The Destruction of the Soul-The biggest Irony

paintball

Time Turners
I just can't get out of my mind a possible ending to the series that in my opinion would be the perfect ironic ending. I finally had to put it in writing, so I added another page to my website here: The Big Irony It is not very long and will not take long to read. When I get a chance, I will add this thread as a place to come to discuss this new addition to my site.

I would appreciate your imput after you have had an opportunity to read this essay. I don't really think of this as much a theory as a wish.

Thanks

Paintball
 

Mr_Bandman

Time Turners
Okay.....an interesting viewpoint, to be sure. There are very deep spiritual implications here. Your "wish" would certainly put a plausible explanation to Dumbledore's assertion that "there are things far worse than death" and his comment that "merely killing you would not satisfy" him---if the thing that is worse than death is for a person and her/his soul to completely cease to exist. Hmmm......I'm going to mull this one over for a bit....more later.......
 

paintball

Time Turners
Okay.....an interesting viewpoint, to be sure. There are very deep spiritual implications here. Your "wish" would certainly put a plausible explanation to Dumbledore's assertion that "there are things far worse than death" and his comment that "merely killing you would not satisfy" him---if the thing that is worse than death is for a person and her/his soul to completely cease to exist. Hmmm......I'm going to mull this one over for a bit....more later.......

Thanks for reading my ramblings Mr_Bandman. I really don't think there is any way we can predict with any degree of certainity as to the details that JKR is going to give us about the afterlife and the effect of Voldemort's actions on his eternal soul, but I am willing to bet that she will at least give us some tidbits on this subject.
 

Hoggy Warty Hogwarts

Outside Playing Quidditch
I really like your thoughts on this, i can actually see it happening that way not saying that it will but i can see it never the less, it is very interesting though.
 

Mr_Bandman

Time Turners
Paintball---The thing that sticks in my mind is that the "ending" of a person's soul does not fit with your argument that JKR's storyline is based on logic and not on fantasy. Albert Einstein stated that his reason for believing in some form of afterlife was based on logic----life is energy and energy cannot cease to exist.
 

Dr Winterbourne

Time Turners
The theory makes me think of a belief from some Buddhist schools of thought.

My understanding is that they hold that a soul does not come originally from Earth, but from a heavenly realm, another dimension. Due to wrong doing in that dimension, a soul cannot be allowed to stay - as they no longer meet the requirements for being in a paradise, so, the souls fall down. Eventually, as a last chance, they fall to the Earth.

Here on Earth, one is separated from the truth of the Universe - you are lost in a maze - and cannot recall your true home, or be sure of the truth of Gods and Buddhas. Because of this uncertainty, this lack of proof, a soul on Earth can be rewarded - if it can hold on to its original, good, nature in this place of temptation and pain and blindness, then it is worth rewarding, and can go home, once it has reached the required level of goodness again.

Should, however it fail to improve, it remains on Earth after death, to try again.

Should it grow worse, it will reach a point where the gods have no choice but to destroy it, as it is too evil to exist in any plane. Then, there is a complete destruction of body and soul. This, I believe, could very well be the fate of Voldemort, and a delicious irony it is, that his quest, through evil, for immortality, will lead to his permanent erasure from existence.
 

Sirius Potter Fan

Night Patroll
paintball said:
At the same time I hope her punishment of Voldemort is not something done to him by others, but something he did to himself
This is allways considered the best form of punishment or dicipline . . . Having no option than to suffer the consequences that were brought on yourself.

There is no doubt that splitting the soul damages it . . . just common sense would tell you that. Since the only way (we are told) to split the soul is to commit murder, that would also imply that only the person themselves is capable of damaging that soul. We have discussed briefly in other threads whether the soul can be rejoined once split. I think the consensus was that a soul split, but left in the body can eventualy heal, in otherwords, redemption is possible. But if the split part of the soul is removed so as to produce a Horcrux, then it may never rejoin the remaining soul portion in the body. It is also assumed that when a Horcrux is destroyed, that entails destroying the encased portion of the soul as well as the object (only I'm not certain that the object is completely destroyed, the diary was still a book with a hole in it, the ring just had a crack in the stone.) So, I guess, what I'm taking a long time to say, is that when the person elects to seperate his soul, that soul can then be destroyed, if it can be destroyed in part, it can be destroyed completely.

Some argue that Harry cannot be a murderer . . . first it is not murder when it is self defense, second, in destroying the Diary Horcrux, and in planning to destroy the others, he has already began the process of Voldemort's destruction. Harry is just killing him a piece at a time . . . but note . . . Harry is not doing it alone . . . Dumbledore destroyed the ring Horcrux, and it is possible that RAB was able to destroy the locket Horcrux before his death.
 

paintball

Time Turners
Recently the posters on another forum have gotten me wondering even about the concept of an immortal soul in JKR's world. The dementor's kiss seems to be in conflict with the concept of the immortality of the soul. In JKR's world it appears that a soul can be destroyed through no fault of the soul. It apparently can be destroyed simply because it is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Any comments on this apparent conflict with the concept of an immortal soul?
 

Sirius Potter Fan

Night Patroll
The only real info we are given on the Dementor’s kiss comes from Lupin in PoA . . .

PoA said:
"They call it the Dementor's Kiss," said Lupin, with a slightly twisted smile. "It's what dementors do to those they wish to destroy utterly. I suppose there must be some kind of mouth under there, because they clamp their jaws upon the mouth of the victim and -- and suck out his soul."
Harry accidentally spat out a bit of butterbeer.
"What -- they kill --?"
"Oh no," said Lupin. "Much worse than that. You can exist without your
soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But
you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no. .. anything.
There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll just exist. As an empty
shell. And your soul is gone forever... lost.

This doesn’t imply that the soul is destroyed, but that it is removed from the body. Granted, it does not say what happens to that soul either. In this case, the body continues to exist, but in a soulless state. We really do not know what the dementors do to that removed soul. It is possible that it could be destroyed, but not stated either way, one would assume that although the destruction of the soul would be dreaded, the continuance of the soul in the being of the dementor, would be continuous torment even greater than being near them as in Azkaban, and would be even more feared. It could be then, that at the death of the dementor (can they die????) the soul could then be released to the afterlife . . . or . . . . behind the veil?

The quote by Dumbledore – “Death is but the next great adventure” as well as the presence of Ghosts, implies at least in Rowling’s wizarding world the soul is immortal.
 

Mr_Bandman

Time Turners
Well....it at least implies that the soul can go on beyond the life of the body, but it does not necessarily mean the soul is indestructable....
 

Alz

Administrator
Staff member
The whole concept of death is a mystery in the Potter world - there is no doubts to this ...
Ask one question - where are the bodies?
- Lily and James dead - no bodies anywhere as of yet
- Sirius disappears behind a veil and dead - no body
- Dumbledore's tomb catches fire and 'something' leaps from the flames
- Cedric is killed - no mention of where he finally rests
- RAB assumed dead

I see an opening or opportunity here - I did write an article on this a while back - http://www.thefinalhorcrux.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2304
I guess I question why is death so mysterious in these books?

Interesting theory again Paintball - I guess the irony to me is that death is shrouded in mystery in these books - no such thing as a death and a grave - plenty of deaths but all in weird ways and circumstances.
 

paintball

Time Turners
Alz said:
I see an opening or opportunity here - I did write an article on this a while back - http://www.thefinalhorcrux.com/forum...ead.php?t=2304
I guess I question why is death so mysterious in these books?

My opinion on the missing James and Liley bodies is that JKR had pretty much backed herself in a corner on disclosing who found their bodies and what was done with them, because in my opinion she wanted to keep secret the fact that Ministry of Magic first responders to Godric's Hollows found the three bodies that were present , James, Liley, and Voldemort. She had to keep this secret because the news release from the Ministry of Magic was that "Voldemort had lost his powers" not that "Voldemort was dead." If JKR had let us know that the Ministry of Magic had found Voldemort's body at Godric's Hollows, but felt he wasn't dead then it would be apparent that at least the higher ups in the Ministry of Magic knew that Voldemort had created at least 1 horcrux. She really couldn't have anyone discuss James and Liley's bodies without discussing Voldemort's body, so in my opinion she just left the subject alone.

At least that's my take on the subject, but I am probably a minority of one who believes Scrimgeour knows about the Horcruxes.
 

Alz

Administrator
Staff member
What I actually like in this is the irony - as explained by you, we are all immortal as our soul lives on one we pass over from mortal life - but the act of horcruxes versus sustaining the soul in fact does the opposit - if all of your horcruxes are exposed and destroyed you in fact have no soul left.
Given Voldemort's blind fear of death - it would be ironic that the one process that looks to 'stack the odd's' of soul preservation in fact exposes it's immortality!
 

Sirius Potter Fan

Night Patroll
You just can't help but wonder what it is in death that Voldemort is so afraid of. Does he not believe in "life after death"? or that the soul continues to exist on a different plane after death? surely he has seen ghosts, and even that should be enough to convince him that this life isn't all that there is . . .

Death is but the next great adventure!
 

Mr_Bandman

Time Turners
You just can't help but wonder what it is in death that Voldemort is so afraid of. Does he not believe in "life after death"? or that the soul continues to exist on a different plane after death? surely he has seen ghosts, and even that should be enough to convince him that this life isn't all that there is . . .

Death is but the next great adventure!

I would suppose that in death there is a loss of individual power---an equalization of sorts---maybe he fears being on the same level as everyone else---being "average"......just a thought....
 

Dr Winterbourne

Time Turners
Voldemort holds fast to what he has - in contrast to Harry, who continuously brings about change, brings in the new, lets things die so that things can be reborn.

I've said this before, but that's why Voldemort has a snake for a symbol, and Harry is associated with a pheonix. A snake slips out of its skin, symbolically dying but continuing to live, where a pheonix actually dies, and is reborn rfrom the ashes, renewed.

Alot of the evil in the books is people clinging to the status quo - picture Fudge and his scrambling to maintain his power. This holding on is shown repeatedly to be misguided, wrong, and doomed to be futile, as Harry will bring in the news age whether people like it or not.

A piece of advice I give each of my friends when a relationship falters is 'It only hurts if you hold on'. My instinct is to cling, but I know the truth of this observation, even if I don't want to.

A message of the books, and has been since Flamel, and the Mirror of Erisad, is Let Things Die. Voldemort is the ultimate antithesis of this. It is also why I wont be surprised if Harry dies.
 

Sir Cadogan

Noble Heart, Steely Sinew
Voldemort holds fast to what he has - in contrast to Harry, who continuously brings about change, brings in the new, lets things die so that things can be reborn.
I agree - I also like your linking the magical creatures, Voldemort - Snake/Harry - Phoenix.
Dr Winterbourne said:
A message of the books, and has been since Flamel, and the Mirror of Erisad, is Let Things Die. Voldemort is the ultimate antithesis of this. It is also why I wont be surprised if Harry dies.
Well - there is a time for everything, isn't there? And I daresay there is a difference between Flamel, the wizard who had reached a couple of hundred years, and Harry, who hasn't even finished school.
Still, I have to admit - I won't be surprised either if Harry dies, just because it's such a stereotype fate for a hero. But since I have an entirely unreasonable soft spot for happy endings, I'm still hoping for a Harry alive and well at the end of Book 7 (preferably arm in arm with Ginny). I want them to live happily ever after. (Yes. I suppose Holden Caulfield would call such an ending "phony" or "corny". So what ;-)))
 
Top