Snape's rationality

Thu Jan 30 16:26:07 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 51112

SCOTT WROTE: I don't mean to be rude, 
but I think you need to look up 'rational.'  

I REPLY:  That's quite alright. No offense 
taken.  However, I took your advice and 
looked up 'rational.' I think you'll all 
be quite amused to see what I found (if you're
still following this most scintillating thread.)

(American Heritage... unfortunately, the OED 
is a subscription only service...)

rational: adj
1) Having or exercising the ability to reason
2) Of sound mind; sane
3) Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Is anyone smiling yet? ;-)

We're both, Scott and I, using completely valid 
definitions of the word 'rational.' However, 
we're using them in different instances and at 
cross-purposes.

REGARDING SNAPE'S RATIONALITY:

SCOTT WROTE:  I don't care what Snape's 
situation is; he LOSES HIS MIND. He gives 
no one a chance to explain anything, and 
threatens to have Sirius killed without
ever giving Sirius a chance to explain himself, 
simply because of his hate.

I REPLY: You don't care what the situation is? 
*chuckle* - I thought that that was the reason 
I brought this up in the first place, ie the 
situational aspects justify Snape's behavior... 
what's the point of *having* the discussion if 
you don't care to listen to the points? ;-)

As you can see, I've previously provided several 
reasons to explain Snape's behavior in the Shrieking 
Shack as logically derived from the situation with 
which he's presented. I am clearly using definition 
3. Regardless of "motive," which is entirely separate, 
Snape has several very acceptable, rational reasons 
for his actions:

1) Sirius tried to kill him previously.
2) Sirius is an escaped convict.
3) MoM wants Sirius so badly that the dementors 
are authorized to perform the kiss immediately, 
a highly unorthodox and unusual procedure.
4) HHR are amongst Snape largest detractors and 
accusers.
5) Snape has no "moral support" in the manner of 
friends or allies in the situation.
6) Snape, unlike Harry, has not been given any 
reason to trust the situation.

Scott, on the other hand, is clearly using a 
combination of definitions 1 (repeatedly citing 
Harry's observation that Snape appears "deranged") 
and 2 (that Snape is unwilling to listen to any 
explanations.)

So we are both *technically* correct as far as 
Snape being rational or irrational. It merely 
depends on which definitions we're using.

REGARDING HARRY'S RATIONALITY:

According to definition 3, Harry is very rational, 
in the sense that he is 'logical.'  Since he 
falls for the red herrings in the same way that 
we all do, it's even justifiable.  HHR's theories 
are nearly always flawed (in the sense that they're 
incorrect/inaccurate) until the end of the story. 
That's because they're based on bad preconditions:

Examples:

PS/SS - Thief!Snape and Killer!Snape are completely 
inaccurate views, as Hagrid points out three separate 
times in the story.  HHR are, colloquially speaking, 
UNreasonable, and by synonym, IRrational.  However 
unreasonable HHR's theories are, though, they are 
quite logically constructed, IF one accepts the 
two main premises: Thief!Snape and Killer!Snape. Of 
course, we don't learn until the end of the story 
that BOTH premises are untrue. Still, the argument 
is sound in a formal way.

CoS - Heir!Malfoy and Heir!Harry are completely 
inaccurate analyses, as HHR (and we readers) learn 
as the story progresses. However flawed their 
conclusions, the debates are logically constructed.  

Malfoy is a Slytherin.
All of his family are Slytherins.
Malfoy hates mudbloods.
Salazar Slytherin hated mudbloods.
Therefore Malfoy is the Heir of Slytherin.

It's logically sound. But it's completely 
unreasonable to assume that Malfoy, crude as 
he is, is a killer.  

Same with Heir!Harry

The Sorting Hat said Harry'd do well in Slytherin.
Harery is a Parselmouth.
Salazar Slytherin was a Parselmouth.
Harry can hear the killer before it strikes.
Therefore Harry is the Heir of Slytherin.

Also, given JKR's clever guises, this theory is 
quite believable when taken in context.

But, if Harry would tell simply *tell* Dumbledore 
about hearing the voice, instead of basing his 
whole position on Ron's statement, that "it's not 
good to hear voices that others can't hear [paraphrased]," 
the whole mystery would have been solved that 
much faster. I don't think for a second that 
Dumbledore would have doubted Harry.

In that sense, Harry et al are quite UNreasonable 
in their positions and actions, no matter how 
logically constructed these positions are, and 
how good intentioned the actions.

In conclusion, to refine my position, I submit:

HHR, no matter how badly they (and we) misread 
the situation, are very rational/logical in 
their argument construction, but as they do not 
always act in the most sensible ways, they're not very 
rational/reasonable.

Snape, no matter how mean or angry he is, is eerily 
rational/reasonable in justification for his behavior
in the Shrieking Shack, but as he uses what appear to 
be hunches/suspicions of HHR, he is not very 
rational/logical.

;-)

Amusing, to say the least, although I do hope to 
avoid these kinds of semantics in the future - if 
I wanted to debate the nuances of vocabulary, I 
would have (totally) joined (like) an etymological 
society or something.

Cheers!

-Tom