Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179636

> Pippin: 
> I think the answer's in the story, and the answer not only speaks 
> to achieving tolerance, it's  even heartwarming enough to excuse 
the 
> fluffiness of the epilogue. 
> 
> Here it is...
> 
> Last chance to guess...<g>
> 
> "Nobody has to be perfect."

a_svirn:
Is that how you understand tolerance? Funny, I always thought it is 
something else altogether. I thought it is about showing patience and 
understanding towards different (!) customs, cultures, religions and 
opinions. In short, something opposite to bigotry. And there is 
nothing in either DH per se, or in the epilogue that suggests that 
this is the moral of the series. Young Al doesn't have to be perfect, 
but if he makes a right choice (as he surely will) he won't be put 
into Slytherin with the cull lumber, but will be sorted together with 
other good guys to Gryffindor. 

But Albus Severus is not the only one with a symbolic name. There is 
Scorpius Malfoy as well, and no one doubts that he is going to be as 
poisonous and traitorous as his name suggests. Slytherin is still a 
house of baddies, and we all know that no child of Harry's is going 
to end up there. Elves are still slaves and that's exactly how 
everyone likes it. Goblins are really as bad as they are painted. 
Tolerance, huh? And speaking of names, why is one of the more morally 
dubious characters actually called Xenophilius?  


> Pippin:
<snip> But there's a bigger point -- you can't negotiate with a 
> fanatic. 

a_svirn:
And what is to be done with a fanatic, though? You can't negotiate, 
you can hardly afford being tolerant
 As per canon there is only one 
way – to have your own way come hell and high water. Practical? Yes. 
Tolerant? Not particularly. 

> Pippin:
> Neville saved goblin as well as wizarding lives by killing Nagini: 
> should the world be deprived of a beautiful and useful thing 
> because in the minds of a few fanatics it never should have been 
> made? 

a_svirn:
You know, this view on ownership may be just as unorthodox as that of 
the Goblins'. I would have thought that from purely human perspective 
it doesn't matter who saved whom. This is a rather straightforward 
busyness: if the sword is mine it's mine. Nobody can deprive me of it 
simply because they used it to perform a heroic dead. Unless, of 
course, I agree to sell it or to bestow it as a gift. 

Than again, it looks like ownership is not an issue here. It seems 
that like magic wands, the sword has a mind of its own. It simply 
chooses the wizard, and for some reason it has a penchant for male 
Gryffindors. I only hope it is not a dark object -- after all we 
don't know where it keeps its brains. 

> Pippin:
And if the sword is so precious because goblins cannot
> make another just like it, does that not suggest that wizards 
> had a hand in its making too?

a_svirn:
We know from canon that it's goblin made.