|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic
| Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239030] |
Di, 21 März 2006 13:15 |
|
I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind of
got to wondering (as we often do)...
Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who is
versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is equally
(and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already has.
I just got to thinking.
--David
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239056 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 15:57 |
|
simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
> I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind
> of got to wondering (as we often do)...
>
> Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
>
> I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
> detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who
> is versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is
> equally (and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
>
> Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already
> has.
>
> I just got to thinking.
>
> --David
It's always been easier to destroy than build, to hurt than heal. I suppose
it's true in magic too.
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239092 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 19:05 |
|
In the previous message Here in Minnesota neverwillicheckthis [at] hotmail.com
wrote:
> simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind
>> of got to wondering (as we often do)...
>>
>> Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
>>
>> I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
>> detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who
>> is versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is
>> equally (and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
>>
>> Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already
>> has.
>>
>> I just got to thinking.
>>
>> --David
>
> It's always been easier to destroy than build, to hurt than heal. I
> suppose it's true in magic too.
>
> Ken
Wow, that's a very good answer...
Babs
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239105 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 21:23 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
> simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> It's always been easier to destroy than build, to hurt than heal. I suppose
> it's true in magic too.
>
> Ken
But doesn't that go against the theme of the books, in a way? You
know, love over hate, good over evil, etc.? But I think you're
probably right.
You can really pick out examples on either end. One example that comes
to mind in support of good magic is the scene at the MoM where
Voldemort tries to possess Harry. Because Harry was so full of love,
Voldemort couldn't bear to stay there very long. And as for Dark Arts
support, Voldemort's first reign of terror seems to be a good example.
Eh?
--David
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239109 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 21:27 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
> simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind
>>of got to wondering (as we often do)...
>>
>>Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
>>
>>I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
>>detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who
>>is versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is
>>equally (and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
>>
>>Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already
>>has.
>>
>>I just got to thinking.
>
> It's always been easier to destroy than build, to hurt than heal. I suppose
> it's true in magic too.
"Is the dark side more powerful?"
"No. Easier. More seductive."
Granted, that's from another body of work, but it seems to apply.
Regards,
John
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239112 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 21:35 |
|
simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
> I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind of
> got to wondering (as we often do)...
>
> Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
>
> I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
> detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who is
> versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is equally
> (and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
First, I'm not sure if there is a common chararacteristic of all Dark
Magic, other than the apparent intent of the witch/wizard employing the
magic.
> Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already has.
Good is more powerful than evil.
All evil can do is distort or destroy what's good. Once all good has
been twisted or wrecked, evil has nothing more to do. In fact, evil can
do nothing until good has done something.
Good need not stop at the mending of that which was torn, or the
rebuilding of that which was destroyed; once the works of evil have been
undone, good can continue creating, building, loving, forever; there
never comes a point at which good can do no more.
Evil needs good. Good has no need for evil.
Regards,
John
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239118 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 22:10 |
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind of
> > got to wondering (as we often do)...
> >
> > Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
> >
> > I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
> > detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who is
> > versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is equally
> > (and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
>
> First, I'm not sure if there is a common chararacteristic of all Dark
> Magic, other than the apparent intent of the witch/wizard employing the
> magic.
>
> > Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already has.
>
> Good is more powerful than evil.
>
> All evil can do is distort or destroy what's good. Once all good has
> been twisted or wrecked, evil has nothing more to do. In fact, evil can
> do nothing until good has done something.
>
> Good need not stop at the mending of that which was torn, or the
> rebuilding of that which was destroyed; once the works of evil have been
> undone, good can continue creating, building, loving, forever; there
> never comes a point at which good can do no more.
>
> Evil needs good. Good has no need for evil.
>
> Regards,
> John
Good post, John. I really like it.
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239127 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 23:13 |
|
David wrote:
> > It's always been easier to destroy than build, to hurt than heal. I suppose
> > it's true in magic too.
> >
> > Ken
>
> But doesn't that go against the theme of the books, in a way? You
> know, love over hate, good over evil, etc.? But I think you're
> probably right.
Combine the above with Rowling's motif of "doing what's right versus
doing what's easy," and I think everything works out consistently.
--
Brian Tung <brian [at] isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
(Location of these pages soon to change. Stay tuned for updates.)
|
|
|
| Re: Dark magic versus...erm...non-Dark magic [message #239189 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 09:42 |
|
On 21 Mar 2006 04:15:43 -0800, simdave2000 [at] gmail.com wrote:
>I know these books hold a strong theme of good over evil, but I kind of
>got to wondering (as we often do)...
>
>Which kind of magic is actually more powerful?
>
>I'm inclined to believe Dark magic is more powerful, but more
>detrimental to the soul. On the other hand, there's Dumbledore, who is
>versed in the Dark Arts but chooses not to use them. And he is equally
>(and arguably more) powerful than Voldemort.
>
>Maybe this question can't really be answered. Or maybe it already has.
>
>I just got to thinking.
>
>--David
I'm not sure magic works that way. The user determines power, not
just in and of itself. In the Potterverse, emotion controls magic.
More emotion, more power. We know Tom could perform advanced magic
unwanded. He said he could hurt people when angry. A very low impact
Crucio Curse? A nd then there's Harry, who debatably inherited some of
Tom's super skills.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 20:28:29 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02535 Sekunden |
