J.K. Rowling!Existentialist

[thetrojanvabbit]

No: HPFGUIDX 179466

Existentialist!JK Rowling

"Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean it's not real?"

Warning:  Deathly Hallows spoilers and Heidegger

	The central tenet of existentialism is that Cartesian Doubt is
irrelevant.  It doesn't matter whether this life is real or not,
because even it it isn't real, we are still living it.  It is from
that conclusion that the discourse of existentialist thought begins.
The metaphysics of the Kings Cross, and
Dumbledore's explanation scene is a literal version of that premise.
	The three main actors in the series are illustrations of different
ways of Being-Towards-Death, as defined by Heidegger (whom Monty
Python describe as "a boozy bugger who could think you under the
table).  Harry Potter willingly gives his life for his fellow (das)
man.  He turns out to be Aslan H. Christ, but only because he thought
his sacrifice would be permanent.  His eschewing of the ultimately
futile Hallows quest is a form of successful Being-Towards-Death.  His
march to face Voldemort is a form of successful, but inauthentic
Being-Towards-Death.  Not inauthentic like Tom Riddle's sociopath
charisma, but inauthentic in the Heideggerian sense, meaning coming
from outside one's self, that is to say, other people.  Note that the
terms lack a value judgement.  Sacrificing one's like for one's
friends is the complete expression of inauthentic being.  The
inauthenticity of his decision is underscored by his use of the
Resurrection Stone to summon the comfort of other people.
	Albus Dumbledore had his Being-Towards-Death problems as a youngster,
as we all do on some level, but being ultimately a good guy, he
straightens out a bit.  Alongside Nicholas Flamel, he is successful in
his pursuit of alchemy, yet forgoes Elixir of Life in order to keep it
from Voldemort.  "After all," he says, "To the well organized mind,
death is but the next great adventure."  I wouldn't be surprised if
the creator of the Philosopher's Stone didn't find the time to read up
on a spot of Muggle philosophy.
	Voldemort chooses (choices are often considered to be the main theme
of the series, and are kind of a big deal in existentialism as well,
specifically the works of Sartre, who's Being and Nothing is
fan-serviced by the Ravenclaw answer; acto McGonagall, vanished
objects go "Into non-being, which  is to say, everything) any
existence, no matter how painful or pitiful, over the death he cannot
face.  A choice that seems almost...absurd?
	Much hay has been made over Voldemort's seeming lack of choices, the
supposed theme of the books.  During his psychologically years, he
fails to bond with other human beings.  (other people are a big theme
in existentialism.)  By the time he reaches an age where he can make
make decisions for himself, he is irrevocably a psychopath.  His
choices, it seems, made for him.
	Not this one though.  His pathological fear of death is wholly his
own.  His tainted, unenviable immortality is a form of unsucessful,
yet authentic Being-Towards-Death.
	Light and Dark Magic are never defined, as critics never cease to
point out..  It appears to be classified by the intent of the caster.
 Harry and other good guys uses Unforgiveable Curses, and yet are, to
all appearances, forgiven, whine the critics.  Subjectivity is a big
theme in existentialism, and is always controversial.  Existentialism
is frequent denounced as morally relativistic nihilism.  Just as in
magic, this is not the case.  Avada Kedavra as used by Voldemort is
Dark Magic, but a killing curse is not evil when used to rid the world
of someone like Bellatrix Lestrange.  Imperio was a necessary part of
Harry's arsenal at Gringotts, on a just mission.  So long as we accept
premise that torture is evil, than Crucio is evil not in itself, but
in the intent of it's caster.  Was Harry's use of it justified?
McGonagall seems to think it was a gallant sentiment.
	Rowling said she would reveal what book she had been writing from
with Deathly Hallows, and apart from a plot trope that far predates
the New Testimate, it wasn't the bible.  It was an existentialism
textbook.  I wonder if that's why some Christians hate Harry Potter so much!

--gatesreaver