Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts Read online

  Elizabeth Bobrick, a feminist critic of the Potter series, complains that while the narrator describes the male professors as stately and serious, the female professors at Hogwarts are either fussy or ditzy.39 A close reading of the texts proves that, on the contrary, Rowling, in her depiction of the professorial staff, is an equal opportunity author. There are the admirable and the questionable among both sexes. In the first place, Bobrick seemingly ignores the fact that under Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, Professor McGonagall is the second in command. Appropriately named Minerva—for the Roman goddess of wisdom—she is the Deputy Headmistress and Dumbledore’s chief ally. She is uniformly imposing and admirable throughout the series. In all the books as well as in the movies, McGonagall is a responsible and positive figure. And, it is she, not a male professor, who is the faculty sponsor of Gryffindor, the house all the main characters inhabit. Professor McGonagall is a teacher that everyone respects; she is “strict and clever.” In Order of the Phoenix, McGonagall is the only teacher who effectively stands up to Professor Umbridge.

  Besides McGonagall, a number of other women teach at Hogwarts. Professor Sprout is the suitably named Herbology teacher, who does her job effectively. When Hagrid goes missing, Professor Grubbly Plank temporarily and competently takes his place as instructor of the Care of Magical Creatures. Madam Pomfrey, the school nurse, runs the infirmary and mends many a victim of a magic experiment gone wrong. She and Professor Sprout heal all those petrified in Chamber of Secrets. After the great battle in the Ministry of Magic in Order of the Phoenix, Pomfrey restores Ginny, Ron, Hermione, and Neville to health. In addition, males and females author the texts that the students are required to study—for example, The Standard Book of Spells by Miranda Goshawk and A History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshott. Lastly, two of the four founders of Hogwarts are witches, Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw.

  Equal Opportunity Beyond Hogwarts

  Outside of Hogwarts, the magic world is full of morally strong and interesting female characters. In Order of the Phoenix, we are introduced to Nymphadora Tonks, a Metamorphmagus—one who can change her appearance at will. She is described as young, with “a pale heart-shaped face, dark twinkling eyes, and short spiky hair that was a violent shade of violet” (OP, p. 47). She is part of the Order that is fighting the Death Eaters. Molly Weasley, who provides a warm and motherly presence in all the earlier works, takes a more active and assertive role at the Order Headquarters when the battle against Lord Voldemort becomes more overt.

  Nothing depicts the equality that admits of “no power or privilege on one side, nor disability on the other” more than presenting women from the heights of heroism to the depths of villainy, and every variety of role in between. Order of the Phoenix introduces us to the scary and creepy Dolores Umbridge. Umbridge takes over Hogwarts, inspiring fear as she introduces rule after rule to control the student body and prevent the truth of Lord Voldemort’s return from being fully recognized. Her punishment of Harry is a torture in which she seems to delight. She sends dementors after him and is prepared to perform the Cruciatus Curse to get him to reveal to her some information.

  One of the most evil and capable warriors for the Death Eaters—Voldemort’s followers—is Bellatrix Lestrange. It is she who tortured Neville’s parents and in the final battle of Order of the Phoenix, she kills Sirius Black, Harry’s godfather and her own cousin. After she finishes off Black, she wounds Kingsley and is even powerful enough to deflect Dumbledore’s spell. She’s the last Death Eater standing.

  Not on the same level of villainy, but wonderfully smarmy in her own right, Rita Skeeter is introduced in Goblet of Fire and continues to practice her brand of yellow journalism in Order of the Phoenix. Her stories get Harry into all kinds of trouble and undermine his reputation at Hogwarts. There is also Professor Trelawney, the divinations teacher, who is constantly predicting the demise of Harry. As with most of her predictions, these never come to fruition. More flaky and incompetent than a fake or fraud, Trelawney does make a few predictions that come true. Let’s not leave out Pansy Parkinson, a prefect in Slytherin, who is Draco Malfoy’s date for the Yule Ball and shows her true colors when she assists Umbridge as part of the Inquisitorial Squad in Order of the Phoenix.

  It is not just in the individual characters that we see the real equality between the sexes; it is in the action as well. In the big battle with the Death Eaters at the Ministry, the girls fight as hard as the boys, inflicting as much damage on the enemy and taking as much punishment. When they first engage, Hermione stupefies the Death Eater who grabs Harry and then seals a door for their escape by uttering “Colloportus.” When Neville makes a big mistake by uttering a charm that causes Harry to lose his wand, Hermione repairs the damage by stupefying the Death Eater and getting Harry’s wand back with an Accio Wand charm. When all seems lost and Harry is about to give the prophecy to Lucius Malfoy, Tonks sends a Stunning Spell at him and helps save the day.

  Rowling creates male and female characters across the moral spectrum. We have the incompetent Trelawney and the fake Gilderoy Lockhart. We have Umbridge and Lestrange and Lord Voldemort as villains. And, of course, we have Dumbledore, McGonagall, Harry, and Hermione as heroes. In the world Rowling has created, sex is, as it should be, irrelevant to the question of one’s moral fiber. It is never a big deal that women play Quidditch, are in the Triwizard Tournament, are great teachers and poor teachers, or are the heroes and the villains. Each character is judged individually by what kind of person he or she is, and each character is given the opportunity to be either good or evil. It is the individual characters’ choices that make them what they are—not their gender. Such a world makes for a wonderful story, but it is one we Muggles should strive to make a reality as well.

  Hufflepuff

  Morality in Rowling’s Universe

  5

  Heaven, Hell, and Harry Potter

  JERRY L. WALLS

  The book that made Harry Potter famous comes to a climax in a deadly struggle for an extraordinary Stone with remarkable powers. Not only can this astonishing Stone turn any metal into gold, but it can also produce the Elixir of Life that will make the one who drinks it immortal. When the talented young wizard first learns about the amazing Sorcerer’s Stone, his response is the same as one would expect from more ordinary beings: “A stone that makes gold and stops you from ever dying… . Anyone would want it” (SS, p. 220).

  As the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that one person who wants it very badly is the evil Voldemort. In the climactic chapter, Harry puts his life on the line to prevent Professor Quirrell, who has sold out to Voldemort, from capturing the Stone. Voldemort urges Quirrell to kill Harry, and if Dumbledore had not arrived in time to intervene, he might have succeeded. And the evil Voldemort would have secured the Stone and become immortal.

  After this dramatic incident, Harry awakens in a hospital bed with Dumbledore standing over him and he immediately asks about the Stone, thinking Quirrell must have gotten it. He persists in this question until finally Dumbledore assures him that Quirrell did not in fact manage to steal it.

  But then Dumbledore drops a bombshell on Harry. The Stone, he says, has been destroyed. Stunned, Harry then asks about Nicholas Flamel, Dumbledore’s 665-year-old friend who created the Stone through alchemy and was its rightful owner. Does this mean that Nicholas and his 658-year-old wife will die? Indeed, Dumbledore informs Harry, they will. While they have enough elixir to set their affairs in order, Nicholas will apparently die before he is 666—a number that is infamous for suggesting evil.40 When he sees the look of amazement on Harry’s face, Dumbledore goes on to explain:

  To one as young as you, I’m sure it seems incredible, but to Nicholas and Perenelle, it really is like going to bed after a very, very long day. After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure. You know, the Stone was not really such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would cho
ose above all—the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them. (SS, p. 297)

  These are striking thoughts indeed. No wonder the book goes on to tell us that Harry was “lost for words.”

  The significance of death is also an important theme in Order of the Phoenix. In another dramatic scene, Dumbledore confronts Voldemort but declines to kill him, remarking that taking his life would not satisfy him. As Voldemort sees it, there is nothing worse than death. In response to this, Dumbledore, sounding like Socrates, replies, “Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness …” (OP, p. 814).

  Wise as he appears to be, is Dumbledore right about this? Are there things much worse than death? Is death really a great adventure? Are the things the Stone can offer really bad for us, despite the fact that what it can provide is what everyone seems to be looking for? There are several interesting and important questions here, so let us consider them.

  Are We Truly Happy?

  Everyone, it seems, would like to have as much money and life as they could want. But death takes our life and taxes take our money. Death and taxes: no wonder they are the two things everyone would like to avoid!

  But the fact that we want what we do not have is very telling. It reveals the sad fact that almost no one is truly and fully happy. That is why we want more money and more life. What we have just isn’t enough to satisfy us. But if we had the magic Stone, just imagine the possibilities! For a start, I suspect my daughter would purchase her own personal health club, complete with beauty salon and every variety of makeup ever created. My son would purchase the latest BMW roadster, a house with a large music room, every cool CD ever made, a huge TV, and every video game system known to man and boy! Surely then boredom would be vanquished and happiness and joy would reign supreme. If not, well, there is always more stuff to buy if you had unlimited money and an endless life to enjoy it.

  Notice Dumbledore’s concern. Humans, he says, have a “knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them.” As the wise old wizard sees it, then, the desire for unlimited money and endless life is deeply misguided. In fact, he suggests, getting these things is the worst thing that could happen to us.

  At first glance, this is an odd claim. After all, a common conception of happiness is getting what we want. This was why the ancient Stoics counseled reducing our desires. Fewer and weaker desires clamoring for satisfaction are easier to fulfill. We are unhappy, we think, because our desires are unsatisfied. To put it another way, there is a huge gap between how things are and the way we wish them to be. If we could somehow close this gap, and satisfy all our desires, then we would be happy. And one crucial key to doing this is to have a lot of money, for this gives us the power to get what we want.

  Dumbledore sharply challenges this common idea of happiness. His point is that if we desire the wrong things, it is not good for us to get what we want. True happiness is not only a matter of getting what you want, but also of wanting the right things. And that is where Muggles, not to mention young wizards, so often go astray. We don’t just have a knack for choosing the wrong things, but for wanting the wrong things.

  Now in one respect, this is conventional wisdom. It has been recognized for centuries that the desire for excessive wealth is a corrupting desire. As the old saying goes, the love of money is the root of all evil. Money is power, and some people will go to any length to get it. It drives people to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill. It can ruin friendships and other relationships. Dumbledore’s warning about money is hardly surprising.

  In another respect, however, Dumbledore’s view appears to be far from conventional. At first glance, his words can be taken to suggest that the desire for unlimited life is also a corrupting desire, like the excessive love of money. Wanting to live forever, he implies, is also a form of greed that humans would be wise to reject. While we may desire immortality as naturally as we desire money, getting it would be a terrible thing for us. And if that is the case, then the love of immortality is also the root of all evil!

  Is Death Really a Good Thing?

  If we consult the worldview that has been dominant for most of western history and culture, including the British culture in which Rowling writes (namely, that of Christianity), the answer is a resounding no! And Christianity is hardly alone here. Many, if not most, other religions and philosophies before modern times not only believed in immortality, but also hoped for it. Indeed, many saw it as the ultimate meaning in life. Life here in this world, on such a view, is in one sense only a preparation for the life of true happiness and joy that awaits us after death.

  On this view, love of money is a root of evil because it can keep us focused on materialistic things and distract us from the greater goods, namely, the moral and spiritual truths that lead to eternal happiness. So love of money is an evil precisely because it keeps us from loving eternal things. It is a shortsighted outlook that blinds us to what is truly valuable and important.

  What about worldviews other than Christianity? In this chapter we do not have the space to even name all the others that might be mentioned, but let us consider the worldview that has been the main alternative to Christianity in the west for several centuries now. I am referring to naturalism, the view, basically, that ultimate reality consists of matter, energy, laws of nature, and the like. According to this view, life evolved by chance over a period of billions of years. There is no God, so no one intended for us to be here or had a purpose in mind for our existence before we arrived on the scene. When we die, our lives are over for good. Our fate is the same as the universe at large in the long run. Eventually, all the stars will burn out, the energy will be gone, and all life will disappear as the universe goes on expanding forever. Bluntly put, naturalism tells us this is our fate:

  You get old, go to pot;

  You die, you rot.

  You’re soon forgot!

  If this is the truth about ultimate reality, the right metaphysical view, then the widespread hope for immortality is completely groundless and futile. All those persons who yearn for it are unfortunate indeed, for their deepest desires are completely out of sync with reality. They want something that reality strictly forbids. E.O. Wilson, a prominent contemporary thinker who holds the naturalistic view, says this is humanity’s big problem. He puts it like this: “The essence of humanity’s spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another.”41 What he means is that as human beings evolved they came to believe in God, in life after death, and objective morality. But eventually, in modern times, they came to discover that God does not exist, that morality is something we created for our own purposes, that there is no meaning beyond this life. Thus, our hearts lead us in one direction, but our heads lead another way altogether. If naturalism is true, this is our dilemma: we either have to sacrifice the deepest desires of our hearts or sacrifice intellectual honesty and integrity.

  Now if this is our choice, an honest and realistic person might well opt to follow his intellect even if it means sacrificing his fondest wishes and dreams. And if this is the case, the desire for immortality could be seen as a wrongheaded desire that a well-ordered mind would reject. Clearheaded people need to come to terms with reality, even when it is harsh, and if death is the end of the line for all of us, then we need to face that fact and live our lives accordingly.

  Indeed, on this view it makes sense to think that it would be self-centered to crave immortality. For the natural resources necessary for life are ultimately limited, a truth that becomes ever more apparent as the population on this little planet continues to grow. There is only so much matter to make up people and the resources they live on. If everybody lived forever, or even as long as Nicholas and Perenelle Flamel, then resources would eventually run out. Given this outlook, it would indeed be greedy to want more life than nature grants to us. We should be grateful for the time we have, and then
give our body back to Mother Earth to sustain the great “circle of life” in the generations to come. Nicholas and Perenelle, Harry Potter, and all the rest of us should resign ourselves to being “Happy Rotters”!

  This is very idealistic, to put it mildly. Let’s face it, naturalism at best is trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. Here is the heart of the issue. Human beings, as rational creatures, are incurably inclined toward happiness. No rational being can deny the deep and constant desire to be happy. But as noted above, few people seem to be truly and deeply happy. It is an elusive goal we can never deny, but is seldom attained completely. Now then, if we die without experiencing it, we end our lives never having achieved what we most deeply and persistently want. Suppose we did find happiness. Surely we would not want to die if we were happy and deeply enjoying our life. Either way, death cannot be seen as anything other than a tragedy that brings whatever happiness we did experience to an unwelcome end.