Dumbledore's Philosophy (WAS: MAGIC DISHWASHER: Spying Game Philosophy

[elfundeb2]

No: HPFGUIDX 81182

First of all, compliments to Pip for a very thought-provoking post, 
which pulls together a lot of observations that have been made over 
the last year or so and reworks them in light of OOP.  I think she's 
right on about Dumbledore's goals, though I think her observations 
stand on their own independently of MD.

Jen Reese wrote, regarding Pip's suggestion that Dumbledore allowed 
the basilisk attacks to proceed to further his agenda: 

How far is "too far" for Dumbledore to further his agenda? That's the 
part about MD I think I'm misunderstanding. If DD is knowingly 
allowing Muggleborns to be attacked in the hopes of saving future 
generations from the basilisk, is that OK? DD has no assurances that 
the Muggleborns will only be petrified, not killed (if that even 
matters). 

Debbie:  

It does seem odd that he doesn't tell the students how to protect 
themselves from the basilisk, though I think his knowledge that 
there's a basilisk comes partly from performing legilimency on Harry 
(witness the scene in Dumbledore's office after Justin is attacked).  
However, Dumbledore cannot counter the basilisk alone.  Because he is 
not a parselmouth, he can't simply go down to the Chamber of Secrets 
himself.  Harry, as a parselmouth, is the only weapon he has, and 
it's to Dumbledore's credit, I think, that he doesn't use him as 
such.  

Dumbledore really has very little choice but to carry on as is.  If 
he told the students that a basilisk was after the muggleborns, isn't 
it likely that many of them would be terrified enough to pack up and 
leave?  If so, Slytherin would have accomplished his mission of 
ridding the school of muggleborns.  Closing the school would protect 
muggleborn students from attack by the basilisk, but it would not 
protect them from being targeted at some future date by a Voldemort-
controlled regime.  Pureblood wizards probably can secure a magical 
education from elsewhere, but where do the muggleborns go?  (IIRC, 
Draco remarks that Durmstrang doesn't accept muggleborns.)  Closing 
the school would most hurt the same students that the closing would 
be designed to protect.  It would also be a tragedy for the future of 
the WW, because, as Pip pointed out, it's the place where young 
witches and wizards are exposed to Dumbledore's ideals.  

Harry seems to have always understood this.  In PS/SS ch. 16 he tells 
Ron and Hermione, "Don't you understand?  If Snape gets hold of the 
stone, Voldemort's coming back!  There won't be any Hogwarts to get 
expelled from!"  On the other hand, when Riddle takes Ginny into the 
chamber, McGonagall decides to send all the students home, 
saying "This is the end of Hogwarts."  This seems to be a sign of 
weakness (or that she was ESE), and is one of the reasons I was 
surprised to find that McGonagall was in the Order.

Kneasy pointed out:
Yes. I don't believe people are perfectable. It may be possible, with 
a struggle, to change a particular pattern of behaviour, say towards
mudbloods or muggles, but change what is in effect an innate, basic
competitive drive? No, I don't think so. 

Debbie:

Very true, as to adults.  But Dumbledore has taken young 
impressionable minds, and provides a setting where all – regardless 
of species of origin or disability or unsavory connections – will be 
exposed to Dumbledore's philosophy.  He doesn't *teach* the 
philosophy, though.  Dumbledore does not believe in pedantry.  He 
gives them an experience, which they can accept or reject.  Again, 
Pip herself quoted Dumbledore, "I have no power to make other men see 
the truth . . . ."  

Jen Reese:

I can understand in SS/PS where Harry speculates, "I think 
{Dumbledore} sort of wanted to give me a chance....I reckon he had a 
pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of helping us, he 
just taught us enough to help...It's almost like he thought I had a 
right to face Voldemort if I could....." (US, pg. 302) YES! that is 
DD's philosophy at work--Harry and Co. are working on the mystery, 
*by their own choosing* and Dumbledore accepts their choice and tries 
to help.

Debbie:

Yes!  As a leader, Dumbledore uses a laissez-faire approach.  
Dumbledore's dilemma is that his best weapon is Harry, a living human 
being.  He does not manipulate others into doing what he wants them 
to do, and certainly not Harry.  To give Harry all the information at 
the beginning – or even as soon as he asked – would be manipulative.  
Because of the nature of the prophecy, it would be the equivalent of 
telling Harry exactly what's expected of him.  It would be an attempt 
to control a weapon that he cannot control.  The best Dumbledore can 
do is to provide Harry with the tools he will need if he chooses to 
take on the role.   As I see it, this is Dumbledore's entire plan:  
to keep Harry alive until he could decide for himself.

In fact, one of the reasons I hated chapter 37, The Lost Prophecy, 
was because I didn't – and still don't – see Dumbledore's decision 
not to tell Harry about the prophecy sooner as a mistake.  What 
Dumbledore now sees as a *mistake* was to treat Harry as a human 
being and not as a weapon.

"'Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan now?  I had fallen into 
the trap I had foreseen, that I had told myself I could avoid, that I 
must avoid. . . . . I cared about you too much,' said Dumbledore 
simply.  `I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the 
truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life 
than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed..  In other 
words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to 
act. . . .What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people 
and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here 
and now you were alive, and well, and happy?'"

I think Dumbledore overstates his error here; it is the lament of one 
grieving the loss of Sirius.  The DEs were astonished to discover 
that Harry did not know about the prophecy, because they cannot 
conceive that Dumbledore would treat Harry as more than a weapon.  
Were it not for his and Harry's grief, I don't think he would ever 
assert that caring for Harry for himself was a mistake, because 
that's the great divide that separates good from evil.  And only a 
short time later, Dumbledore says this:

"'There is a room in the Department of Mysteries,' interrupted 
Dumbledore, `that is kept locked at all times.  It contains a force 
that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than 
human intelligence, than the forces of nature. . . . it is the power 
held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which 
Voldemort has not at all. . . . It was your heart that saved you."

And isn't it Dumbledore's heart that allowed Harry the freedom to 
grow in the understanding that leads him to make the choices he 
makes?  Dumbledore lets others learn things for themselves because he 
values them as human beings and not as occupiers of particular 
roles.  Harry was no exception.  Dumbledore's refusal to use Harry in 
the way the DEs expected him to may have resulted in Sirius' death, 
but it may have saved Harry, and will save countless others down the 
road if the end result is to vanquish Voldemort in the future.  If 
Dumbledore had simply told Harry at age 11 what he was expected to 
do, Harry might have rebelled.  Why should he sacrifice himself for 
Dumbledore, whose idea of TLC was to leave him with the Dursleys?  
And in OOP, Harry *did* rebel, in large part because he thought 
Dumbledore didn't care about him.

I've never been part of the MD camp, and don't get there after OOP, 
notwithstanding Dumbledore's references to his plan.  See, I think 
Dumbledore's plan was to keep Harry alive until he gained enough 
understanding to choose for himself whether to accept the 
responsibility of being the weapon.  The lie that Pip points out 
(claiming that Dumbledore's Army is his own creation) is made to 
protect Harry at nobody's expense but his own.  And I also think 
Dumbledore has done it exactly right, notwithstanding his own 
protestations to the contrary.

The conflict between our love of humanity and our love for 
individuals has always existed, and being a leader means that 
sometimes very hard choices must be made.  Dumbledore has told Harry 
something he did not want to have to tell him because he cared about 
him.  But if a plan to improve the condition of humanity is not 
combined with a love of those humans as individuals, then people are 
nothing more than weapons.  Dumbledore won't make Harry his weapon; 
Harry must choose that for himself.  To be honest, Harry seems to 
have chosen to be the weapon even without Dumbledore's information.

Debbie

An added aside:  When I first read The Lost Prophecy chapter, I 
couldn't seem to get the song "Easy to be Hard" from the 1960's 
musical Hair (revealing my age, here) out of my head.  Its lyrics are 
very trite compared to Robert Frost, but here's what a member of the 
tribe crusading against social evils says:   "How can people be so 
heartless?  How can people be so cruel?  Especially people who care 
about strangers – who care about evil and social injustice?  Do you 
only care about the bleeding crowd?  How about a needing friend?"