= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dreaded_Anomaly comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (641)
In Chapter 79, Dumbledore speculates that Hermione's supposed attempted murder of Draco was a move by Voldemort to remove two of Harry's allies.
I wonder if it might rather be a move to turn Harry (even more) against Wizarding society by exposing the massive flaws of their justice system. (Of course, it could be both at once.)
Quirrel can turn Harry instantly and permanently against Dumbledore (edit: though not Wizarding society in general), any day he likes, by telling him that the Philosopher's stone exists and Dumbledore is allowing Flamel to hoard it (and the method for creating more) for himself.
No stronger method is needed. Harry would declare Dumbledore his enemy on the spot.
That could turn him against Dumbledore (and Flamel), but I don't see how it would turn him against Wizarding society. I doubt most wizards give Flamel or the Stone a second thought, if they even know he/it exists.
It's also notable that the revelation of the existence of Nurmengard, which imprisons wizards without using Dementors, did not really turn him any more against Dumbledore or Wizarding society.
You're right.
In canon, at least, people know about Flamel, from Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog card if nothing else. The Stone's not a secret either, although it's not common knowledge.
Would he? That might make Harry plot against Dumbledore, but it wouldn't incite the hate that Quirrell seems to desire from him.
Besides, I'm certain Quirrell doesn't want Harry to create a utopia, and thus wants him in the dark just as much as Dumbledore.
No hate for people who are deliberately keeping cheap immortality from the world's population? Who are directly responsible for all age-and-disease death in the last eight centuries? I think Harry can muster a little hate where it's really appropriate.
Harry would hate Dumbledore but he wouldn't succeed in getting his hands on the Stone, not if Voldemort can't. So, no utopia.
You are making assumptions about what how much immortality the Philosopher's Stone allows. For all you know it may allow e.g. a maximum of 7 people immortality, be only creatable once per five hundred years, and/or require the heart of an adult dragon per each person given immortality.
Revealing the presence of such a device (not cheap immortality, but rare immortality) might well cause more loss of life in the pursuit of its possession than it would cause otherwise.
Ofcourse Harry would still be furious at Dumbledore for not analyzing the stone in any way he can in attempts to find a way to mass-produce it or atleast its effects.
Least convenient world apples, but I'd bet Dumbledore and Flamel haven't been looking for cheaper ways to create more Stones, because it just isn't their goal. (And they're already in trouble because they have to guard the one stone from Voldemort.) If Harry knew, well, I'd bet his eyes would be ice and his voice would be distant darkness and... er, I mean, he'd go Librarian-poo crazy.
Hating Dumbledore for guarding the stone is no more rational than hating theists for trying to save everyone's souls. The headmaster's heart is in the right place, and while Harry might become extremely frustrated by him he would still seek to show Dumbledore the light, not to destroy him.
He would - he should - be willing to destroy him if it brings him any closer to possession of the Stone. Of course he probably can't destroy Dumbledore so it's a moot point.
Hating him is probably counterproductive anyway. I retract that part of what I said, it was wrong.
End of Chapter 80: This result has come about.
I'm fairly certain that could be accomplished just by giving him a book on wizarding law. So probably not a factor in H&C's plotting.
I think Quirrell would believe that seeing one's best friend imprisoned/subjugated/otherwise punished unfairly would have more of an effect than a book, even on Harry. I think he would be right, too.
It turns out, after a few minutes' contemplation, there was a previous discussion between Quirrell and Harry lurking in the background of this thought. From Chapter 60, The Stanford Prison Experiment, Pt 10: (emphasis added)
Harry didn't need a friend in Azkaban to be horrified at it, but visiting it had much more of an impact on him than just hearing about it.
I was hoping to post that quote. Kudos for getting there first.
It is more involving when it is personal.
Maybe for most people, but Harry didn't need a friend in Azkaban to appreciate it's horror.
He needed to visit it and hear the tortured captives crying out in anguish before he really appreciated its horror. Before he visited, he said "wow, that's awful, somebody should do something". After he visited he swore to the phoenix to dedicate his life to smashing it.