It is not in my nature: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{box| | {{box| | ||
{{what is it in itself}} | {{what is it in itself}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Frog and the scorpion]] | *[[Frog and the scorpion]] | ||
Revision as of 08:23, 6 September 2017
A sense check one should always run before proposing a sensible, rational and logical change to a well-established process. Rational, logical and sensible processes are not always the prime motivating force when you deal with another human. Especially an attorney. What is his nature?
Lecter: 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?
Clarice: He kills women —
Lecter: No! That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice: Anger — social acceptance — and — sexual frustrations, sir —
Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet?