Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 121024


Nora: 
> The Platonic belief in Good and Evil and the absolute essences 
> thereof doesn't necessarily preclude human beings not being 
> completely one or the other.  Remember your Plato--Forms are 
eternal 
> and perfect, but all manifestations of Forms are imperfect and 
> transient.  That means, roughly, that Good can exist in a perfect 
> form, and a person can be good but not perfectly so--but that 
> doesn't oblivate the existence of perfect good.  It's the degree 
to which one partakes in it.  

Jen: Aack, Nora, you're making me think to hard after all the 
holiday food and napping! But you bring up some questions for me. 
The way you explain it, Platonism indicates that forms supercede the 
actual event/person/structure etc. found below the ideal (so to 
speak). To me, that indicates there is no value judgement at the 
level of Good and Evil, merely the abstract conceptions of these 
principles. 

If I'm getting the idea, this doesn't equate with a harsh morality 
to me. At the level of the perfect form, there's no implication of 
right or wrong. Perfectly Evil and Perfectly Good are not given the 
meaning a human would give. Is that right? It's only in our value 
judgements that we make it so.
 
> I have to say that generally I agree with the gist of Lupinlore's 
> original post, although like many others on this thread, I wish in 
> some ways that I didn't.  But what I want and what is there in the 
> text are often not quite the same things.  Despite the grayness of 
> many people and situations, I get the feeling that JKR's moral 
> vision is a fairly direct one, with very definite ideas about Good 
> and Evil, put in caps for a reason.  The imperfection of 
characters 
> does not necessarily have any bearing upon the deeper metaphysical 
> background.

Jen: 
I've been reading a few articles on Platonism trying to understand, 
and it sounds vaguely like the concept of "creating your own 
reality" to me. That the thought forms in your mind are the reality 
and what you actually perceive outside yourself is a distant second. 
If that's the case, then yes, morality in Potterverse is a moveable 
feast depending on who you know! But I'd like to be set right if I'm 
misunderstanding. 

Nora: 
> Boy, there are so many things about the metaphysics of the 
> Potterverse that aren't clear yet.  I'm fairly sure that finding 
out 
> why and how Lily's sacrifice worked will tell us a lot, and that 
> Love *is* at the top of the metaphysical pantheon in this world.  
> Chew on that, all ye cynics out there in the internet void. :)

Jen: Oh, I do so hope you're right and we get a few explanations. 
Ancient magic is something I believe must be explored. That concept 
seems to be at the heart of the story, a principle (?) which 
Dumbledore is able to tap into to his advantage and Voldemort 
ignores to his detriment.

Jen, confused but learning ;)