Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 114862


> Del replies :
> Thefreedictionary.com gave me those 2 definitions which are fine 
IMO :
> "a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering"
> "the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and
> wanting to do something about it "
> 
> To me, compassion has to do with relating to the *suffering* of
> others. It's not about how horrible their circumstances are, it's 
not
> about whether their life is in danger, it's not even about whether
> they have a valid reason to suffer : it's about recognising that
> someone is suffering, validating that pain, and wanting to do
> something about it.


Alla:

OK, thank you. 

All people that Harry saved NEEDED saving as Hanna said, so I don't 
understand why it wasn not compassionate to save them.

Ginny did NOT want to die in Chamber, Hermione would not be able to 
manage to save herself from troll, etc.

Harry was reliving their suffering, was he not?

 Del:

> Wanting to save someone when that person is looking
> forward to dying because they are in too much pain, is not having
> compassion on them IMO. Even wanting to save someone just for the 
sake
> of saving them, without giving a care about what they feel and 
want,
> is not having compassion on them.



Alla:

But that is not applicable here. As I said none of them wanted to 
die.

As to giving all the care they need, I think you are being too hard 
on Harry. he really is trying to help people around him. He scres up 
sometimes, but he tries  and that is enough for me. As he grews up 
he manages to do better and better, IMO>



 
>> Del replies :
> He's not supposed to be worried, but if he was truly 
compassionate, he
> would *care*. I would. I did, in RL. When I hear that someone is
> obviously in some kind of pain, I can't help but care. In Harry's
> place, the Feast food would taste quite bitter to me, knowing that
> someone is crying her heart out in a bathroom. I might not actually
> *do* anything about it, because I don't always know what to do and 
I'm
> afraid of people's reactions, but I would *care*, I'd be sad for 
that
> person, it would spoil my own pleasure quite a bit.



Alla: But he did not have TIME to digest the news yet, Dell. I as 
only asking why he was supposed to care when hermione was simply 
missing, when he did not know yet that she was crying. 

Two things happened fast together. I think Harry did care.
 

> Del replies :
> It's not compassionate because Harry didn't do it to alleviate
> Hermione's pain. Hermione's *life* came into the equation, but 
never
> Hermione's *pain*. 

Alla:

How do you know that? I think it is reasonable to assume that 
hermione was afraid of the troll, so she was in pain.

> Del replies :

> He cares about lives being at risk, not about any kind of pain 
anyone
> could feel. And where there's no care for pain, there can't be
> compassion, since compassion is *precisely* caring for someone's 
pain.


Alla:


Well, I think he cared about the kind of pain people around those 
girls would feel if they DID die. I think ti was  a very 
compassionate thing to do. We obviously differ on that one.

 
> 
> Del replies :
> And that's EXACTLY what it is !! It is heroism. It's not 
compassion.
> Harry wants to save lives, he doesn't want to relieve suffering. He
> doesn't suffer people's pain, and then wonder what could help them
> best. He only wants to take them out of the situation they are in,
> which is not necessarily the best thing to do.


Alla:

Sorry, Del , but you are trying to take away from Harry's character 
the trait I love him the most for. So, I have to dissent 
respectfully.

Let's not talk in hypotheticals. Please give me ONE example from the 
books when saving people Harry tried to save was NOT the best thing 
to do (Please don't include Sirius, because that was TRICK from the 
beginning. Harry did not know that. )
>