Lecter Notes

I’ve been meaning to post about this for some time, but never seemed to get around to it. Tonight I’m skipping dinner because I have to fast before yet another blood test tomorrow morning so I’ve got a bit of time on my hands to have a go.

Anyway, the topic for tonight’s dissertation is the following clip featuring Anthony Hopkins as the serial killer Hannibal Lecter from the film The Silence of the Lambs (1991), specifically the “quotation” from the Meditations of Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher  Marcus Aurelius.

The quotation by Lecter reads

First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

I always felt this would make a good preface to a book on particle physics, playing on the word “particular”, but of course one has to worry about using part of a film script without paying the necessary copyright fee, and there’s also the small matter of writing the book in the first place.

Anyway, I keep the Penguin Popular  Classics paperback English translation of the Meditations  with me when I go travelling; I can’t read Greek, the language it was originally written in. It is one the greatest works of classical philosophy, but it’s also a collection of very personal thoughts by someone who managed to be an uncompromisingly authoritarian Emperor of Rome at the same time as being a humble and introspective person. Not that I have ever in practice managed to obey his exhortations to self-denial!

Anyway, the first point I wanted to make is that Lecter’s quote is not a direct quote from the Meditations, at least not in any English translation I have found. The nearest I could find in the version I own is Book 8, Meditation X:

This, what is it in itself, and by itself, according to its proper constitution? What is the substance of it? What is the matter, or proper use? What is the form, or efficient cause? What is it for in this world, and how long will it abide? Thus must thou examine all things that present themselves unto thee.

Or possibly, later on in the same Book, Meditation XII:

As every fancy and imagination presents itself to unto thee, consider (if it be possible) the true nature, and the proper qualities of it, and reason with thyself about it.


There are other translated versions to be found on the net (e.g. here), all similar. Thus Lecter’s reference is a paraphrase, but by no means a misleading one.

A more interesting comment, perhaps, relates to the logical structure of Lecter’s quote. He starts by asking about a thing “in itself”, which recalls the ding an sich of Immanuel Kant. I suspect the Greek word used by Marcus Aurelius is noumenon, which refers to an object that can be known independently of the senses. The point is that Kant argued that the “thing in itself” is ultimately unknowable. Lecter continues by asking not what the thing (in this case a man) is in itself but what it (he) does, which is not the same question at all.

It has long struck me that this is similar to the way we work in physics. For example, we might think we understand a bit about what an electron is, but actually what we learn about is how it interacts with other things, i.e. what it does. From such behaviour we learn about what attributes we can assign to it, such as charge, mass and spin but we know these only through their interactions with other entities. The electron-in-itself remains a mystery.

If the reference to physics all sounds a bit nerdy, then I’ll make the obvious point that it also works with people. Do we ever really know what another person is in himself or herself? It’s only through interacting with people that we discover anything. They may say kind or nasty things and perform good or evil deeds, or act in some other way that leads us to draw conclusions about their inner nature. But we never really know for sure. They might be lying, or have ulterior motives. We have to trust our judgement to some extent otherwise we’re forced to live in a world in which we don’t trust anyone, and that’s not a world that most of us are prepared to countenance.

Even that is similar to physics (or any other science) because we have to believe that, say, electrons (or rather the experiments we carry out to probe their properties) don’t lie. This takes us to an axiom upon which all science depends, that nature doesn’t play tricks on us, that the world runs according to rules which it never breaks.

Anyway, that’s enough of physics, philosophy, Marcus Aurelius and Hannibal Lecter. I’m off to read a book while I fast for the rest of the evening. No fava beans and nice Chianti for me…


9 Responses to “Lecter Notes”

  1. Anton Garrett Says:

    I believe that one of the things which triggered the rise of science was the idea of investigating what something was through its interactions with other things. After all, the only way to ponder what something is in itself is to introspect about it. Combining the two ways is combining experiment and theory.

    In kicking off science, the mediaevals also set aside the notion of purpose, ie what was a thing FOR? That is one of the reasons why science, though magnificent, is not the only form of truth.

    No appearance of NOUMENON in the text here:


    “In itself” appears to be a translation of AUTON.

  2. eliza wyatt Says:

    right, with every new date you ask, not what he says but what he does – and that can be suspect to

  3. Or like Batman (Rachel Dawes, to be precise) said: It’s not to who you are underneath; it’s what you do that defines you.

  4. Thank you for this insight. This nature of assessment is often employed by proficient Martial Artists and is consequently of great use to me. Now, I have more accurate information regarding the possible original source of this kind of analysis.

  5. Its like Relativity in physics. Who you are is determined relative to others and that determines or influences what you do. Some mundane acts might be deceptive but the extreme acts portrayed in Silence are not acts of a dishonest person but an honest one revealing his true nature relative to others, not simply a murderer or defined by an action but a deeper nature. In another setting, you might be very different and act differently.

  6. That’s an interesting note and I enjoyed reading it. I’m not a science teacher, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. No, I’m just kidding. The first part is true, but i listened to quite an interesting Ted speaker that I think you might find interesting. It’s probably more applicable to a secondary teacher than it would be a post-secondary teacher, but you still might enjoy. I’ll share it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3yGCq4InA

  7. Wonderful piece! Thank you!! —Paul

  8. […] of philosophical aside about the nature of things versus how they interact with other things. I wrote about such thoughts already on this blog but that was almost a decade ago so I reckon enough time has elapsed for me to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: