atlantis was considered a sunken island at the time.
Aristotle is said to have spoken out against the existence of Atlantis in a passage handed down by Strabo (p. 17). But this is wrong. This widespread, collective misconception was severely shaken in 2010 by my book about Aristotle and Atlantis. Since then, more and more authors have been silently dropping this claim. A few have openly admitted that the claim has been shaken and have begun to track down another author for the quote in question. Still others try to save the thesis of Aristotle's authorship with highly cumbersome and inconclusive arguments. The thesis of Aristotle's authorship of the quote in question was demonstrably introduced into the world at the beginning of the 19th century as the result of an error.
Plato is assumed to have a pessimistic view of history of the continuing decline of culture (p. 12 f.). But this is wrong. Plato had a cyclical view of history, in which things sometimes went uphill and sometimes downhill. Plato saw his own time at the end of a long upswing, which only needed to be crowned by the realisation of the ideal state. It is therefore wrong for Plato to say that everything would have been better in the past. This shows the flippant scepticism of the 'technical intelligence'and their left-wing political orientation, because they obviously want to see in Plato an arch-conservative, as they see as a frightening and distorted image in their own time. Perhaps a reaction to the conservative politician Franz-Joseph Strauß, who occasionally displayed his classical education?
It is equally wrong to see Critias the tyrant in the dialogue participant Critias without further ado (p. 25). Although this is very popular with supporters of the invention thesis in order to be able to place the depiction of Atlantis by Critias in the twilight of a tyrant, there is a better alternative with an older Critias, which also solves chronological difficulties. Many scholars therefore tend to see the older Critias in the dialogue participant Critias. But this is not the case in this book.
The presentation of the Atlantis story as a moral myth, in which 'the bad guys' (the Atlanteans) perish at the end, ignores the fact that 'the good guys' (i.e. the primeval Athenians) also perish at the end, which is why it cannot be a moral myth (p. 7). To know this, one could have consulted Wilhelm Brandenstein's book, for example, which is also not listed in the bibliography.
And it is also incorrect that the search for Atlantis only began with Ignatius Donnelly. Donnelly popularised the subject. But Atlantis theories already existed before Donnelly. Just think of Olof Rudbeck or Carlos de Sigüenza. The real reason why the number of hypotheses began to explode at the time of Donnelly is another: At that time – not before! – the subject of Atlantis was generally assigned to the field of pseudoscience by established science. It was this undifferentiated neglect of the topic that made the proliferation of pseudoscience possible. This thesis was first published in 2016 in my book 'Kritische Geschichte der Meinungen und Hypothesen zu Platons Atlantis', i.e. only after the publication of this book.
So much for a brief outline of typical errors that were noticed in the first 25 pages alone.
This is an excellent book to see how the question of Atlantis is typically thought about in a very specific milieu, namely the milieu of the technical intelligentsia. The reader is constantly misled because the author is trapped in the horizon of his understanding.
But you can also read this book as a self-test. A large number of questions about Atlantis are addressed in 440 pages: Anyone who wants to take a serious look at Atlantis must find answers to all these questions. Better answers.
Finally, we must take up the cudgels in favour of 'technical intelligence': Because without it, it wouldn't work either. After all, mere 'literary intelligence' is just as bad. This is in constant danger of degenerating into mere 'gossip science'.
Only the combination of both will bring success: the literary intelligence must open itself up to the down-to-earth nature of technical intelligence, and technical intelligence must open itself up to 'literary' thinking. Then it can be something. In this sense, too, this book could be a salutary read for some.
Disclosure: The author of this review has a degree in computer science (Diplom-Informatiker), so he is clearly a member of the 'technical intelligence'. However, thanks to a biologist father and a bookseller mother, the author has always had access to both worlds.
Overview: Reasonable introductory literature about Plato's Atlantis
Möhn (2014): Codex Regius (Pseudonym), Atlantika – Was Platon wirklich sagte – Ein Dialog, zweite überarbeitete Neuauflage, Codex Regius Books, Wiesbaden / Lubljana 2014. First edition: Andreas Möhn, Atlantika – Was Platon wirklich sagte – Der Atlantismythos neu untersucht, editor unknown, 2009.
Brandenstein (1951): Wilhelm Brandenstein, Atlantis – Größe und Untergang eines geheimnisvollen Inselreiches, issue 3 of the series: Arbeiten aus dem Institut für allgemeine und vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft Graz, edited by Wilhelm Brandenstein, published by Gerold & Co., Vienna 1951.
Franke (2012): Thorwald C. Franke, Aristotle and Atlantis – What did the philosopher really think about Plato's island empire?, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2016. German first edition was 2010.
Franke (2016/2021): Thorwald C. Franke, Kritische Geschichte der Meinungen und Hypothesen zu Platons Atlantis – von der Antike über das Mittelalter bis zur Moderne, 2. edition, 2 volumes, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2021. First edition was 2016.