Dumbledore may had seen the hidden face of one Tom Riddle but never ever spoke to the other professors about his discovery, maybe he did it as a last ditch chance on Tom to fix his act but the fact remains that if he had opened his mouth even the least bit to them Tom wouldn't have that rock solid perfect reputation to hide behind during the Chamber fiasco not even the audacity to open it in the first place if he had more scrutiny than Dumbles..
Dudley may have used Harry's homework to pass his classes but there is no way in hell he could have answered even a single question never mind the way he acted in class (OR AFTER THE LESSONS)so for the teachers to take Harry as the bulling, disturbing, kind they should have been utterly blind and idiotic (which I haven'r fully excluded yet) or extremely prejudiced and totally neglectful to boot.-
The barest tiniest whisper about Tom's preschool acts would have stopped any other such act(the chamber was merely the crown among them)but no one was ever able to put any control on his behaviour, not at Hogwarts and not later on and I don't think it happened just by his smarts. Half of it was either neglect or he was able to pass it like other people's agenda.
Even after Hogwarts he became a Dark Lord cause he was able to, people, and not all of them mentally sick (too large a percent) agreed with him(or with what he presented) agreed enough to not overly search his background. There was another Dark Lord right in his teens showing him(even by afar)how it was done and even tough GG got caught it took nearly a decade all the same...
With those facts and thoughts I really can't help the question:
Alright Tom wasn't totally incapable to make the right choice what reason was ever given to him to actually make it???
Again I'm not saying that what he did, nearly all his choices, weren't wrong(and he paid them, the actual life he lived, alone and closed in himself, -its doubtful that he opened up even to Bella- and his two deaths)but what would he had actually won by acting any different all the same???
We humans are actually selfish beings and every thing we do must actually have a reason, either an emotional/practical reward (which he couldn't take from merely doing the right thing)or to avoid the consequences of bad behaviour...
Tom never faced any bad consequences(at least fair ones)in his youth. His diastase to muggles(and the generalization of it) fostered by the orphanage was accepted and encouraged by his house mates(and to a lesser degree probably and from other houses as well and those people not only assisted and covered his violent/racist behaviour but became his followers afterwards and committed atrocities with him/to his name and even more raised their very kids to follow him...
Is it truly impossible, since he could close his empathy at will, that he had convinced himself that he was doing the right thing and that those atrocities were worth it???
More, even if he had done the right thing and channelled his craving for power in politics not bloodshed would he have gone even close in influence as with the bloodshed??? Remember he was a half blood and maybe even considered a muggleborn at the time...
If it was 30-40% of his fault wouldn't the other 60-70% belong in his sick, rotten society???
No one lives in isolation, for every terrorist, or mass murderer there are a whole host of way society as whole has failed them. I do agree that the society in which Voldemort grew up in is also accountable.
However we now come to the very tricky question of just how much individual freedom do we actually have to make our own choices. Its the age old dilemma, if you have a gun pointed at your head, do you really have a choice? In the same way, are Voldemort's choices actually meaningful or just a inevitable product of his social conditioning?
Whilst we always have high praise for people who have overcome negative life experiences, should we really condemn people who couldn't?
I personally feel that though Voldemort had many negative life experiences, and was socially conditioned to hate muggles, this does not equate automatically to him instigating genocide. After all his peers and fellow slytherins might hate muggles but they still stay well within the bounds of the law.
Like you said, Voldemort had no incentive to behave as a good person, but he must have intellectually understood the consequences of his actions. He certainly did not seem to care that he was destroying very fabric the society that he lived in. He has definite self-destructive side, not caring what was happening to his body but only interested in immortality, even though logically he could have used his intellect to find less destructive ways to his end goal.
I don't see Voldemort has a very logical person at all. He seems ruled by impulses (if very long lasting impulses). Although he pretends to be in control, he has really never learnt to control his wants and desires. Instead he spends all his life chasing after things he can't have. This suggests to me more willful immaturity than true evil but certainly not something that he could not a correct himself if he wanted to.
But our main concern is that Voldemort didn't want to reign in his impulses and that is a choice he made, rather than a choice may for him by society.
Dudley may have used Harry's homework to pass his classes but there is no way in hell he could have answered even a single question never mind the way he acted in class (OR AFTER THE LESSONS)so for the teachers to take Harry as the bulling, disturbing, kind they should have been utterly blind and idiotic (which I haven'r fully excluded yet) or extremely prejudiced and totally neglectful to boot.-
The barest tiniest whisper about Tom's preschool acts would have stopped any other such act(the chamber was merely the crown among them)but no one was ever able to put any control on his behaviour, not at Hogwarts and not later on and I don't think it happened just by his smarts. Half of it was either neglect or he was able to pass it like other people's agenda.
Even after Hogwarts he became a Dark Lord cause he was able to, people, and not all of them mentally sick (too large a percent) agreed with him(or with what he presented) agreed enough to not overly search his background. There was another Dark Lord right in his teens showing him(even by afar)how it was done and even tough GG got caught it took nearly a decade all the same...
With those facts and thoughts I really can't help the question:
Alright Tom wasn't totally incapable to make the right choice what reason was ever given to him to actually make it???
Again I'm not saying that what he did, nearly all his choices, weren't wrong(and he paid them, the actual life he lived, alone and closed in himself, -its doubtful that he opened up even to Bella- and his two deaths)but what would he had actually won by acting any different all the same???
We humans are actually selfish beings and every thing we do must actually have a reason, either an emotional/practical reward (which he couldn't take from merely doing the right thing)or to avoid the consequences of bad behaviour...
Tom never faced any bad consequences(at least fair ones)in his youth. His diastase to muggles(and the generalization of it) fostered by the orphanage was accepted and encouraged by his house mates(and to a lesser degree probably and from other houses as well and those people not only assisted and covered his violent/racist behaviour but became his followers afterwards and committed atrocities with him/to his name and even more raised their very kids to follow him...
Is it truly impossible, since he could close his empathy at will, that he had convinced himself that he was doing the right thing and that those atrocities were worth it???
More, even if he had done the right thing and channelled his craving for power in politics not bloodshed would he have gone even close in influence as with the bloodshed??? Remember he was a half blood and maybe even considered a muggleborn at the time...
If it was 30-40% of his fault wouldn't the other 60-70% belong in his sick, rotten society???
Reply
No one lives in isolation, for every terrorist, or mass murderer there are a whole host of way society as whole has failed them. I do agree that the society in which Voldemort grew up in is also accountable.
However we now come to the very tricky question of just how much individual freedom do we actually have to make our own choices. Its the age old dilemma, if you have a gun pointed at your head, do you really have a choice? In the same way, are Voldemort's choices actually meaningful or just a inevitable product of his social conditioning?
Whilst we always have high praise for people who have overcome negative life experiences, should we really condemn people who couldn't?
I personally feel that though Voldemort had many negative life experiences, and was socially conditioned to hate muggles, this does not equate automatically to him instigating genocide. After all his peers and fellow slytherins might hate muggles but they still stay well within the bounds of the law.
Like you said, Voldemort had no incentive to behave as a good person, but he must have intellectually understood the consequences of his actions. He certainly did not seem to care that he was destroying very fabric the society that he lived in. He has definite self-destructive side, not caring what was happening to his body but only interested in immortality, even though logically he could have used his intellect to find less destructive ways to his end goal.
I don't see Voldemort has a very logical person at all. He seems ruled by impulses (if very long lasting impulses). Although he pretends to be in control, he has really never learnt to control his wants and desires. Instead he spends all his life chasing after things he can't have. This suggests to me more willful immaturity than true evil but certainly not something that he could not a correct himself if he wanted to.
But our main concern is that Voldemort didn't want to reign in his impulses and that is a choice he made, rather than a choice may for him by society.
Reply
Leave a comment