Destroying soul bits

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 141932

>    KJ writes:
> 
> No, I don't think it's a stupid answer, and yes, I am curious about 
> why a lot of the list will swear that Dumbledore would not ask
> anyone to rip his soul, but there is no hesitation to destroy a
> soul. 

zgirnius:
In destroying a Horcrux and the soul bit inside, you're not really 
destroying Voldemort's soul, just one piece of it. The 'at home' soul 
continues to exist, if in a very damaged form. (And the damage is 
certainly not the responsibility of someone destroying a Horcrux.)

> KJ:
> There is also some confusion about how the horcruxes 
> work. If Volemort's body is killed, does that kill his "at home"
> soul piece? Does one of the horcruxes support the life of the "at
> home" piece, or does it replace the loss of the "at home piece"?
> Does one horcrux get used up if Voldemort is killed? 

zgirnius:
First, killing Voldemort (or any other person) I would presume does 
not kill the soul. While this has not been explicitly stated in the 
books, the soul in Christianity (most likely the source of JKR's 
ideas about the soul) is the thing that lives on after someone dies. 
It just goes somewhere else (Heaven/Hell/Purgatory/etc...)

My understanding of how Horcruxes work is that they prevent the soul 
of someone who is killed from doing whatever it is that the soul 
would normally do at this point, by anchoring it in this world. All 
the Horcruxes simultaneously perform this function. As long as even 
one remains, the soul will not pass on to wherever.

I do not believe V needs to 'use up' a Horcrux to restore himself. 
When DD was having the Horcrux counting discussion, he assumed there 
had been 6 made altogether, and 2 destroyed, the diary and the ring. 
This left 4 to destroy. If a Horcrux needed to be used to restore V 
to life, that should have meant only three remain. No, I think that 
the original 'at home' soul of Voldemort lives on in his new body.

> KJ:
> The Dementors are so disturbing to the WW because they 
> suck out the soul. 

zgirnius:
I think the Dementors are different from someone destroying a 
Horcrux. They suck out and permanently destroy the 'at home' soul. 
(Which is the whole thing for all but a tiny number of Dark wizards 
in history...) They leave the body alive, but when the body later 
dies, nothing is left of that person at all.

> KJ:
> Also, I wonder about the status of Inferi. Are they 
> cadavers with no soul, or is their soul trapped in a dead mobile 
> body? 

zgirnius:
Ooooh gruesome thought. No, from what I gather a Dark wizard first 
kills someone, and then makes them an Inferius. So I think the soul 
gets away at the moment of death. (I hope!)

> KJ:
> Then there are the Hogwarts ghosts, which would appear to be souls 
> with no corporeal body. 

zgirnius:
To paraphrase (quote? I don't have my book handy) Professor Snape, 
DADA Master at Hogwarts:
'A ghost is an imprint of a departed soul'.

What does that mean? A ghost is not the soul itself, apparently. We 
know from Nick that he's a ghost because he was afraid of death. So 
maybe when a wizard dies, their consciousness/memories/self usually 
go with their soul to wherever. But in cases like Nick's, instead, 
the soul 'departs' and the rest stays, attached to an 'imprint'. 

> KJ:
> Then there are the Hogwarts paintings that seem like 
> they are alive, sound like they are alive, and talk quite sensibly 
to 
> Dumbledore, but we are told that they have no souls. 

zgirnius:
Yes, and they all seem to be portraits of dead people. Presumably 
their souls have gone on to wherever. The magic of portrait making 
must somehow capture at least a portion of the personality and 
memories of the subject.

KJ: 
> I don't think that he cast them off, I think  that he hid them or
> gave them to trusted people to look after. I am hoping that he 
> gives them all to Snape. Apparently, I have no personal investment
> in the saving of 
> Volemort's soul. ;)
>     I am hoping for some explanation for all of this. Maybe JKR in 
> building her plot line thought it would be amusing to make the 
villain 
> harder to kill by making it necessary to kill six of him first, and 
> forgot about all this other soul-oriented stuff. Any comments are 
welcome.

zgirnius:
I believe she thought Horcruxes and ghosts through somewhat 
carefully. Some of this soul stuff will play a role in Book 7. She 
has said in interviews that she was sorry to do it, but she had to 
kill off Sirius. Just doing it to isolate Harry further is not 
sufficient reason in my opinion. I think the fact that he is dead, 
and not a ghost, will play some role in the resolution of Book 7.