Notification of prejudices

[sigurd at eclipse.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 191543

Dear Steve

Steve:
Actually I'm not defending the actions of Slytherins, I am defending the Characteristics of Slytherin House.
>
> Some Slytherins acted morally, some Slytherins acted immorally. Some may have had terribly selfish reasons for making morally sound decisions, and some Slytherins may have had seemingly good reasons for doing morally wrong things. "

Otto:
Ah!  Ok I can see a way out of the dilemma there. But your next statement is problematic.

Steve:
 Most people do not see their actions as morally wrong. Though I hate to invoke the name, Hitler assumed he was doing the right thing. He had some logic, twisted as it may be, to justify his actions. He felt he was right, but the world he tried to oppress and suppress didn't agree. It is easy to think you are right when you are the oppressor, but not so easy to believe that when you are the oppressed.

Otto:
If you take the stated goals of Slytherin as " ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness." (from Wikipedia-- good enuf for now). Then yes, one can find positive values in these, just as you can find negative values in the dedication to duty, hard work, truthfullness of Hufflepuff, the nobility of Gryffindor and the worship of knowledge and learning in Ravenclaw. I could then completely agree with you that the goals of Slytherin "can be construed" in a positive manner. Thus there can be a value to ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness---- provided these traits are put to use in a good cause. That is, for some higher purpose beyond the ego of the self, which obviously lets out Voldemort, Hitler, and their followers.

But again that goes to individual choices. That is the positing of the individual against the norm and the courage to be measured for ones self above ones "myth" to use your term. That's the essence of my present argument to Geoff and Pippin-- they can't excuse that not ONE Slytherin stayed and fought and decided to take their own destiny in their hands and disprove the bad opinion the other houses had of them.

But that begs the question of what construction has been placed on the values (ambition, cunning, leadership and resourcefulness). If everyone around you defines them as entailing from these theoretical absolutes a certain code of action-- ambition as the positing of the self above all others, cunning as treachery -- leadership as tyrranical action to others-- resourcefulness as duplicity,ruthlessness, and cruelty) which in Harry Potter Slytherin seems to do, then you will interpret it one way. On the other hand the archetypes can be otherwise- ambition as desire to attain the unattainable goal or to do good, - cunning as placed in service to that goal but now embracing evil action-- leadership as in mobilizing other to the good-- and resourcefulness as in leacing no stone unturned." Then that is a different thing entirely.

So yes I can agree with you on your idea of "myth" and I see (or hope I see) that what you are saying is that under bad leadership the goals of Slytherin went horribly wrong.

I can grant that, but find it hard to see that there was not one who decided to break with the myth. That's still a problem. But on the other hand I can see your point, though I hope you see mine.

Otto