No, because the books heavily imply that Voldemort didn’t believe. He was not pure-blood himself (Adolf Hitler, incidentally, was a very bad example of the Aryan ideal). And, I think that the discussions of how Voldemort chose to interpret the prophecy as referring not to Neville (as pureblood as they come) but to Harry (who, through his mudblood mother, is impure) specifically take this tack.
Interesting. My recollection was that as the books progressed, the plausibility of LV not caring about pure-bloodedness grew larger, but he himself didn’t admit to any such thing onscreen. Then in Deathly Hallows he suddenly did care about it again, because Rowling suddenly realised that he didn’t actually have a motive at all. So any old ill-fitting one would have to do, as part of the overall trainwreck.
Voldemort says so little on-screen that I don’t really get much out of him. His minions certainly do get more pure blood-centric as time goes on—look at Dolores Umbridge even before Deathly Hallows.
Thanks. I really should give up on having opinions about most details in the books—I’ve read them at most three times (once for the last two) and have forgotten a lot of detail.
Do you think the Death Eaters really care about Pure Bloodism?
Is MOR’s Draco being shocked to find out that Pure Bloodism isn’t true just a sign that he’s young and naive?
I’ve read them at most three times (once for the last two)
Only twice here, but I have a good memory for written material, and the ideology, physics, and philosophy of Harry Potter interested me long before MoR—so this is just an old topic for me.
Do you think the Death Eaters really care about Pure Bloodism?
Some do. The Blacks and Malfoys, probably. Others are in it to ‘back the strong horse’, and others are in it because it gives scope to their sadism.
Is MOR’s Draco being shocked to find out that Pure Bloodism isn’t true just a sign that he’s young and naive?
Yes. Eliezer has written about ‘nonoverlapping magisteria’ before: they are transparent efforts to shrink religion to something which can’t be falsified, an effort at special pleading. Even though religion (especially Western ones) have made many empirically falsifiable claims—which largely have been falsified. A very young person might take those claims seriously and be shocked that they are falsified.
To not know theological explanations of the theodicy (a topic recently relevant because I finally got around to reading Eliezer’s Haruhi story (which was very good)), to not ‘believe in belief’, to not dismiss empiricism, to lack all those sophisticated dodges and excuses that intelligent adult theists use to remain theist—this we call ‘young and naive’.
Sure. What would Lucius worry about disillusioning Draco? The anti-pure blood wizards don’t have a leg to stand on, unlike theists and atheists.
(Think back—do you recall any good arguments made against pure blood, the theory as opposed to the believers? Rowling assumes we’ll instantly identify pure bloodism == racism, and that’s that. If they think any harder, most people will fall into the usual trap of thinking that exceptions/brilliant-mudbloods like Hermione Granger disprove pure bloodism, which of course they don’t. The history of the Wizarding world is even more consistent with pure bloodism than not!)
It wouldn’t just be about Pure Blood. It would be about not having any abstract loyalties of any sort—Malfoys want to be in charge because it’s more comfortable at the top.
Were Robin here, I suspect he would point out that allowing your children to remain innocent and naive is a sign of luxury, and a signal of high status. Lucius would be embarrassed not to have his 11-year-old son appear innocent and naive.
ETA: Childhood innocence is conspicuous consumption!
No, because the books heavily imply that Voldemort didn’t believe. He was not pure-blood himself (Adolf Hitler, incidentally, was a very bad example of the Aryan ideal). And, I think that the discussions of how Voldemort chose to interpret the prophecy as referring not to Neville (as pureblood as they come) but to Harry (who, through his mudblood mother, is impure) specifically take this tack.
Interesting. My recollection was that as the books progressed, the plausibility of LV not caring about pure-bloodedness grew larger, but he himself didn’t admit to any such thing onscreen. Then in Deathly Hallows he suddenly did care about it again, because Rowling suddenly realised that he didn’t actually have a motive at all. So any old ill-fitting one would have to do, as part of the overall trainwreck.
Then again, my perspective on HP has been thoroughly polluted by the brilliant essays over at http://www.redhen-publications.com/.
Voldemort says so little on-screen that I don’t really get much out of him. His minions certainly do get more pure blood-centric as time goes on—look at Dolores Umbridge even before Deathly Hallows.
Thanks. I really should give up on having opinions about most details in the books—I’ve read them at most three times (once for the last two) and have forgotten a lot of detail.
Do you think the Death Eaters really care about Pure Bloodism?
Is MOR’s Draco being shocked to find out that Pure Bloodism isn’t true just a sign that he’s young and naive?
Only twice here, but I have a good memory for written material, and the ideology, physics, and philosophy of Harry Potter interested me long before MoR—so this is just an old topic for me.
Some do. The Blacks and Malfoys, probably. Others are in it to ‘back the strong horse’, and others are in it because it gives scope to their sadism.
Yes. Eliezer has written about ‘nonoverlapping magisteria’ before: they are transparent efforts to shrink religion to something which can’t be falsified, an effort at special pleading. Even though religion (especially Western ones) have made many empirically falsifiable claims—which largely have been falsified. A very young person might take those claims seriously and be shocked that they are falsified.
To not know theological explanations of the theodicy (a topic recently relevant because I finally got around to reading Eliezer’s Haruhi story (which was very good)), to not ‘believe in belief’, to not dismiss empiricism, to lack all those sophisticated dodges and excuses that intelligent adult theists use to remain theist—this we call ‘young and naive’.
Is it plausible that Lucius would allow Draco to be that much of an idealist?
Sure. What would Lucius worry about disillusioning Draco? The anti-pure blood wizards don’t have a leg to stand on, unlike theists and atheists.
(Think back—do you recall any good arguments made against pure blood, the theory as opposed to the believers? Rowling assumes we’ll instantly identify pure bloodism == racism, and that’s that. If they think any harder, most people will fall into the usual trap of thinking that exceptions/brilliant-mudbloods like Hermione Granger disprove pure bloodism, which of course they don’t. The history of the Wizarding world is even more consistent with pure bloodism than not!)
It wouldn’t just be about Pure Blood. It would be about not having any abstract loyalties of any sort—Malfoys want to be in charge because it’s more comfortable at the top.
Were Robin here, I suspect he would point out that allowing your children to remain innocent and naive is a sign of luxury, and a signal of high status. Lucius would be embarrassed not to have his 11-year-old son appear innocent and naive.
ETA: Childhood innocence is conspicuous consumption!
Yes, and note that Draco expects to spend his life catering to idiots. Harry’s upbringing is clearly higher status.
That sounds exactly right to me.