Chapter 1 argued that the connection between the Atlantis story and Timaeus' cosmology lies in teleology. Nature in general and human nature in particular are geared towards the good. We acted against nature if we chose a life of injustice and could expect to suffer for it, whilst a life of justice would be rewarded with happiness in this life as in the afterlife. In chapter 2 I considered the Atlantis story and argued that it is a story about the actions of good men, of the sort envisaged by the Republic. We were warned not to take the story as a historical representation, but as a true story in the sense that it correctly represents how good people would prevail in war.

In this chapter I turn to the status of Timaeus' account. Timaeus famously describes the status of his account as an eikōs muthos or as an eikōs logos, that is, as a likely story or myth or as a likely account. This description occurs as the conclusion of the methodological passage at the beginning of Timaeus' speech. Timaeus will later litter his account with reminders that his account is likely. There is therefore no doubt that he means us to pay close attention to this passage. This chapter focuses on the two major questions we face when assessing the status of Timaeus' account. What does he mean by calling his account ‘likely’ and why does he call it alternately a likely muthos and a likely logos?