His character resembles that of a normal human person living in ancient Greece. Young and fiery Euthyphro believes in leading his life according to his own ideas. He is so blinded by his own principles that he fails to see the folly that he commits in persecuting his own father of murder. However, Euthyphro's character resembles ancient people of those days. Most of them were honorable men who believed in leading a life of high principles. I have found Euthyphro to be like a real-life person. There is a section of the population who are so steadfast in their own thinking that they often fail to realize the mistakes that they commit by acting according to their own ideas. Of course, in the end, Euthyphro is enlightened by Socrates and retrieved to the right path of thinking.Glaucon is also portrayed as a strong character. He does not hesitate to engage in conversations with the great Socrates about serious issues like the desirable and just actions of men and about the code of conduct of humans. He discusses the grave issue of “human life and its end” with his partner. Glaucon possesses his own ideas regarding the issues and argues with Socrates courageously putting forward his own ideas with great zeal. He sounds futuristic when he advocates that the young generation should be told of the actions of their predecessors to make them aware of the truths of life. Glaucon says the youth must know of the good as well the mistakes of their fathers and forefathers to form their own ideas about civilization.
However, Plato as an author fails to impress. The conversations are described at length and style of narration is quite complicated. It takes the reader a considerable amount of time to grasp the meaning of their words. Perhaps, this is not the author’s fault and people in ancient Greece were used to conversing in this way. Plato has used simple English language to convey the thought of his speakers, but their ideas are repeated and re-repeated so that instead of giving a clear idea, they have created confusion in the reader’s mind. The philosophies of the speakers could have been expressed in a more straightforward and direct manner.