| NEWS
| July 19, 2005
Hate, Love and Harry
Seminar studies series’
moral dilemmas
By Bunmi
Ishola
Contributor to The Shorthorn
If someone was a known bigot, constantly
mistreated others, unfair and downright rude, one would be prone
to hate them — but is it appropriate to hate?
As about 40 Harry Potter fans gathered in the Central Library on
Thursday, this is the question Hal Thorsrud, the author of an essay
about his philosophical insights on the series, attempted to answer
for them.
Thorsrud said that people often use literature to answer the question
of how they should live; fictional characters are often used as
guides through life.
“A good lot is philosophical in a variety of ways,”
Dr. Thorsrud said.
The seminar was part of UTA Libraries’ celebrations for Saturday’s
release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Before the speech, attendees participated in various activities
including games and a costume contest. Many of the people who attended
arrived in costumes, ranging from Harry Potter to the Sorting Hat
and even Harry’s broomstick, the Firebolt.
Using the examples of Dolores
Umbridge, a nasty character from book five, and Voldemort, Potter’s
archenemy, Thorsrud presented both the Stoic and Aristotelian view
on hatred and whether it was right to hate.
According to Aristotle, when you choose something, it defines your
character. What a person hates or loves says a lot about them, Thorsrud
said.
He said that for Aristotle, an important part of developing a morally
good character is learning to love things that are good and hate
things that are bad.
He said Aristotle claims there is a proper amount of anger and/or
hate to feel. To feel too much is a fault, so a virtuous person
would hate in the right amount.
“The right response to injustice is anger,” Thorsrud
said. “And if it’s a severe amount of injustice, the
right response is hatred.”
Aristotle believed that feeling no anger or hatred is as much a
fault as feeling too much, Thorsrud said. He said one must determine
the proper amount to feel based on the circumstances.
However Thorsrud said the Stoics feel there is never a right to
hate.
“There is no proper amount of anger or hatred,” he said.
“It should just be water off your back.”
Thorsrud used Dumbledore, a very powerful wizard and Harry’s
headmaster, as an example of a “Stoic sage.”
Reading quotes from the book, he showed how Dumbledore does not
stand for injustice but at the same time does not allow the actions
of others to create any strong emotions.
Dumbledore, Thorsrud said, is a perfect model for the Stoics. He
sends a message that it is not how you feel but how you handle the
situation that matters.
“They cannot reach how you respond to the world,” Thorsrud
said. “So there is no reason to hate.”
So who is right, Thorsrud asked. Aristotle or the Stoics?
“Personally I feel pulled in both directions,” he said.
Education junior Melissa Zingerli said Aristotle’s viewpoint
seems to be purely about emotions, which can be dangerous, and learning
to control them is safer.
“Emotional response is valid,” she said. “Keeping
them in check is good — you have to act on that, or it’ll
destroy you.”
Libraries Dean Gerald Saxon leaned more toward the Stoic side.
“If one was raised Judeo-Christian, then it’s not ever
right to hate,” he said. “Having been raised that way,
I think you should stand up for yourself, but you don’t have
to project hatred to anything.”
|
|
