The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles

by William Irwin;Gregory Bassham

  2 Ibid., p. 230.

  3 Brenda Coulter, “Why J. K. Rowling Is No Authority on Dumbledore’s Sexual Orientation,” http://brendacoulter.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-jk-rowling-is-no-authority-on.html.

  4 Tara Weingarten and Peg Tyre, “Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay,” www.newsweek.com/id/50787/output/comments. For a similar response, see Edward Rothstein, “Is Dumbledore Gay? Depends on Definitions of ‘Is’ and ‘Gay,’” New York Times, October 29, 2007, p. E1.

  5 For some influential recent discussions of this question, see David Lewis, “Truth in Fiction” (1978), reprinted in Philosophical Papers: Volume I (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 261-280; Gregory Currie, The Nature of Fiction (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Kendall Walton, Mimesis as Make-Believe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).

  6 David Lewis, On the Plurality of Worlds (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), p. 2.

  7 Indeed, this breakdown between creation and discovery seems to be true for abstract objects in general. Think about what a composer does when she writes down a series of notes: Does she create a new piece of music, or does she specify one of the infinitely many already existing (but previously unnoted) sequences of sounds? Aren’t these basically two descriptions of the same thing?

  8 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Terence Irwin (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1985), 1.3 (1094b13).

  9 Deathly Hallows, p. 716.

  10 Tim Masters, “Potter Stars React to Gay Twist,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7085863.stm.

  11 Coulter, “Why J. K. Rowling Is No Authority on Dumbledore’s Sexual Orientation”; and Weingarten and Tyre, “Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay.”

  12 For an overview of these issues, see Sherri Irvin, “Authors, Intentions and Literary Meaning,” Philosophy Compass, vol. 1, no. 2 (2006): 114-128 (available online at DOI 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00016.x), and the essays collected in Gary Iseminger, ed., Intention and Interpretation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992).

  13 For a general discussion of these issues, see Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), especially chapter 2.

  14 E. D. Hirsch Jr., The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 91.

  15 “J. K. Rowling on Dumbledore Revelation: ‘He Is My Character,’ ” www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/23/j-k-rowling-on-dumbledore-revelation-i-m-not-kidding.

  16 For a large collection, see www.accio-quote.org/.

  17 “J. K. Rowling at Carnegie Hall Reveals Dumbledore Is Gay; Neville Marries Hannah Abbott, and Much More.”

  18 For extremely helpful comments and discussion, I am grateful to Elliot Paul and Mary Beth Willard.

  11

  CHOICES VS. ABILITIES

  Dumbledore on Self-Understanding

  Gregory Bassham

  To “know thyself,” said Socrates, is the beginning of wisdom. Who am I? What are my deepest desires? What are my talents? How can I live most authentically? Does my life have a purpose? What goals should I pursue? From the beginning of Western philosophy, such questions have been at the heart of the quest for wisdom and perspective.

  The search for self-understanding is a central theme of the Harry Potter books. At the beginning of Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry knows almost nothing about who he is or where he comes from. He thinks he is an ordinary, poor, unknown boy living in a humdrum and nonmysterious world. As the stories unfold, Harry realizes that none of these things are true, and he achieves a progressively deeper understanding of himself, his abilities, and his place in the world. In traditional philosophical language, the Potter books are a tale of personal enlightenment. They describe Harry’s long and difficult journey from “appearance” to “reality.”

  Harry’s quest for self-understanding has many twists and turns, and he frequently wrestles with his sense of identity. Remember the end of Chamber of Secrets? Harry is alarmed to discover that he shares many qualities with Voldemort, including the rare and somewhat sinister ability to speak Parseltongue. Recalling how the Sorting Hat almost put him in Slytherin, rather than Gryffindor, Harry wonders whether there is a dark side to his character. Professor Dumbledore reassures him, pointing out that his actions have been very different from Voldemort’s and adding, “It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”1 The philosopher and Potter scholar Tom Morris has aptly described this as “one of the most important philosophical insights in the Harry Potter books.”2 What does Dumbledore mean? What are choices? How do they differ from abilities? And is it true that our choices tell us more about ourselves than our abilities do?

  Choices

  “Choice” is a topic philosophers have written a great deal about. One of the earliest philosophers to grapple with the issue was Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), who in his Nicomachean Ethics carefully distinguished “choice” (prohairesis) from related concepts such as wish, appetite, emotion, and voluntary decision. He concluded that choice is a kind of “deliberative desire” for things that are within our power. Aristotle argued that choices are “a better test of character than actions are,” and Dumbledore’s similar remark may well be an echo of Aristotle’s famous discussion.3

  Philosophers have noted that “choice” is used in various senses. Sometimes it refers to a purely internal mental event, an act of decision that may or may not result in any overt physical act. Someone who says, “Draco Malfoy chose to murder Dumbledore, but in the end he couldn’t bring himself to do so,” is using “chose” in this purely internal sense.4 Call this kind of choice “internal-choice.”

  Sometimes “choice” refers not to any interior mental decision but to an observable physical act performed in a context of presumed alternatives.5 To say that “Dumbledore made some poor choices in his youth” is to use “choice” in this second sense. Call this kind of choice “act-choice.”

  There is a third sense of choice that combines both internal and external elements. Consider a well-known example offered by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Storekeeper A and Storekeeper B both choose not to cheat their customers. Storekeeper A does this because he’s afraid of going to jail. Storekeeper B does it because he’s honest and wants to do the right thing. Have Storekeeper A and Storekeeper B made the same choice? No, Kant said: Storekeeper B’s choice is a different and morally worthier act than Storekeeper A’s. 6 In this scenario, there are three distinguishable aspects of Storekeeper B’s choice: an internal act of decision (deciding not to cheat the customer), an observable physical act (dealing with the customer honestly), and an internal motive (treating the customer honestly because it’s the right thing to do). In this third sense of “choice,” we can’t really know what choice a person has made unless we know that person’s motive for doing what he or she did. Call this third and most complex sense of choice “motive-choice.”

  How Revealing Are Our Choices?

  Now that we’ve determined the various meanings of choice, we can ask whether Dumbledore is right in claiming that it is our choices, rather than our abilities, that are most revealing of “who we truly are.”7

  Clearly, internal-choices by themselves may tell us very little about our true selves. For example, the mere fact that Dudley Dursley has decided to give up sweets won’t give him (or us) much insight into his character unless we know why he gave them up, whether he can stick to his resolution for any length of time, and so forth.

  Similarly, act-choices may not reveal a great deal about our inner selves. Character, as Aristotle reminds us, is a matter of settled disposition—of habit, not individual actions. Just because Hermione Granger occasionally breaks rules (for example, in helping to organize Dumbledore’s Army) doesn’t mean that she is a habitual rule-breaker. Moreover, as Kant’s example of the two storekeepers makes clear, a person’s overt physical actions may tell us little about his or her internal motivations. In the Potter books, this point is bril
liantly illustrated in the character of Severus Snape. To outside observers, Snape’s actions often appear to be those of a devoted follower of Voldemort. Yet in the end, we realize that Snape’s true loyalties were to Dumbledore and the memory of Lily Potter.

  The most revealing kinds of choices will generally be motive-choices. Motive-choices convey more information than either internal-choices or act-choices do. They tell us not only what choice we have made (mentally), but also what motivated us to make the choice and whether we had the strength and consistency of character to act on the choice. Dumbledore is probably thinking of choices in this third and most complex sense when he praises Harry at the end of Chamber of Secrets and states that choices are more revealing than abilities. The choices Dumbledore is referring to (for example, Harry’s decision to risk his life by entering the Chamber of Secrets in order to save Ginny Weasley) are not simply Harry’s internal decisions or his bare physical acts. Dumbledore is praising the total package: (a) Harry’s decision (b) to enter the Chamber of Secrets in order to save Ginny Weasley, (c) which he acted on, despite the obstacles and known dangers. In this sense, Harry’s choice was indeed highly revealing of his character.

  Are there cases where our motive-choices won’t reveal much about our true characters? Sure. Trivial choices, such as picking Pumpkin Pasties rather than Cauldron Cakes from the cart on the Hogwarts Express won’t tell us much about our deeper selves. More significantly, our motive-choices can be uninformative or even downright deceptive if we are mistaken about either our true motives in making a particular choice or the real nature or value of that choice. With his vast capacity for self-deception, Vernon Dursley may think that his motive for treating Harry so shabbily is to protect him from magical “funny stuff ” for his own good. But if his real motive is to punish Harry for possessing special powers or for burdening the Dursleys with his unwanted presence, Uncle Vernon’s motive-choice, as he understands it, will conceal his true character, rather than reveal it.8

  Motive-acts can also deceive those who are unaware of the true nature of their actions. Vernon and Petunia Dursley think they are great parents, who shower their special “Dinky Duddydums” with love and affection. In reality, of course, they are terrible parents who spoil and coddle Dudley shamelessly. Because of their cluelessness in this respect, they mistakenly believe that their parenting choices show their characters in a positive light. Thus, instead of learning from these choices, they are actually misled by them.

  In J. K. Rowling’s wizarding world, there is a further reason that one’s own motive-choices may not contribute to self-understanding. In that world, it may be hard to know whether it was really you who made a particular choice.

  Think of the scene in Order of the Phoenix when Harry thought it was he who attacked Arthur Weasley in the form of a giant snake. Only later does he find out that it was Voldemort who tried to kill Mr. Weasley, and that Harry was sharing the Dark Lord’s experiences by means of the fragment of Voldemort’s soul that he carries within him.

  Or think of the episode in Half-Blood Prince when Voldemort steals Morfin Gaunt’s wand, uses it to kill his Muggle father and grandparents, and then implants a false memory in Morfin’s mind, making Morfin think that he had murdered the Riddles.

  Finally, think of the perplexities that can arise due to magical spells such as the Imperius Curse, Polyjuice Potion, and memory modification. Imagine that Fred and George Weasley have bewitched a bottle of Ogden’s Old Firewhiskey so that it looks and tastes like butterbeer. You drink it and fall asleep in a stupor. The next morning you’re called into Dumbledore’s office and accused of transfiguring Filch’s cat, Mrs. Norris, into an armadillo. Did you do it? You remember nothing, but three students from Hufflepuff swear they saw you bewitch the cat. Dumbledore performs the Priori Incantatem charm on your wand and determines that it was your wand that cast the spell. Three possibilities occur to you: (1) You performed the spell but can’t remember it because of the booze (or perhaps because your memory was modified); (2) you performed the spell, but only because you were under the Imperius Curse, and you have no memory of the act because no one remembers anything they do while under that curse; (3) somebody disguised as you due to Polyjuice Potion performed the spell using your wand. If 1 is true, then it was your choice to transfigure the cat, and you may be at least somewhat responsible for the misuse of magic. If, however, 2 or 3 is true, you didn’t (voluntarily) perform the spell, and you’re not guilty of misuse of magic. What really happened? There may be no way to know. Consequently, no firm conclusions about your character can be drawn from the episode (except that you were a dimwit to ever trust Fred and George).

  As these examples make clear, there are special difficulties in the wizarding world in knowing what choices you have made. The boundaries between self and other are less clear in that world than in ours, and the possibilities of manipulation, control, and illusion are greater. Still, in Rowling’s world as in ours, choices do often reveal valuable insights about ourselves. According to Dumbledore, choices are “far more” informative in this way than abilities are. To see whether he is right, we need to understand what abilities are and how they differ from choices.

  Abilities

  The notion of ability, as the psychologist Michael J. A. Howe notes, is a “fuzzy concept.”9 In general, an ability is a power or a capacity to do something. Thus, Voldemort has the rare ability to fly without a broomstick because he possesses the requisite magical skills that allow him to fly in this way. Similarly, Sirius, as an Animagus, has the ability to transform himself into a large black dog because he has the self-taught capability to do so.

  This much is clear, but what makes the concept of an ability “fuzzy” is that abilities come in degrees and often vary with circumstances. I speak about seventy words of Mermish (the language of the mer-people); you speak three hundred words. Do I have the ability to speak Mermish? To some extent, but not as well as you. I can conjure a chipmunk Patronus, but only when I’m really mellow and relaxed, which is rare. Do I have the ability to conjure such a Patronus? Sometimes, but not very often. In other words, it’s not always clear whether someone “has” a certain ability or not.

  This is one way that choices differ from abilities—choices tend to be more clear-cut than abilities are. As we’ve seen, choices are acts, either mental or physical. Normally, there’s a definite answer whether someone did or did not make a particular choice.10 Did Peter Pettigrew choose to betray Harry’s parents, rather than be killed by Voldemort? No question. Did Harry choose to break up with Ginny at the end of Half-Blood Prince in order to protect her? Absolutely. By contrast, abilities are powers or capacities, rather than acts.11 As such, they tend to come in degrees and to be more variable than choices are.

  How Revealing Are Our Abilities?

  Dumbledore suggests that our choices tend to be more self-revealing than our abilities. Is he right? Well, some kinds of abilities will reveal little or nothing about a person’s character or inner self. In general, these include abilities that are:• Trivial (e.g., the ability to wiggle your ears)

  • Very widely shared (e.g., the ability to digest granola)

  • Not within one’s conscious control (e.g., the ability to breathe while sleeping)

  • Innate, rather than acquired (e.g., the ability to cry)12

  • Unrecognized (e.g., Harry’s ability to speak Parseltongue, before he first became aware of the talent in Sorcerer’s Stone)

  More important, many sorts of abilities won’t be particularly revealing because they are morally neutral capacities that can be used wisely or unwisely, ethically or unethically. This seems to be Dumbledore’s point when he remarks that Harry shares “many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue—resourcefulness—determination—a certain disregard for rules.”13 Notice that each of the qualities Dumbledore mentions can be used for good or evil ends. For instance, both Voldemort and Harry are resourceful. Yet Volde
mort uses his resourcefulness to pursue his goals of world domination and personal immortality, whereas Harry uses his to save his friends and fight tyranny. Likewise, both Dumbledore and Voldemort possess exceptional magical abilities. Yet Dumbledore uses his magical talents to do good, whereas Voldemort uses his to do evil. So, simply having qualities like resourcefulness or advanced magical abilities won’t reveal much about what kind of person you are. It’s how you use these abilities that really matters.

  Does this mean that abilities never reveal much about a person’s character? By no means. Abilities that can be acquired only through hard work, self-sacrifice, and determination can tell us a lot about a person. The same is true of ethical abilities, such as a capacity to empathize with others’ suffering, to think of other people’s needs before your own, to plan prudently for the future, and to remain resilient in the face of disappointment. So, if Dumbledore means that choices are generally more self-revealing than abilities, he is no doubt correct. But at the same time, we should also be honest and self-reflective about our abilities, because they, too, can tell us a great deal about ourselves and how we can live most happily and successfully.