The first change in hereafter begins with Glaucoma’s position on whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. This is seen in Book 4, Bibb, when he argues against Socrates’ proposal that they define justice in the individual. He feels that this is a ridiculous inquiry because, through Socrates’ proofs, unjust behavior causes the soul to be in a State Of unrest and torment. Glaucoma believes that the query warrants no further investigation, since an individual whose soul is unbalanced cannot possibly be happy.
Through his objections to pursue the matter further, it can be seen that Glaucoma has already begun o transform, though gradually. He sees now, through his own admission, that material possessions and power is not worth having “when his soul D the very thing by which he lives њ is ruined and in turmoil. ” These feelings stem from the conclusion of the three classes within the city (thus, the three parts of the soul) and Socrates’ definition of justice in the individual.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
He proves that the person who is just is the one who does not permit one part of the soul to rule over the other part (or, in terms of the city, one who does not allow the arioso classes to meddle with each other’s work). Another change exhibited by Glaucoma is in Book 3, ICC. Socrates comments that “the Victims of magic’ are those who change their mind because they are under the spell of pleasure or fear. ” In reply to this, Glaucoma says that, in his opinion, everything that deceives does so by casting a spell.
Although the two are not specifically talking about anyone in particular, Glaucoma’s response shows that he believes that gratification and desire are deceiving, they only “cast a spell” to trick you into believing that you are happy. This is a considerable breakthrough on his part, being that in previous discussions, it was publicized that Glaucoma felt that happiness in the soul was the cause of what one possessed or how one’s desires were fulfilled. In Book 7, during Socrates’ explanation of the Allegory of the Cave, Glaucoma’s changed perception is further revealed.
When Socrates’ begins talking about the allegory at 51 c, Glaucoma describes Socrates’ image as being “strange”, where Socrates’ interjects to tell him that the people he is describing are “like us”. This seems to spark Glaucoma’s interest even more. Glaucoma shows his feelings at another point in Socrates’ story, when he speaks of how the cave dweller who had left the cave would rather suffer in the sun than be back in the cave, sharing the opinions Of the other dwellers and living as they do.
Glaucoma’s comment is that he thinks the man would “rather suffer than live like that. ” This remark shows that he, although he does not say it outright, would prefer to live embracing knowledge and awareness then to live with what is familiar and comfortable. This is confirmed further, during Dodd, when Socrates suggests that those ho have made the ascent go back down to enlighten the other prisoners in the cave, and Glaucoma opposes strongly, saying that an injustice would be committed “by making them live a worse life when they could live a better one”.
Glaucoma’s statement indicates fear C he worries about going back down to the cave or, returning to his former ignorance. This shows that Glaucoma has not only embraced the idea of the cave, differing from his initial confusion, but he has also realized and accepted the truth and reasoning of Socrates. He has become the cave dweller who has been given the chance to escape, and he now fears going back. The next example of Glaucoma’s transformation is during Book 9, IEEE, when he states that “there is no city more wretched than one ruled by a tyrant”.
Socrates is discussing how the four types of inferior souls bring about the ruin of the city. He then poses to Glaucoma the question of whether a city ruled by a tyrant or philosopher-king is happier, in which he compels Glaucoma to examine the whole of the city, and not just one or a few people who are a part of it, (or, the whole of the soul and not just one part over the exclusion of others). Glaucoma’s response monstrance that he now sees that the one who possesses power and riches is, in reality, is unhappy than the one who possesses knowledge and truth of self and the forms.
He is answering his own question that he introduced in Book 2, and his answer is that the most just man, who is the philosopher-king in this dialogue, is happiest. The unjust man, being the tyrant, is unhappiest. This is expanded when Glaucoma ranks the five actors in accordance to their contentment as he “might judge a chorus”, positioning them by “virtue and vice, in happiness and its opposite, in the order of their appearance. ” The last example of Glaucoma’s modification Of character is seen in Book 10, 61 b, where Glaucoma agrees unreservedly with Socrates that they have found that justice is best for the soul.