I like the fact that the presenter stresses a couple of points which are often neglected in modern treatments of Atlantis:
- The story of Altantis is a myth created by Plato and recognized as such during Antiquity; the point of this myth was not to preserve a legacy of the remote past, but to make a philosophical and political point. So, while the search for Atlantis may have spurred some interesting archaeological work, it is largely a futile effort.
- The Atlantis described by Plato was not a utopia, or antediluvian paradise on earth, or the source of human high culture, but rather the antagonist (=the bad guys) in a morality tale. This tale had the aim of presenting the Kallipolis of the Republic as having actually existed in the remote past and as having proven the value of its institutions in the conflict with the Atlantean foe.
That, however, presupposes that Plato was a supporter of democracy, and, in particular, its Athenian incarnation. Nothing could be further from the truth: Plato's entire oeuvre is clearly anti-democratic in character; in the Republic, democracy is the second-to-worst political system, one step above tyranny, the worst.
He certainly did not view the conflict between Greece and Persia in political terms: a contrast between freedom and despotism certainly permeated many ancient accounts, but not necessarily the Platonic (*). And, we should not confuse political freedom with democracy: even the writers -such as Herodotus- who presented the Persian Wars along political terms were happy enough to use the oligarchical Spartans as paragons of freedom and its defense, despite their lack of democracy.
(*) If anything, Plato seems to have subscribed to the view that war is "natural" between different descent groups, and is sometimes engendered by economic competition. He would probably have been baffled by the idea that two states, inhabited by people of the same genetic stock, and having no economic quarrels would fight each other because of their differences in constitution.