Harry Potter and Stoicism

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 185960

> Zara:
> First, general comment...I may need to get this book. I've not read 
it, 
> and so cannot comment on whether individual arguments in it are 
> strained, but the premise as you describe it seems sound. Not so 
much 
> that I think Rowling is a Stoic and consciously tried to write that 
> way, but that ideas from that school are shown in the series (it is 
an 
> old and influential school of philosophy that has influenced many 
> others, including Christian theologians).

Alla:

Right, you get no argument from me that the ideas of the Stoicism are 
in some way shown in the series that is agreeable to me. But the way 
I understood the argument and I may need to reread the book since 
before I posted it I just skimmed it is not just that the ideas of 
Stoicism are shown in the book, but that they are praised in the 
book, pretty much at the heart of the book. And about that I am not 
so sure.


Zara: 
> Now to address the particular point you make...I think the 
> Destructiveness of emotions not ruled by reason is all over the 
series. 

Alla:

Ah, but is it always a right thing to do? I suppose I would rephrase 
your sentence a little bit and with that rephrased sentence I will be 
in agreement. I would say that the examples of people trying to 
restrain their emotions and not act according to them are all over 
the series, for sure. Sometimes it is sure a right thing to do, but 
is it always. And of course the disagreement is mainly connected to 
Love, sacrificial or not.

Zara:
> Look at Voldemort, for example. <SNIP> 

Alla:

Absolutely. I agree with your example. But Voldemort's downfall is 
not only in trying to live against the nature, no? It is not just in 
his arrogance, it is also in his inability to understand the Love as 
deepest magic, in inability to understand why Lily's love protects 
Harry. I guess you can say that this is also reason, but to me it is 
mostly emotional - he never knew real love, and he does not get it.

Zara;
> I would point to the two guys who won our respective hearts, as two 
> Additional examples. You point to some vague "conflicting emotions" 
> that tear the Marauders apart, but overlook to me a much bigger 
> Marauder-related deal. Sirius, upon discovering the death of the 
> Potters and deducing Peter's betrayal, acts in the grip of violent, 
> negative emotions which he does not remotely govern by his faculty 
of 
> reason <bg>, with dreadful consequences, not least of all to 
himself, 
> when little Peter proves a tougher target than Sirius imagined. 
That 
> one thing that helps him stay sane in Azkaban is the knowledge of 
his 
> own innocence, is also a Stoic idea. (Virtue is a necessary and 
> sufficient condition for happiness, in Stoic philosophy).<SNIP> 

Alla:

Yes, sure, I agree as to Sirius letting negative emotion rule over 
the reason, when he goes after Peter. However despite the fact that 
his knowledge of his innocence indeed helps him stay sane in Azkaban, 
the thing that forces him to finally escape is the fact that he 
learns that Peter is near Harry and he is afraid that Peter wants to 
kill him, right?

So, to me his love for Harry helps him to escape Azkaban first and 
foremost (and of course desire to kill Peter), I think it is an 
example of emotion being a positive force over any sort of reason, 
because really Sirius is the first one who successfully escapes, 
right?

Or am I misremembering? DE leave afterwards and before there were 
attempts, but no success?

What I am trying to say is that sure, I can see the examples of when 
characters should have acted according to reason instead of listening 
to their emotions a plenty, which seems to be in line with Stoicism.

But it seems to me that when it comes to Love, it is shown more often 
than not to be a force stronger than ANY reason. And I do not think 
it is in line with Stoicism at all, but I could be wrong. Jerri (I 
think) talked about Neostoicism, but I am not familiar with it.

I mean, if Lily was thinking about REASON, she should have stepped 
aside and took a chance that Voldemort would have spared her, no?


Zara:
> Turning now to my boy Sev...at least to me, his fall seems very 
> definitely associated to allowing negative emotions, including 
ambition 
> for worldly success, jealousy, anger, and humiliation, to rule over 
his 
> reason (there is an inherent contradiction in aspiring to Death 
> Eaterdom while one's best friend and love object, whom one respects 
> for, among other things, her great magical power, is Muggleborn). 
<SNIP>


Alla:

Hm, whether I agree or not that Severus' downfall is caused by 
negative emotions (I think they are contributed, but were only one of 
the factors), surely his coming back is connected to positive 
emotion, won't you agree?

I think we are in agreement (sorry if I am wrong) that when Snape 
comes to Dumbledore he is concerned about Lily and Lily only and 
nobody else. And this emotion is what causes him to change somewhat 
and starting to care about other people, saving them, etc.
And again, I know it is an interview, so feel free to disregard, but 
since we are talking about the author's intent, to me it is relevant 
somewhat.

JKR talked about him as cruel man, bully, somebody who loathed Harry 
till the end, BUT he also loved. So to me it seems that author at 
least (whether you agree that she was able to portray it on page) 
thought that Love (the emotion) is Severus' main redeeming factor. I 
do not see how it agrees with Stoicism.


Zara: 
> There is also a contrast between Albus and Sev, that I see, anyway, 
> that goes to the Stoic idea of making reason rather than the 
passions 
> be one's guide. Both of these two characters in their youths had 
major 
> failures to act in accordance with a Stoic idea of virtue (they'd  
> posit Albus had a natural obligation to care for his sister, I 
> believe). Both he and Sev live with unhappiness caused by this type 
of 
> knowledge, but Albus (at least by the time he is over 100) is 
handling 
> this better (most of the time, he did slip up with the Ring). He is 
a 
> respected, widely loved, influential figure, whereas Sev makes his 
> personal relationships more difficult than they need to be in a 
manner 
> I would have to suggest, despite my fondness for Sev, is not always 
> consonant with reason.

Alla:

Is Albus handling it better though? I mean on the surface sure yes he 
seems to be. However, he shelled himself off from caring for other 
people, and here is I am not sure if JKR is  saying that in his youth 
he failed just his obligations, or is his love for his family was 
also not strong enough, you know? And that also caused him having all 
sort of crap with Harry IMO. I mean, you know that I do not have much 
good feeling left about Albus, but I certainly am willing to allow 
that lots of his missteps with Harry were caused by simply *not 
knowing* how to express his affection for the boy. IMO of course.

And well, somehow I do not believe that when he says *fools who love* 
that JKR necessarily meant that he is right in thinking that people 
who love are fools and do stupid things necessarily. Or maybe he is 
being sarcastic himself, I am not even sure.
> > Alla:
> > But at the same time we have that Love being major theme, and of 
> > course sacrifice, etc. Now I do not think that books having major 
> > christian themes would have contradicted characters showing 
stoicism 
> > virtues, etc, but isn't sacrificial love especially being shown 
as a 
> > good thing and nothing to be restrained of, but in fact 
cultivated 
> > etc?
> 
> Zara:
> Is sacrificial love a "passion"? I tend to doubt it. To me it seems 
that 
> it, and the general attitude towards death the series appears to me 
to 
> promote, are both quite consistent with "living in agreement with 
> nature". 
>

Alla:

I did not mean that the only love in the series being a major theme 
is a sacrificial love, sorry. I meant to say that Love is being a 
major theme and that often it evokes a major sacrifice, if that makes 
sense.

Zara:
> I am without my copy of DH at present, but my recollection of 
Harry's 
> walk into the Forest (surely the quintessential moment of 
sacrificial 
> love in the series) suggests Harry was being rather Stoic. First, 
while 
> he feels shocked and betrayed, he immediately and explicitly 
recognizes 
> the *reason* for Albus's plan, and finds it sound, even elegant. 
> Second, we find him striving *not* to dwell on those he loves (I 
seem 
> to recall, anyway - for example, he does not dare approach Ginny, I 
> always thought because he feared it would break his resolve, which 
too 
> I find Stoic.)

Alla:

Very interesting, yes, sure I totally agree that Harry is trying to 
find a reason in the plan. However, finding reason as it is, he still 
wants his loved ones with him and that to me does not feel much like 
Stoicism, you know? I mean, you are right he does not want to 
approach Ginny, but him wanting loved ones, to me does not look like 
someone who shut down his feelings and acts only in according with 
reason. IMO of course.


 Zara:
> Thanks for a thought-provoking new topic!

Alla:
Thanks for responding1