Theoretical boundaries

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 120395


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> 
<SNIP> 

> Del replies:
> I'm in the middle ground. I can appreciate the value of emotions in
> some discussions, and the value of a non-emotional approach in other
> discussions.
> 
> There are two major problems with the emotional approach. First it's
> completely subjective. Everybody can and do react in a different 
way,
> which makes any discussion almost impossible, because in the end 
it's
> only a matter of "I think my emotions are more
> justified/acceptable/whatever than yours", which of course doesn't 
get
> us anywhere. We can't discuss each other's emotions. We can only
> discuss the canon's facts. Which is why, when discussing some of the
> canon's facts, it's not necessarily a good idea to bring in our 
emotions.
> 
> The second major problem is that our emotions can and do interfere
> with our intellect. Harry is a good example of that : he's been 
wrong
> several times because he submitted the facts to the distorting 
filter
> of his emotions. He's entitled not to like Snape, for example, but
> when he lets that dislike colour his analysis of a situation, he
> wrongfully concludes that Snape is guilty (of whatever). His 
emotional
> response to Snape is perfectly valid, but using this emotional
> response to deal with the facts about Snape is dangerous.
> 
> So it is with us. Having emotions is of course fine, JKR *does* 
intend
> us to react emotionally to her stories. But using those emotions to
> discuss facts is dangerous in that it can easily lead us to false
> conclusions.
> 
> Del

Agreed.  But the beauty of it, is in the end, none of these 
characters are going to be hurt by our emotions, flaws, distortions, 
misunderstandings, or rantings.  Aint fiction grand? :-)

Lupinlore