Augustine’s Concept of the City of God

St. Augustine (354 A.D). He is a son of a pagan mother and Christian father, is known as the greatest of the father of the Latin Church. He is born in North Africa Under Roman emperor. He lived in one of the most critical periods, when of world history a period when civilization and catholic alike appeared to be doomed.

The City of God

The city of god is a table of two cities- Spiritual city and temporal city. Here, the spiritual city, Augustine called “Civita Dei” means “heavily city”, founded by pious able came to have its origin with the creation of Angels. He defined the temporal city as, “Civitas Ferrena” which means earthly. City found by the impious coin came into being with the fall of satan.

“Heavenly city” lives after the spirit and according to God. On the other hand “Earthly city” likes after the flesh and according to man. In this regard Augustine said that- “Two cities have been formed by two loves. “The earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God. The heavenly by the love of God, even to the Contempt of self. The former in a word, glories in itself and the latter in the lord”.

Features of City of God

St. Augustine tried to interpret mundane affairs including the sack of Rome, as a divine dispensation, calculated to pave the way for the establishment of a real “City of God”. It has some salient features that may be discussed under-----

1. Augustine extolled the virtues of city of God by comparing it with the earthly city or worldly city sate.
2. Augustine builds up his “Civita Dei” by mixing together the conception of state of Plato and Cicero and presenting in a setting of Christian theology.
3. The city of God is universal in time and space. 
4. It was not a kingdom in heaven but a divine kingdom of earth, based on Christian virtues. 
5. The heavenly city or city of God is found on the love of God, whereby the earthly city found on the self- love.
6. The city of God was for the promoting of God. The earthly city pushed evil.
7. The city of God aimed at Justice earthly city aimed at power.
8. The church in way, the concrete embodiment of  “The city of God” because it was in the church alone that virtues and goodness. The attribution of “City of God Prevailed.”
9. The state was the weapon of the Church for the promoting of good and therefore the two were independent.
10. Augustine’s conception of a true “City of God” was a Christianized church state form which non-believers were excluded ad in which supreme power lay with the leaders of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
11. Members of the city of God though coming from all parts of the world, form a society because of their common love and worship of God. They enjoy community with God and with one another in God.
12. The city of God of Augustine is closely connected with and identical to the Roman Catholic Church but not a conterminous with it.

Two Virtues of City of God:---

The city of God realizes two important virtues. One is justice and other is peace. Justice to St. Augustine is Conformity to order and respect for duties arising from this order.
 

Every society is based on a certain order and various units of the society are bound together is a certain order. A family is a part of society and an individual is just if he performs his duties to the family and conform it, its order. But family is the part of state and its order is the part of the order of the state. The state to Augustine is not final society. There is the Universal society with its universal order and justice.
 

To Augustine peace means a positive relationship in concord. Augustine promotes the idea of universal peace based on a universal order and the universal love of one another in God.
So this is the main features of Augustine’s city of God. Despite having some serious defect in the design and execution of this term, it is a great creation by St. Augustine for the latter human society.

Slavery by Aristotle

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher. He was born in Stagirus in 384 BCE. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child and he lived under a guardian's care. At the age of eighteen, he joined Plato’s Academy in Athens and remained until the age of thirty-seven, around 347 BCE.  He was a student of Plato who in turn studied under Socrates. He was the teacher of Alexander. He was more empirically-minded than Plato or Socrates and is famous for rejecting Plato’s theory of forms. In his lifetime, Aristotle wrote as many as 400 books. His famous book was Politics. He also told about the inductive and deductive method (All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal). He thus set up his own school at a place called the Lyceum. He was died in 322 BC (aged 62) in Euboea.

Slavery by Aristotle

Aristotle Supported the Slavery

Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or conventional. He asserts that the former is the case. So, Aristotle's theory of slavery holds that some people are naturally slaves and others are naturally masters. Thus he says:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave and for whom such a condition is expedient and right or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

Slavery: Idealization of the Principle of Natural Inequality of Mankind 

The study of slavery constitutes a very pertinent part of Aristotle’s approach to the state. It has been well observed: “There is no conception which is more fundamental to the Aristotelian theory of society than the notion of the natural inequality of human nature. Upon this turns out, not only his theory of slavery but also his theory of government. To Aristotle the institution of slavery is a necessary condition of a civilized life and of a civilized social order, and it is natural, because there are some men so inferior to their fellows as to be naturally servile. And, again, to Aristotle, the government of civilized society is always the expression of superiority of some men over others. The most ideal government is that of the best man over his inferiors, next to that is the government of the aristocracy; but even his ideal commonwealth is the rule of a small body of citizens, approximating equal in capacity and education, over a great unenfranchised multitude of inferiors, mechanical persons and slaves”.
 

The analysis of Book I of Politics opens with the origin of state. As the state is made up families, Aristotle, first of all, deals with the management of the household whose parts persons are composing it, including freemen and slaves and the instruments. Thus, he looks into the relationship between husband and wife, master and slave, father and child, his particular attention devoted to the issue of relationship between the master and the slave and the place of the latter in an ideal household ultimately results in his justification of the institution of slavery. The principal contribution of the author of the Politics, in this way, finds place in his advocacy of the principle of natural inequality of mankind sanctioning the rule of the few superiors over the many inferiors as both expedient and necessary. For this sake, Aristotle puts these arguments:

1. It is impossible to lead a better life, even life as such, without a proper household consisting of articles and instruments of two types- living and dead. If the utensils and furniture constitute the inanimate part, the slave is the animate one. Thus, according to Aristotle, slave is the living tool of the household. As he says: “Now instruments are of various sorts; some are living, others lifeless; in the rudder, the pilot of a ship have a lifeless, in the lookout man, a living instrument; for in the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession in an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession and property a number of such instruments; and the servant himself is an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments.”
2. The instruments of the household are meant for the discharge of certain specific functions. When the spindle, for example, is used, it makes something that is different from it in working. However, being an instrument of the household, of course, the slave is a tool of a different kind: he is an instrument of used-work. The slave “is an instrument not of production but of action not for making some particular article but to aid in the general conduct of life.” As production and action “are different in kind, and both require instruments, the instruments which they employ must likewise differ in kind. But life is action and not production, and therefore the slave is the minister of action (for the ministers to his master’s life).”
3. The slave is a necessary living instrument of the household; it is proper as well as essential for him to act like a tool as per the will of the master. “The master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence, we see what is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another and yet a man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to belong to another who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor.” 
4. Aristotle employs a psychological argument as well. Life is a possible only in the union of the body and the soul whereas the existence is determined by the union of the two the soul is the master and body its slave living under the control and direction of the former. Similar relationship exists between the master and the slave whose union determines the existence of the household. “And, therefore, we must study the man who is in the most perfect state both of body and soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the two; although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the two; although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition. First, then we may observe in living creatures both a despotically and a constitutional rule, whereas the intellect rules the appetites with a constitutional and royal rule. And it is clear that the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate is natural and expedient; whereas the quality of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful.”
5. The principle of natural inequality of mankind informs that when nature has made some richer than others in matters of reason, knowledge and virtue, it has at the same time or denied that inferiors live under the subjection of the superiors. It is useful for both the master and the slave.  “The same holds goods of animals as well as men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle on necessity extends to all mankind.”
6. Aristotle’s defenses of slavery treats slave as a living instrument of the household working under the control of the master. The relationship between the master and the slave, is therefore, unequal in view of the fact that of all the household relationships, only this fails to rise to the level of koinonia as it is not at all a relationship of man with man; the slave is an instrument of the master rather than a man with his individuality. Thus, Aristotle puts his classic statement: “There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary but expedient; from the hour of their birth some are marked out for subjection, others for rule?”

Apart from justifying the institution of slavery in the name of natural inequality of mankind, Aristotle sanctions certain conditions that should be fulfilled.
 

First, he does not recognize slavery by force. It can never be a just form of slavery in cases where strong and powerful persons enslave the weak or less powerful. In this way, the enslavement of the defeated people by the conquerors is unjustified as the factor of physical strength is no proof of higher reason, virtue or excellence of a man.
 

Second, it is equally undesirable that a Greek should enslave another Greek. IT testifies to the prevalent notion of the Greeks that their Hellenic race was civilized, while others were barbarians.
 

 Third, the master should never abuse his authority and if ever the slave covers up his deficiency and exhibits a equality of virtue or excellence with his master, he should be emancipated on payment. Aristotle has given sanctions due punishment to a master persecuting his slaves. The master should behave like a ‘friend’ of the slave; he should not merely command but ‘reason’ with him and give him the hope of emancipation.
 

Last, Aristotle rejects the case of slavery by inheritance.

Criticism

1. It is clear that nothing but a blind faith in the superiority of the Hellenic race sustains the line of defense taken by Aristotle. His assertion that a Greek should not enslave another Greek is altogether implausible. None would agree with the view of Aristotle that all Greeks were civilized and others barbarians. The blind nationalism of arch-defendant of the imperfect institution of slavery is evident from this own statement: “Wherefore, Hellenes do not like to call themselves but confine the term to barbarians, Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home, thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the one absolute and the other relative.”
2. The line of psychological argument, as advanced by Aristotle, based on the simile of soul and body is wholly inapplicable in this cases; it is at the most like a forced insertion. It is quite ridiculous to say that while the master is a soul without a body, the slave a body without a soul. Nor is the slave a mere instrument whether living or dead. As a matter of fact, no person “should be regarded as simply a “living tool”. Aristotle’s treatment of the question contains implicitly the refutation of his own theory. He admits that the slave is not a mere body but has that subordinate kind of reason which enables him not merely to obey a command but to follow an argument. Again, he says that the slave as a slave cannot be the friend of his master, as a man can. His being a man is incompatible with his being a mere living instrument.”
3. Aristotle’s notion of some being superior to and therefore masters and of many being inferiors and therefore slaves contradicts his celebrated dictum of the Ethics that man is a rational being. If a man is a rational animal, then every man, including the slave, is a rational creature. Even if he may be treated as a servant working under the control of the master, he cannot be taken like a mere tool of the household. A slave is a living person and for that reason he cannot be compared with the dead instruments of the household. Thus, Barker points out: “If the slave can be treated as a man in any respect, he ought to be treated as a man in all: and the admission that he can be regarded as a man destroys that concept of his wholly slavish and non-rational (one might say non-human)character which was the one justification of his being treated as a slave”
4. While one may admire Aristotle’s injunction that a master should not abuse his authority and ‘reason’ with his slave like his friend, he may find fault with his notion of the slave’s eventually emancipation on some payment. When every fruit of a slave’s labor is taken away by the master, where from any amount may fall into these hands so as to seek his emancipation. One may also ask that whereas a slave may be quite inferior to his master in regard to his rational development, can’t he earn maturity of mind in due course so as to supersede even his master? How can one reconcile such a view of Aristotle with his earlier notion that the slave ever lives in a state of adolescence. Obviously, it all militates against progressive humanitarian and egalitarian ideas.
5. Above all, such an idealization of slavery is without any plausible group of defense in modern times. True that the institution of slavery in Greece was never as bad as it was in the days of Roman Empire or as it obtained in the United States, yet it was not free from its own taints. Hence, such a justification of the evil institution of slavery can have no admirer in modern times. Moreover, the view of Aristotle looks like an attempt to cut the society into two unequal classes – one class of the freemen exploiting the other class of the slaves in the most malevolent manner. Ross thus remarks: “What cannot be commended in Aristotle’s view, however, is his cutting of the human race in two with a hatchet. There is a continuous gradation of mankind in respect of both moral and intellectual qualities.”

Once again, we may take note of the fact that Aristotle’s defense, even idealization, of the institution of slavery serves his real purpose-justification of the rule of the privileged few. He mercilessly ignores even contemporary Greek conditions in which a section of the free people was in favor of progressive egalitarianism. Though he is said to have followed the course of empiricism, such a treatment becomes self-contradictory. The arguments employed by Aristotle cannot be proved on empirical grounds. The result is that the whole argument of ‘the first political scientist’ turns on the intentions of nature and he alone has the monopoly of knowing them. It may be that Aristotle was a favored one but then closer to nature, further from scientific explanation.

Revolution by Aristotle

Aristotle's famous work is revolution.

Revolution: the Greece govt. gave food for same serious through regarding the state. He used the term “sedition” revolution. Revolution is a movement which produces changing constitutions in the form of government. It may be complete or incomplete with different degrees.

Degrees of Revolution:

There are 3 degrees of 

1. A revolution which may take the form of changing constitution or the government.
2. A revolution which may grasp the power only without changing the constitution.
3. A revolution which may arise against not the entire state rather a particular institution or a group of people.

Causes of Revolution

1. General Causes: It is applicable are all situations. Inequality is the main cause of general revolution.
2. Particular Causes: It is observe for particular situation.
• The state of mind (Psychological).
• Objectives at state (for profit honor, loss or disgrace).
• Occasion
• Profit/loss
• Honor/disagree
• Insolence/fear
• Under superiority
• Content
• Election Increase
• Willful negligence
3. Particular Causes of Revolution in Particular Situation: Some forms of government. Exam: Democracy, Totalitarian.
• In Democracy: The political demagogues tend to revolution by attacking the rich individually or collectively.
• Oligarchies: The unjust treatment and discerns inside governing class.
• In aristocracies: The policy of narrowing the circle of govt. is the basic reason.
• In polity: Deviation from justice is the main cause of revolution.
• In Monarch: Resentment, fear, contempt, desire for fame etc.

Democracy is the opposite oligarchies

The Prevention of Revolution

1. General way to prevent revolution:
• Strictness with law enforcement
• No reliance of the rulers on people.
• Informing people with the fear of foreign attack.
• Solidarity in rank of the rulers.
• Avoiding extreme richness of ruler as well as preneuring.
• Public avoiding.
• Elimination of inequality.
• Ensuring high places for eligible.
• Distributing rewards and honor.
2. Particular way to prevent revolution: 
• Democracy, aristocracy and oligarchy: saving them from being pushed to the extreme level.
• Monarchy: keeping limitation power of the ruler.
• Tyranny: prevention of public humiliation

Criticism

• Aristotle support the property, Aristotle did not support the property.

Difference between Plato and Marx's Concept of Communism

Concept	Plato	Marx
Thinking about the state	All power reserve by the state	All power reserve by the common people
Main wheal of the state	In platonic communism guardian class is the wheal of the state.	In Marx’s communism labor class is the wheal of the state.
Class inequality	There will be little inequality	There is no inequality
Family system	Here exist no family system	Here exist family system
Private property	Permit private property	No private property
Objective of communism	It is politics oriented	It is economic oriented
Applicability	It is applicable in cities rather than the whole world	It is applicable in whole world.
Class struggle	Class struggle is absent	Class struggle is present.
Political power holding	Power hold by the guardian	Power hold by the common people

Justice by Plato

Plato (427BC -347BC) was a philosopher in classical Greece. He was also a mathematician. He was the student of Socrates. He was the founder of Academy which was found in 387 BC in Athens. It was the first institution of higher learning in western World. His famous book was “The Republic”. He had written philosophical dialogue. His father name was ‘Ariston’. He traced his descent from the king of Athens, Codrus and the king of Messenia, Melanthus. His mother name was ‘Perictione’, whose family boasted of a relationship with the famous Athenian law maker and lyric poet Solor .

Main interests of Plato: Rhetoric, Art, literature, epistemology, justice, virtue, politics, education, family and militarism.

Justice by Plato

Justice having its like meaning in the world word “Myhtousness” is hinge of Plato’s political thought contained in the republic. The sub-title of Plato’s best work known as the concerning Justice. Plato sees in the application of the principle of Justice the only remedy for saving his beloved country from decay and rule, for nothing agitate his mind more than amateurishness, wholesomeness and political selfishness. That was so rampant in his state of Athens in particular and in the entire Greek world in general men and classes must be confined to their own specific duties to the state  which could only be done if justice, conceived by Plato reigned supreme in the state.

The main argument of the republic is a sustained search after the nature of just he discovers and locates justice with the help of his ideal state. He reviews various theory of justice, representing various stages in the development of conception of justice and morality finally gives his own.

Plato’s justice is not at all to be treated like legal concept. It has an ethical and a philosophical character. Plato does not take it as a matter relating to the proper enforcement of right, or claim by a court. It simply means that one individual should perform only one function and the function that is best suited to his natural aptitude without meddling with the function of other. In other words----

“Justice implies a life of the people conforming to the law of functional specialization”

Justice is no more function of the law courts; it is equality and its functions. Justice serves the  interest of the government and is therefore, the interest of the stronger.

Plato defines justice with the help of his ideal state form which justice is inseparable. Platonic justice consists in “The will to concentrate on one’s own sphere of duty, and to meddle with the sphere of others; and its habitation, therefore, is in the heart of every citizen who does his duty in his appointed place.

Justice is the conditions of every other virtue of the state and grows with specialization of function. 

“The justice of state is the citizen’s sense of duty”

Just as the justice of the state depends upon each class and each individual in the state performing its or his duties properly similarly the justice of the individual demands that’s each of the three elements in the individual i.e. reason, spirit and appetite keep within their proper bounds. Justice as a compete virtue, makes a man good by integrating a harmonizing his other virtue of wisdom courage and self-control.

Similarly there are three classes in the state, those are

1.    The philosopher king
2.    The Warriors
3.    The producing class

• The Philosopher King:  The most powerful person of the state. He controls the state by his deduction.
• The warriors: This class always involve with the war. They are very bravo. 
• The producing class: The producing classes are always involved with reproduction.

In generally when these classes do work in their own area is called justice.

“The will to concentrate on one’s own sphere of duties and not to meddle with the sphere of others and therefore its habitation in the heart of every citizen who does his duty in his appointed place”.   (Plato: the Republic – Chapter-v)

Characteristics of Justice

1. Justice is a social bond.
2. Recognition of competence.
3. Helpful to led honest life.
4. Division of society.
5. Justice is a moral rather than legal content.
6. Specialization of function.
7. It brings social welfare.
8. There is no difference in moral and political life.
9. It is an art. 
10. Justice is universal and natural.

Criticism of Platonic Justice

Since Justice, as conceived by Plato consists in discharge of function; the state is to him, in his own sense other word an organ of justice. But his state is so full of justice in this latter sense that it has no justice at all in the ordinary sense of the world.

• Plato’s conception of justice is very novel for what it includes and what it omits. It is based on self-control and self-ad negation of the individual in the interest of society. It envisages a dull uniformity and harmony of social life.
• Plato’s conception of justice makes too much a demand.
• Justice of Plato stands for non-interference between classes. But it is impossible for the ruling class not to interfere in the affairs of other classes because ruling means regulation therefore interference.

Criticism Irwin Edman

The theory of Justice is of too passive a character. It gives power to the principle so it became injustice.

Criticism of Socrates

This theory is also rejected by Socrates who points out that you may not be able to distinguish your true friends from enemies because appearance is often deceptive.

Beside these there are many criticisms about justice Theory. These are cited below------

1. Totalitarian Theory: Plato emphasis on state function rather than individual. As a result power of state increased and individual became conquered state fully. In the words of force. “Plato’s demand for suffer leaves his program at the level of totalitarians”
2. Justices Theory is Against Humanity: In this theory gave any power of polities to the producing class.
3. Supreme Power of Superior Class: In justice theory, supreme powers are given to superior class. Which is may not good for state.
4. One Man One Work: in present time man don’t involve in one work. They are directly or indirectly work in many working aspect. So one man work, should not accepted by state.
5. Reality Abandoned Classification: This theory is reality abandoned classification, because it did not give any power in one class. So it could not be justice.
6. Duties and Responsibility Without Right: in justice; had duty and responsible but it work without right. It may not be good for state.
7. Political and Moral Life is Not Similar: Because mode of behavior is varied from man to man.
8. Separate form Modern Concept: Plato’s justice theory is separate from all modern concept.

At last we can say about justice in Barker comments. To us the state is the guarantor of a legal scheme of rights and duties, securing to individual the enjoyment of their rights and exacting form individuals the performance of their duties

Ideal state by Plato

The most outstanding contribution of Plato's political thought, as contained in the "Republic", is the representation of human life in a state perfected by justice and govern according to the idea of the Good (stall bacon). It has been lauded as a perfect model for the actual state, an ideal political system to do away with the ills of a contemporary social order. In this time plato's presents a picture of an ideal state. It finds its place in the impact that he received form the contemporary conditions of the Greece.

The State

Plato's state was meant to be the state i.e. a type or model for all times and climes. Plato wanted to show what in principle the state ought to be. He wanted to give the idea of the state, not worrying about the practically of the idea.

Plato's philosophical views had many societal implications, especially on the idea of an ideal state or government. There is some difference between his early and later views. Some of the most famous policies are contained in the Republic during his middle period, as well as in the Laws and the Statesman.

Objectives of the Ideal State

The objective of the ideal state at Plato is the "Good life" Plato build his ideal state in three successive ways. The first ways he shows that men are different in degree only and not in kind. They should have same eduction and should share the same public functions. In the second ways, Plato  advocates the abolition of the family on the basis of communism of property and wives. In the third wave he interdicted the rule of philosophy. Knowledge is virtue and therefore the salvation of society depends on government by philosopher rulers. The following are the specific objective of ideal state.

1. To ensure justice.
2. To create and ideal citizenship model.
3. Equality for all through communism.
4. State regulated education system.
5. Confirming reciprocity and unity.
6. Make good life.

Population of Ideal State

1. Producer Class: Producer class which represents the abdomen. It was also called the workers. Example: The laborers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
2. Warriors Class: Those who are adventurous, strong and brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
3. Philosopher Class: Those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.

According to Plato construction of an ideal state

The three elements of human personality	The varieties of human being	Three class of social order
Reason(philosophy)	Man of god-rulers (philosophers)	Military class (guardian)
Sprit(courage)	Man of silver-soldiers (fighters)	Military class(auxiliary guardian)
Desire(appetite)	Man of iron and brass(husband man, traders and workers)	Economic class(toilers, artisans)

Plato's ideal state represents a new social order in which the upper into owner classes live in a state of special regimentation, representing the elements of reason and spirit. They are made to remove the elements of appetite. This is to be done through a system of communism of property and communism of family.

Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that societies have a three-way class structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the individual soul. The appetite/spirit/reason stands for different parts of the body. The body parts symbolize the castes of society.

According to this model, the principles of Athenian democracy (as it existed in his day) are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato says reason and wisdom should govern. As Plato puts it:

"Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race." (Republic 473c-d).

Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" (Republic 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. According to him, sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the Republic then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.

According to Plato, a state made up of different kinds of souls will, overall, decline from an

1. Aristocracy (rule by the best):  Aristocracy is the form of government advocated in Plato's Republic. This regime is ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason. 
2. Timocracy (rule by the honorable): In timocracy the ruling class is made up primarily of those with a warrior-like character. In his description, Plato has Sparta in mind.
3. Oligarchy (rule by the few): Oligarchy is made up of a society in which wealth is the criterion of merit and the wealthy are in control.
4. Democracy (rule by the people): In democracy, the state bears resemblance to ancient Athens with traits such as equality of political opportunity and freedom for the individual to do as he likes.
5. Tyranny (rule by one person, rule by a tyrant): It is characterized by an undisciplined society existing in chaos, where the tyrant rises as popular champion leading to the formation of his private army and the growth of oppression.

 Criticism

1. An ideal state is a hypothetical concept.
2. If everyone gets equal advantage then all don’t work properly.
3. Plato cannot describe anything specifically.
4. Always state get priority.
5. Monopoly of force they decide to use.