Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 153934

> Alla:

> I am not sure myself about blood as showing of existentialism in 
the 
> books. What I am saying is that who the characters are plays the 
> huge role. I am not quite sure that who they are equals their 
blood, 
> so probably genes was the wrong example, although on the other 
hand 
> Gaunts behaviour, ugliness ( abuse, etc) is coming from somewhere. 
> Not sure. Have to think on it.
> 

a_svirn:
I think some mistake has occurred down the line in this scholarly 
debate. I am myself somewhat wary of philosophy, but since we have 
brought it up
 For one thing essentialism and existentialism is not 
one and the same thing. In fact, I'd say they are utterly opposite. 
For another, although I agree with Alla that Voldemort's and the 
Gaunt family history seems to point towards essentialism (which 
would certainly equate blood with "what we are", so I agree with 
Betsy too) it is more of an anomaly. Normally, our blood is NOT what 
we are, according to Dumbledore. And really don't see how we can 
construe Dumbledore's phrase as essentialist statement. He clearly 
juxtaposes abilities (and character traits) and our choices. He says 
that Harry has practically all the qualities that make a good 
Slytherin (except the purity of blood, but he let it pass), which 
means that his nature is very much slytherinish, but it was his 
choice that made him a Gryffindor. So – choice vs nature, clearly. 
And we know, don't we, that what has influenced Harry's choice was 
not his nature but his loyalties. He wanted to be in the same house 
with the Weasleys, in the house of his parents and Hagrid. And he 
did *not* wanted to be in that horrid Slytherin. 

If our choices are predetermined by our natures (or blood) then 
Hermione is by nature a blackmailer, Sirius is by nature a murderer 
(what do expect from a Black?) and Harry is by nature a slave-owner.