? Essay, Research Paper
In 1990 a film was released, that film was called The Silence of The Lambs. It starred Anthony Hopkins in the function of Dr. Hannibal Lecter M.D. In the movie Dr. Lecter was called many things. A & # 8220 ; monster, & # 8221 ; a & # 8220 ; sociopath, & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; Hannibal the Cannibal, & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; some sort of lamia, & # 8221 ; a & # 8220 ; thing & # 8221 ; and many more labels were placed on him throughout the movie.
The back narrative behind Hannibal is that he was a celebrated head-shrinker until a bad wont of his was discovered. Hannibal Ate people, even his ain patients became victims. Prior to his gaining control merely one of his victims survived. At one point he killed a musical performing artist and served his remains to a group of colleges with some sweet staff of life. Once functionaries eventually put him into detention he so killed at least three more people.
Meanwhile in the outside universe a consecutive slayer called Buffalo Bill is slaying and taking the teguments of immature misss. A trainee in the FBI Clairice Starling is called on to interview Hannibal in order to happen Buffalo Bill. Hannibal becomes a wise man to Clairice and Buffalo Bill is captured with the aid of Hannibal. However during their brushs Hannibal is able to get away from imprisonment.
Hannibal is unimpeachably evil to his victims, nevertheless he is besides superb, cultured, a adult male of high category and honest even about his ain yesteryear. In a missive he writes to Clairice in the 2nd movie Hannibal remarks about his ain shame saying that it ne’er truly bothered him & # 8220 ; except for the incommodiousness of being incarcerated. & # 8221 ; He seems uncaring about his actions.
Aristotle seems incapable of accepting that work forces can merely be evil. He claims that if a individual does bad things they either suffer from incontinency or intemperance. Aristotle describes incontinency as a failing of the will. The individual knows what they are making is incorrect, but they do it anyhow. Intemperance as Aristotle describes it is a individual who is incognizant that what they are making is incorrect. However the thought of a individual making bad things because they enjoy it or because it feels right to them seems unachievable to Aristotle.
This leaves us with a simple inquiry & # 8220 ; What would Aristotle think of Hannibal Lecter? & # 8221 ; Hannibal is intelligent so Aristotle must believe he suffers from incontinency and merely can non assist himself from eating his fellow adult male. Besides given the lengths that Hannibal will travel to in order to cook some of his victims it would look he additions pleasance from the act. However he seems unable to see anything incorrect with eating people. Clairice explains in the 2nd movie that Hannibal has two grounds to kill people. The first is to demo his disdain for them. The 2nd ground serves as a public service. Besides it is stated that whenever possible Hannibal attempts to eat the rude. This shows that he seems unable to understand that under no fortunes should one eat their fellow adult male. Therefore Aristotle must believe Hannibal suffers from intemperance and merely doesn t understand.
There is besides a 3rd option. When Aristotle was composing many Greeks saw the universe in really black and white footings. There were the Greeks and the non-Greeks. This is expressed by the Greek thoughts of Hubris vs. Sophrozyne. Hubris is a failure to acknowledge one s ain bounds and Sophrozyne is a cognition of one s ain bounds. The non-Greeks were besides known at enduring from brutality. Aristotle continues to split work forces into five groups. The first is the God-like adult male, next the Good adult male, adult male, bad adult male and in conclusion the beast. The beastly sounds really similar to the barbarian non-Greek. Hannibal was non Grecian, he was English. Aristotle could really easy compose Hannibal off as being a non-Greek and unable to understand civilised civilization. However that s a spot of a stretch so, allow s presume Aristotle would set personal dogmatism aside for Hannibal s interest.
Aristotle might hold one last fast one to utilize to turn out Hannibal is neither incontinent nor intemperate. He is really clear when he states ;
& # 8220 ; Now each adult male Judgess good the things he knows, and of these he is a good justice. And so the adult male who has been educated in a topic is a good justice of that topic, and the adult male who has received an all-around instruction is a good justice in general. & # 8221 ;
Aristotle praises the educated adult male, naming him a good justice. Aristotle so goes on to explicate why an educated adult male can trust to go virtuous while the beast and kid can non. However Hannibal is polite, cultured, familiar with adult females s skin picks and quality of garb, has a strong artistic ability, helpful and thoughtful in his ain manner, speaks both English and Latin, is a grommet cook, non to advert the fact he has a PHD and was a really successful head-shrinker. If T
his is non a good rounded adult male I don t know what is. So, it would look Aristotle must analyse Hannibal Lecter as he would any other Hellenic.
Does Hannibal endure from a failing of the will? Normally when we think of a failing of the volitions we think about things we did that we knew we should non hold done. Thus we do bad things and so we feel shame. In Hannibal s instance he doesn t feel shame. One would usually believe that a deficiency of shame would beef up Aristotle s instance against Hannibal. However Aristotle states that ;
& # 8221 ; . . . an older individual no 1 would praise for being prone to the sense of shame, since we think he should non make anything that need do this sense. For the sense of shame is non even characteristic of a good adult male. . . & # 8221 ;
So, if the good adult male feels no shame or shame and neither does Hannibal is Aristotle someway leting us to compare Hannibal to a & # 8220 ; good adult male? & # 8221 ; Besides Aristotle claims a good adult male shouldn T do anything he would experience bad about. Aristotle clearly has ne’er met Ned Flanders ( from The Simpsons, on FOX. )
However, shame or no shame it is clear that Hannibal enjoys what he does. Aristotle would indicate out that the good physician clearly additions rather a spot of pleasance from what he does. Pleasure as Aristotle defines it is neither a good thing nor a bad. It is the extent that one consumes their signifier of pleasance that makes it good or bad. For illustration, one can bask eating. They gain pleasance from the action of feeding and it fulfils a demand in order to populate. However is one abstains from eating they will surly decease, or if one over chows to an surplus they will go corpulent and may besides decease.
As Aristotle might praise some sums of pleasance, he would ne’er praise the feeding of flesh of other people. However Aristotle being a Greek would believe in the thought of & # 8220 ; Help Yours Friends, Hurt Your Enemies. & # 8221 ; This is an thought that Hannibal follows closely. He has many times acted out retribution on Clairice s behalf. After their first meeting the adult male in the cell next to Hannibal s threw cum unto Clairice. Hannibal acted rapidly, foremost he gave Clairice information that lead to more grounds in happening Buffalo Bill. That dark he committed his 2nd signifier of retribution, he convinced the fellow inmate to kill himself. Another clip Hannibal has hurt his enemies, was threw the direct feeding of those who mistreated him while he was incarcerated. Had Antigone eaten Creaon instead than seek to convert him to allow her bury her brother possibly both of their lives would hold been better off?
The ground of class that Antigone didn t eat Creaon is that there is a normative thought that one does non eat their enemies. In Grecian civilization it is all right to kill one s enemies, but non eat them. Possibly this was a reaction to rumours that Amazon adult females ate work forces? Throughout history really few groups have practiced cannibalism. Aristotle likely could ne’er hold even imagined a individual who would perpetrate the Acts of the Apostless that Hannibal commits, while inquiring himself little more than if a butter sauce or mushroom sauce might be tastier.
Aristotle would about decidedly claim Hannibal is enduring from intemperance and merely doesn T understand one should non eat other people. However as it has been stated supra worlds as a group of existences know that when be aftering a dinner bill of fare it s best to go forth your best friend off the bill of fare. To Hannibal this is a foreign construct. Aristotle claims beasts are as unaware of right and incorrect as Hannibal seems to be. Aristotle shows this when he states ;
& # 8220 ; a beast has no frailty or virtuousness, so neither has a God ; his province is higher than virtuousness, and that of a beast is a different sort of province from vice. & # 8221 ;
However we have shown that Hannibal is educated, doing him non a beast. Hannibal understands right and incorrect. He sees Clairice being hurt and commits retribution in her name. If nil else he understands the thought of assisting friends and aching enemies. If Hannibal is non a beast, possibly Aristotle would hold to in the terminal label him a God.
Grecian Gods are nil like the Judeo-christian God. Grecian Gods are powerful and strong, like Hannibal. The Grecian Gods are above frailty and virtuousness. Hannibal doesn T hold himself to the same criterions as the remainder of humanity. The Grecian Gods demanded forfeit. Hannibal merely took it for himself. The Grecian Gods punish those who cross them in inhuman ways. Hannibal eats those who cross him.
We will ne’er truly cognize what Aristotle would hold thought of Dr. Hannibal Lecter M.D. Hannibal ne’er truly lived and he was merely thought of 1000s of old ages after Aristotle died, but it s merriment to inquire what he would believe.