
Originally Posted by
kojax
I think what makes people wonder is the discovery that Troy was a real city. Homer was always believed to have been writing some fanciful tale about a fictional city, and then..... we found Troy.
Actually Calvert found "Troy" and Schliemann excavated it. But tell me, have you ever seen an artifact that identifies the tell as "Troy?" Its in the right spot (generally) and of the right period, but did anyone ever really refer to it as "Troy?" I'll be honest, my knowledge of the tell generally accepted to be the site of Troy is minimal, though I'm familiar with it and Schliemann (and Frank Calvert). Personally, I like to think its Troy.
Of course, Plato isn't Homer.
And this isn't to be taken lightly. Homer was a story teller and there is literary evidence that the Iliad and the Odyssey were oral traditions that were finally written down by Homer. Regardless, Homer was a story teller with an intention to entertain. Plato, on the other hand, was a philosopher and his intent was to educate and inspire critical thought. His "stories" were widely accepted as metaphorical and it was a common philosophical device to create a dialog between two people who may have been real people but were usually philosophical or public figures from the past. Through these dialogs, Plato sought to engage critical thought and guide the reader/listener through a series of premises, arguments and exposed fallacies to a desire conclusion.
This is what the dialogs of Plato which mention Atlantis do. Atlantis is Athens.
Do writers typically prefer to invent new religious legends, or invoke old ones their audience is likely already familiar with?
Plato was invoking the gods that his audience was familiar with. If the nature of religious thought were the goal of the dialog, then he would likely have made up a god along with a society (much like modern philosphers have done with the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but in this case he wanted to criticize Athens without incurring the wrath of Athenian officials.