Just finished HP7

[OrbWeaver]

Bloody hell it's a kids book, not real life - we don't have to get into semantics.

 

Huh? I said that I empathised with Snape, your response was that a bad childhood is "no excuse" for his behaviour, my point was that talking about "excuses" is a moral judgement that ignores the facts of a situation. None of this is specific to Harry Potter, we could just as well have been talking about Cho Seung or the Columbine shooters (which most certainly were real life).

 

I know WWII POWs were treated well here in Wales because I've spoken to some of them. If it was human nature to revert to 'evil' when you are in a position of authority that would not be the case.

 

Presumably the Welsh were not told (or led to believe) that the POWs were subhuman filth who did not deserve proper treatment; if they had been, chances are that many of them would have behaved like the Nazi guards.

 

Dividing people into "good" and "evil" might make some people more comfortable, but does not change the fact that almost anybody has the capacity to "do evil" given the right circumstances.

[Macsen]

your response was that a bad childhood is "no excuse" for his behaviour, my point was that talking about "excuses" is a moral judgement that ignores the facts of a situation.

I'm not ignoring the facts of the situation - I'm looking straight at them. Snape had a tough childhood with strict parents. I don't see how that can be accepted as a reason for siding with a mass murderer. The central premise of this argument is that Snape showed 'considerable strength of character not to become completely evil' - I'm just arguing that this isn't true. He showed considerable weakness of character in siding with Voldemort in the first place, even more in sticking with him when he showed his hand as a mass murderer.

 

Presumably the Welsh were not told (or led to believe) that the POWs were subhuman filth who did not deserve proper treatment; if they had been, chances are that many of them would have behaved like the Nazi guards.

The Germans were completely vilified by British propaganda during both world wars.

 

Your argument does not stand up, because every one in Germany was subject to the same propaganda but responded in different ways. Some chose to become Nazi guards, others didn't, some fled, some stayed to fight the Nazis from within. These different choices show that different people of different character can respond differently whatever their background. The 'hypodermic needle model' for propaganda is much too simplistic. People do have a choice in the way they act and to blame it on propaganda or their past for their choices is just an abdication of responsibility on their part.

[OrbWeaver]

Your argument does not stand up, because every one in Germany was subject to the same propaganda but responded in different ways. Some chose to become Nazi guards, others didn't, some fled, some stayed to fight the Nazis from within. These different choices show that different people of different character can respond differently whatever their background.

 

That was my argument. People's behaviour results from a combination of their situation and their nature, not just one or the other. Of course some people will react badly in a situation while others won't, but that is not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

Painting it as an issue of choice assumes the existence of some magic power of free will which would allow somebody to override their own nature-and-nurture combination, for which there is yet no evidence.

[Macsen]

Ah, you're one of those teenage goth nihilists aren't you? I should have known better than getting caught in your shiny web of cause and effect.

 

The only evidence of free will I can offer is, well, the obvious fact that you have it. Despite your background and your nature being factors, you can make any choice you want in any situation. You can't stab someone and say 'Well I'd rather not be doing this, but with my nature and childhood I'm afraid I have no choice'. I have free will, don't know about you. Maybe I'm the only one? Hmmm...

[OrbWeaver]

Ah, you're one of those teenage goth nihilists aren't you? I should have known better than getting caught in your shiny web of cause and effect.

 

Hah, I wouldn't take oDDity's stereotypes too seriously if I were you -- nihilist might be fair comment (although I classify myself more as an extreme rationalist or utilitarian) but the other two are way off.

 

The only evidence of free will I can offer is, well, the obvious fact that you have it.

 

Unfortunately though, aside from the vehement insistence of people who Just Know they have free will, there is not an awful lot going for it. The concept is not even well-defined philosophically, and certainly unsupported by any real scientific evidence. Until it is proven to actually exist, free will is an illusion as far as I am concerned.

[Macsen]

free will is an illusion as far as I am concerned.

Haha. 'I've decided that I don't decide things! I've made up my mind that my mind makes up itself!'

[sparhawk]

The only evidence of free will I can offer is, well, the obvious fact that you have it. Despite your background and your nature being factors, you can make any choice you want in any situation.

 

No you can't. At least you can't conclusively proof this. If sombody is inclined by his upbringing and nature to make a certain decision in a given situation, you would argue that he could just as well done a totally different decision. Theoretically this might be true, but I'm pretty convinced that this is not practically true as well.

[Macsen]

Well since I can't prove that free will exists and you can't prove that it doesn't there's not much point discussing it further.

 

I'm off to find out if it's possible to incorporate moving paintings into Dark Mod missions...

[sparhawk]

IMO evidence points more into the direction that free will is just an illusion IMO. After all, we are made of physical stuff. Physcial stuff is goverened by physical laws, which are not free at all. There is no reason why we should assume something like a soul, so free will would also be just an emergent behaviour of complex information processing and interaction. I don't see how free will would be working because of the many constraints anybody constantly has to live with. Even though some decisions, may seem quite arbitrary and free (like deciding to make suicide) I still believe that such a decision is not completely free, because it stems from the complex analysis thats going on before the actual decision. Nobody denies that decisions doesn't have to be rational from any point of view, only from the persons own perpspective.

Nobody gets up in the morning and decides to make suicide (I'm just using this as an example, because suicide may look as a perfect example of free will). The decision is based on the previous experience, and the persons assesment what the best course of action would be to resolve the problems. As a matter of fact, suicide can even happen on the cell level, so we can also see there, that such a "decision" is not a real example for free will at all, even though it may seem so.

[nbohr1more]

Back on Topic

 

 

I agree that the Time Turner is a true blunder in this series. Only a fairly convoluted explanation about some sort of accepted "magical collateral damage" or other progressive negative effect that accompanies it's use could possibly redeem it.

 

 

Though the books are superior, I prefer to spoil them verses the movies. I simply hate that "they left such and such out" feeling and prefer to find the additional narrative after the fact.

 

Having seen the last film, I am left with some big question about the Harry Potter universe.

 

What is the accepted Universe Origin Theory amongst the Wizard word?

 

In a world where the afterlife is blatantly tangible and Wizards can conjure almost infinite knowledge of historical activity, do these folk actually have eye witness to the birth of the universe?

 

Why then is there such folklore about (for example)

Death making a deal and providing magical objects

wouldn't the root of any folklore be fairly transparent to people with access to communicate with spirits and the afterlife?

 

If there is a God and Devil in this world, wouldn't the direct access to the afterlife be good enough tangible proof for anyone sane to side with good behavior?

 

As far as Snape goes:

 

 

 

 

I'm willing to think of him as one of many who were seduced by Voldemort. The story seems to leave this nebulous but the general implication is

 

"Many people we view as Evil are often no more than marginalized folks who are trying to get retribution for past wrongs. If WE were not so terrible to those on the fringes, the fringe would not grow such monsters. The true evil are those who enact unprovoked cruelty towards these fringe people for their own delight and then go on to claim moral superiority to these fringe folk for "not acting out". It's easy to sit on your high horse and say "I would NEVER do such and such" when you have never been subject to the same cruelty and ridicule as the supposed "evil person" and you in fact perpetrated such cruelty (which you have often dismissed as "no big deal" "just a little childish prank" etc.)."

 

Even further, it seems that JKR is communicating repeatedly that "Young people do dumb things. It is a TERRIBLE idea to punish folks for eternity for youthful indiscretions."

 

Snape was in love with Lily and young therefore his desire to rid the world of his tormentor and romantic foe can been seen as the raging fury of youthful passion. How many young men have thought things like "I can't stand such and such. He mistreats my favorite girl. She should be with me. I wish he were dead." Anyone with any kind of proper moral framework would temper these thoughts with their moral pitfalls but pushed to the brink like Snape... who can judge. Especially since so many would have acted out terrible things on a romantic rival (or still would) if not for the law rather than their own moral compass. Woman, in significant proportions, still seem to reward this kind of thinking as it is a remnant of the evolutionary challenge cycle for dominance (alpha male etc). I'm sure that JKR is sorta projecting her own romantic notion of a star-crossed unrequited love that is boiling with passion. Unfortunately, it furthers the legacy of this primordial attitude for future generations to live up to (and beat each other up over). She is no more guilty than, say, a cliche 80's film where a "wimp beats a jock and wins the girl" but perhaps Snape is a little too glorified here.

 

It's hard to say, you could almost argue that Snape's redemption is not only because he sought to make up for his past crimes and their consequences on Lily but it is also a redemption that is gained by revealing his foolish behavior and admitting to his flaws. In that context, he exceeds his cliche counterparts in other fictional settings.

 

If Snape were really Harry's father (as loosely hinted towards in the film) this would be an even more interesting set of circumstances to dissect and the redemption would be even further clouded with concerns of "self motivation" rather than true moral actions. I kinda like that... Nice and dystopian... A highly flawed father allows his son to live as human bait until his final act of self-sacrifice saves his son (for an uncertain and dangerous fate anyway).