  We might expect Socrates and Glaucon to argue carefully by  elimination, showing the just life to be better than every sort of  unjust life. But they do not. Instead, they quickly contrast the  tyrannical soul with the aristocratic soul, the most unjust with the  most just. This might seem to pick up on Glaucon’s original demand  (in Book Two) to see how the perfectly just—who is most  unfortunate but still just—is better than the perfectly  unjust—who is unjust but still esteemed. But it does not even  do that, since Socrates is very far from portraying the best soul in  the least favorable circumstances and the worst soul in the most  favorable circumstances. Nevertheless, Socrates’ limited comparison  in Book Nine might provide the resources to explain why it is better  to be the unluckiest philosopher than the luckiest tyrant and why it  is better to be just than to be unjust in any way whatsoever, for it  might provide general lessons that apply to these other comparisons.