Theoretical boundaries

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 120518


Del wrote:
> <snip> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Alla replied:
> But using emotions does not mean to me to forget the facts, it means 
> that I refuse to turn off my emotions when I analyse the facts.

Carol responds:
I guess what matters is your intention in presenting your emotions, or
your view of the story as filtered through your emotions. If you're
only sharing your reaction--this is how I feel--then, fine. No one can
argue with you. It's rather like stating that you hate licorice. No
one can argue with that, either, even if they like licorice
themselves. But if you want to persuade us to agree with you, then
emotions aren't going to help your argument. If we already *feel* as
you do, we'll agree with you. If we don't share your emotions, we
require rational argument and canon evidence to convince us. I, for
one, can't get emotionally involved in the abuse issue because it has
so little effect on Harry--and because he's a fictional character in a
fictional world. I did find Umbridge's detentions revolting, but I
don't want to spend hours discussing them. And I'm much more
interested  in figuring out what makes Snape tick than in castigating
him for his teaching methods.

Anyway, my original post on "knee-jerk emotional reactions" had
nothing to do with anyone now involved in this thread. It had to do
with a certain poster who seems now to have mercifully departed this
list who thought that anyone who disagreed with his highly emotional
and exceedingly biased interpretation was not only stupid but wicked.
I have nothing against emotional interpretations calmly and civilly
presented--except that they can never persuade those who don't share
those emotions. And I also object to expressions like "don't ever
think that" which attempt to impose one person's views on others.
(And, no, Alla, I'm not talking about you here.)

Carol, who didn't mean to start an avalanche with a three-word phrase