Notification of prejudices

[sigurd at eclipse.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 191515

Dear Steve

But then how do you then affirm the legitimacy of the "sorting hat?" The hat asserts, and it is one of the cardinal principles of the book that it KNOWS the character of the person and does not lie or make mistakes. There is doubt only when a character has traits that could place him in either- like Harry. If what you are saying is true then it really is immaterial which house you are put in, you will adopt the myths of that house. If that's the case then why bother!? It makes it even more insane to do this. Put them all in one house and take the best of Gryffendor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. Your hypothesis here simply implies that all this is merely made up bull*** and just a meaningless (and I might add considering the result) macabre pantomime. You are really arguing them for the vacuaty of all virtues- which just leaves you with the "me me me" narcissism of Slytherin.

By the way there IS a positive benefit to the houses and I am surprised none of you have seen it yet. Of course-- it puts Slytherin in an even worst light.

You say "Any mythology can be perverted to selfish greedy ends. Hufflepuff could potentially be manipulated into a certain action by appealing to a twisted interpretation of their values. The same could be done with Gryffindor or Ravenclaw, and certainly has been done to Slytherin. "

OK, but so what! That's true of any institution, any class any idea or ideal. The problem is the individual action corresponding to the institutional "myth" as you call it.

You say "There is nothing wrong with the basic characteristics of Slytherin. They are positive and productive archetypes in all societies."

Please enumerate the positive basic characteristics. Please remember you will be speaking here of absolutes and therefore will have to fulfill the rule in absolutes. You can't use conditionals, that is "In the right circumstances the Slytherins could be considered virtuous."


You say "This same thing holds true of religion in the modern world, it can be twisted and used for selfish ends. The same it true of 'Honor Codes' in some schools. Those 'Honor Codes' can become so twisted by malicious interpretation that it justifies the most despicably dishonorable things.  "

Again -- so what? This is the way of the world. The question is which insitutions, which traits, which beliefs and which myths will lead inevitably and inexorably in most cases (if you wish to take the Utilitarian view) or in every case where honest intent is present (for the Formalist) to a virtuous end.


You say "The characteristics of each House represent the mythology of that House. These are the legends, these are the stories that are told around the camp fire. These are the stories that shape the people who hear them. But these are also the stories that can be twist to bad ends. These are also the legends that are easy to idolize and emulate when life is easy, the question is can you see the larger overriding legend in each set of myths, and can you seemingly go against type when the greater moral good calls for it?"

Be careful here! You are undermining your own argument. I could easily argue that Slytherin when the times got tough simply bugged out which proves the lack of positive attributes. That is, they did the "tough thing" in selling out their friends for the world of Horror under Voldemort AND!!!!  AND!!!!  You all got a perfect demonstration of the world the Slytherins would make when Hogwarts was under the rule of Umbrage and the Student Inquisitorial board or whatever it was. A complete release of all restraints or higher ideas to the immediate gratification of Ego and the self, and the brutalizing and torturing of their fellow students. The Slytherins had their chance and showed that pretty much, to a man-- they are 100% all of them little Voldemorts. The days at Hogwarts under Slytherin when they had the power were as bad as the early days of the Nazi's in Germany and had they been allowed to continue, would have been worse. Just where did you think all this talk of "Mudbloods" was going to lead?

It is pointless to deny that which is demonstrated. They had their chance, they showed their true colors, and even the little ones were as bestial to their peers in other houses as they could be.

I recommend you read up on the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments.

Sorry Steve- you can believe in a fairy tale if you wish, but you are arguing against a great mass of evidence.

By the way, the good thing about the division into houses is that it recognizes the difference in motivation in human nature. Some have the strains of courage and derring do in them like Gryffindor, some have the fortitude and patience  for the long haul like Hufflepuff, some have the desire and honor of knowledge like Ravenclaw. By putting these people together into houses these basic assumptions and traits are only reinforced by association and living with people of like mind. So therefore the placing of them together will see the strengthening and reinforcement of these positive virtues as each will see the benefits proved in real life by the Exercise of them.

And Slytherin? They have no positive virtues. They are out for themselves and themselves alone, and like 70% of the people out there believe that what is "The Good" is what is good for themselves alone.

And why do you keep them together and give them a house?  So you can keep an eye on them and watch them, and when the time comes- lock them up. Slytherins are in every sense in a prison in the dungeons in Hogwarts while the others-- like guards in a maximum security prison, get the towers.

Otto