Re: This shall be Salman Rushdie´s words (Spoiler????)!?

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 156544


> 
> Neri:
> Well, I wasn't present in the reading so actually I wasn't presuming
> to fill in the blanks, and so I never referred to the sentence "[if]
> Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed". I was referring to
> Rushdie's words "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy.
> We propose that Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is
> a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off
> his guard". From these words I think it is fair to sum up Rushdie's
> argument as "if our theory is correct and Snape is good, then
> Dumbledore can't really be dead".

wynnleaf
You are taking Rushdie's argument, which were basically "Snape is good
*and* DD isn't dead" and claiming a different argument from him,
namely "*If* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore isn't dead."  Rushdie
did *not* present an if/then argument.  

Basically Rushdie's argument was (not quite in this order)
1.  Snape is good
2.  DD is alive (through a plan between DD and Snape)
3.  If Snape is evil, DD is dead  

But you have made it

1.  Snape is good
2. *Therefore* (or "then") DD is alive
3.  If DD is dead, Snape must be evil.  

#2 was not Rushdie's theory, and even if it were, #3 doesn't logically
follow from it.

Neri 
> To this JKR's answer was: " Your opinion, I would say, is right.
> However, I see I am going to have to be more explicit and say
> Dumbledore is definitely dead". My interpretation to JKR's words is
> "Rushdie's argument is valid, but unfortunately Dumbledore *is* dead.

wynnleaf
Yes, I'll agree that JKR was saying DD is dead.  But if she heard and
understood Rushdie's comments, she was not validating a theory that
Snape's goodness depends on DD's being alive.

Neri
> The logical question whether this inevitably implies that Snape is
> evil depends on the precise formulation of Rushdie's argument, the way
> JKR understood it.

wynnleaf
I agree.  If she didn't understand the question, then there's no way
we can possibly know, or even guess, what she meant by her answer, and
therefore her answer would give no greater weight to any side of the
debate over Snape's loyalty.

Neri
 Unfortunately he didn't formulate it very
> precisely, and even if he would have we wouldn't have a proof that JKR
> understood it that way. 

wynnleaf
Actually, his argument seems pretty clear *in print.*  The only real
question is whether or not someone just listening to him would have
understood it.  A number of observers there didn't quite understand
what he was trying to say.  JKR may not have understood either.  But
in print, his argument is rather easy to understand.  It is only by 
*adding* "if's" and "then's" to his comments that you changed what he
said.  Certainly when you add in words, you can change his theory and
then attempt to say that it's unclear.  But it is not unclear if you
don't try to add words to it.  JKR may have misunderstood his
argument, but I don't think we can assume, or even suppose, that she
was also hearing words he never even said.

Neri
However, *if* JKR understood Rushdie's
> argument as "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore can't be dead" then the
> fact that Dumbledore *is* dead would logically imply that Snape at the
> very least isn't good.

wynnleaf
Ah, we're back to you adding in words and supposing that JKR heard
them.  The fact is Rushdie *didn't * say "if" or "then."  You added
that.  And then proceeded to consider what JKR *might* have meant *if*
she heard Rushdie saying something that he never said.  

Neri
> (If you really really insist on the logical proof, then:
> 
> A = Snape is good
> 
> B = Dumbledore is dead
> 
> The four logical options are: 
> 
> 1. A and B
> 2. (Not A) and B
> 3. A and (Not B)
> 4. (Not A) and (Not B)
> 
> Rushdie's argument: If A then Not B

wynnleaf
No, this is *not* his argument.  You are *adding* the "if" and "then."
 Rushdie's argument is Snape is good and Dumbledore is alive.  *Not*
"*if* Snape is good *then* Dumbledore is alive."

Neri
> Since JKR acknowledges Rushdie's argument as true, this means option 1
> is false. 

wynnleaf,
Wrong.  Your argument only works because you're changing Rushdie's
theory into an if/then proposition.

It should actually be like this:

1.  Snape is good and Dumbledore is dead

2.  Snape is not good and Dumbledore is dead  (Rushdie said that if
Snape is not good, Dumbledore must be dead. Obviously true.  This is
the only if/then argument that Rushdie produced and he didn't actually
even use the if/then words.)

3.  Snape is good and Dumbledore is not dead    (Rushdie's argument
and he did not make proof of Snape's goodness dependent on Dumbledore
being alive.)

4.  Snape is not good and Dumbledore is not dead  (Obviously untrue) 

Neri 
> However, JKR adds that B must exist and therefore options 3 and 4 are
> false too.

wynnleaf
Wrong.  JKR adds that Dumbledore is dead, and it does *not* follow
that Snape must be evil.  That only follows if you pretend that
Rushdie made an if/then argument and theorized that *if* Snape was
good Dumbledore *had* to be alive.  That was not Rushdie's theory.  He
proposed an "A and B" theory, not an "if A then B" theory.  

Neri
 This leaves as valid only option 2: Snape isn't good and
> Dumbledore is dead.

wynnleaf
According to the argument Rushdie actually made (not the one you say
he made), option 1 becomes just as valid -- Snape is good, but
Dumbledore is dead.

Frankly, your argument is completely built on the idea of JKR not only
misunderstanding Rushdie, but actually heard words come out of his
mouth that he didn't actually say.  You've included "ifs" and "thens"
which Rushdie didn't use, and then supposed that JKR interpreted
Rushdie based on your new version of his comments.

If you want to consider how JKR could have misunderstood Rushdie,
please stick to Rushdie's actual words and let's not start theorizing
about JKR hearing words he never even used.  After all, I got no
impression JKR would have had a hard time *hearing* Rushdie.  

wynnleaf