Just wondering if some people could explain a couple things to me... the three waves AND the divided line... like what exactly both things are on both sides of the line...

Plato advocates three waves of socio-political change in the Republic:

* Rulers should be intelligent, with soul; no other criteria should be allowed to interfere (eg. sex, money, family, etc.).
* Rulers should live communally; they should hold no property and no family in private, though the larger population should have both families and property.
* Rulers, having to be intelligent, should be chosen on the basis of their expertise in philosophy, demonstrated through education; philosophers should rule, and rulers should be philosophers.
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdW...il_theme02.htm

A-----B----------c----------D--------------------E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE (highest) Philosophical knowledge (noesis) Forms, especially the Form of the Good
CD Mathematical knowledge (dianoia) Abstract mathematical objects, such as numbers and lines
BC Beliefs about physical things (pistis), including scientific knowledge Physical things
AB (lowest) Opinions, illusions (eikasia) "Shadows" and things which do not really exist



The Divided Line – The shorter segment (AC) is generally taken as representing the physical world and the longer segment (CE) as representing the intelligible world.

The line segments are in oder of importance
Ab is the smallest becuse opinons are just an illusion...based on personal experiance or perception
BC and CD are exactly the same length. This represents the link between the physical world and math.
DE is the largest segments which represents Philosophical knowledge, the only way to obtain "Forms of Good"

Probably a lot more I am leaving out but yeah I think you get the picture. Three waves are pretty self explanatory. Basically plato saying philosophers make the best rulers.

Hope this helps Laaate

The line is intended to describe measures of the epistemic significance of various things. At the very bottom you have stuff like illusions, dogma, gossip etc. Then physical things, like tables and chairs. Above that you get into abstract reality (dogma is abstract too, but not 'real') in math, and topping the charts is forms. Forms are I'm guessing the part you're having difficulty with, but also the most important as you won't really understand any of it without it.

Think of Plato's forms as an abstract template, which real physical objects may partake of to some extent. For example many things may partake of the form of beauty, but a great work of art will do so more than a crappy one. The crucial part is that Plato believed forms really existed, ie objectively and not just as a categorical tool. Those who have access to the forms are philosophers, hence...

Three three waves are related to the idea of a tripartite soul, consisting of intellect, spirit and will, with the former having better access to philosophy. Leaders should be chosen based on their intellect and their knowledge of philosophy (both of which confer access to the forms, which they will use to guide society), and that leaders should live without physical property, presumably so they can focus their energy on the abstract.

Has been a while so some of that might be wrong, but I think the gist is right.

I've never even heard of the three waves. [anything to do with 3 parts of the soul?]

If I gave my explanation of the divided line it would be considerably poorer than what you'd get just by looking at wiki. Why not do that and come back if you have a more specific question?

I'm sure someone else can help with the three waves.

actually supremely confused about almost everything... what book is this stuff in, what is it talking about in regards to what... and why do so many people have so many different ideas as to what plato is saying

also i feel really bad about the dude who took so long to draw a graph... but I really don't understand that graph, I understand the lines he's trying to talk about but it doesn't make much sense to me compared to the graph thing I have in my book

You really should read 'The Republic' if you have an exam on it, and even if you don't. It's about the best book you'll ever read.

As far as differing opinions they certainly exist, it's involved stuff, both in its own right an in terms of how it fits in with the rest of Plato/Socrates' philosophy. And don't forget it's all written in ancient Greek, which is a major complicating factor for stuff like this where disagreement on a translation of one term can change meaning entirely, and perfect translations may not exist for all terms.

But the basic ideas you're asking about here are not all that ambiguous, you should be able to get to grips with them. If you can be specific about what parts you do/don't get and ask some specific questions I'm sure there are plenty of people here who could help.

Yeah its a good book. If your lazy download the audio version from librivox.org.

Keep it in context though. He is not trying to lay out the plan of an ideal state today. This is for an ideal state in his time, when war with other states was constant, and in his place, etc.

maybe not really about the state at all.

Karl Popper provides a healthy analysis and critique of Plato's anti democratic arguments.

I am struck by how that line looks like the Catholic Church's hierarchy.

Ditto. NEVER heard of anything referred to as '3 waves'

Maybe you should GO TO CLASS and DO THE READINGS...

maybe?