The Uncertainty Principle
I have the opportunity to take a unique class in my studies called "Theory of Knowledge". It examines the sources and problems inherent in what we call knowledge.
It has come to my attention of a rather personal problem that all of us have when discussing Snape. It comes out in our theories, in our predictions for the future, in our reasons why we like\dislike Snape. As much as some would like to think otherwise, we are all biased -- either culturally, personally, or emotionally. If you listen to the justifications for why someone likes\dislikes Snape they are entirely subjective. Example:
No one ever says they like Snape because of some logical non-emotional reason. For example: have you ever seen a 'fangirl' use this justification as her main reason for liking Snape:
"I sooo like the metaphorical implications of his behavior as a thematic device!"
Come on! Please be realistic.
We all identify personally with some aspect of him. And so when discussing Snape theory, we must learn to recognize the biases inherent with each theory and such.
In my attempt to explain this, I choose the Nature of Snape-theorists, those who have come up with hypothesizes based on any Snape behavior in the books as my example. Though I only choose this topic for the only reason that this is a Snape-related site, the ideas discussed can be applied to knowledge in general. How do we ascertain 'knowledge'? What problems are inherent with knowledge?
We must recognize first one of the commonalities between Snape theorists, that is, they all have some basis in an event(s) in the books. Indeed even the so called 'fluffy theories" -- those that seem near-impossible (the classic 'Is Snape a Vampire?" debate) have their basis in the text. This is an important similarity -- that different viewpoints have all stemmed from one series, one set of events. What creates our uncertainty, and thus our different perceptions and theories, is two variables, so to speak:
1. Discussion over facts. It is the facts the help us make the intuitive jump into theory. Therefore, when even the facts are in dispute, or not really known, (as in the case for much of Snape's motivation) we have variation on theory. When people question even if Snape is working for the ending of Voldemort, knowing that one fact can alter so many theories of character motivation. Therefore, if one states a theory as such, we as fellow Snapists should determine what is assumed. I have seen theories that are so clear and explicit, yet the basis of their argument is one 'fact'.
Remember this: The Harry Potter phenomenon has us in a very unique situation. With only part of the books out, we are forced to revamp our conclusions due to the very simple fact that we do not have the entire story. This might sound obvious, but too many times have I seen a site assert one particular theory, yet do not bring up or acknowledge the fact that we do not have all of the events.
Our situation of an incomplete series is much like the study of history. Like historians, we do not have all the events, and even then our perception of them are skewed. We generate theories based on what we know. Much of the problem is that when we learn new information, we could refuse to change our theories, though the information might contradict the theory.
An example. Before the 5th book came out, many was asserting Snape's possible defiant nature toward Voldemort. Some pictured him as a strong presence against Voldemort. How many fanfictions were written that had Snape saying Voldemort's name without fear, when the rest of the wizard populace cringed in horror? Reading the 5th book, this image is shattered by this line.
' "Do not say the Dark Lord's name!" spat Snape.'
We must remember above all, that our entire theories can be destroyed by one sentence.
There is a certain pride among historians (Snape theorists also) when they generate a unique theory. It is the pride associated with creation -- putting together something from a seemingly mass of nothing. But we must be able when some new fact is revealed (remember: facts are revealed all the time), to alter and maybe even rebuke our own theory. If one does not do that, the rationality of the theory process is removed and the theory becomes merely a pet project that serves no purpose. We must adapt the theory to the facts, not the facts to the theory.
Even the facts we do have are not sure. Like in mathematics, there are very few axioms that do not require proof. Otherwise we should question everything.
This applies in Snape theory. There are certain undeniable facts that that have been proven, time and time and time again through so many different means. For example:
These are like trying to prove one is one, and though it had been done before (proving one equals one) through many complicated proofs, for us, as Snape-theorists, we can take facts such as those above as true.
Now, there are semi-facts, facts that aren't really facts, but assert some sort of emotion. Since a person's emotions can never be constant (ie responding to the same stimulus in the same way), there is always that degree of uncertainty. As Snape proved for us in book three, he is quite capable of obeying to the irrational demands of emotions and acting out on them. Use of these 'facts' should be watched, because putting entire justification based one or two 'facts' can oftentimes not be a solid argument.
I used to never look at the 'Facts of Professor Snape' parts of websites because I knew my facts -- I did not need to waste my time looking at them. I assumed that all sites would be equal. But now, realize as I have been -- if facts are differently perceived, it will influence theory. So, check all those sites that give 'basic information' on Snape -- it will help you understand where some are coming from.
2. Perception over facts.
Since we cannot ever perceive the same thing, theories will never be exactly the same. The only way we at this stage can attain some sort of certainty is by formulating a theory and testing it mercilessly with the facts we know. (Or we think we know.)
The dominate example must be the confusion that is generated by Snape in the end of the 3rd book. Everyone ELSE sees the event at the end of Snape's 5th year as small and rather insignificant. Yet to Snape, it is a character defining moment. From his actions in the third book, one can see a strong reaction. Be it to the crime against his person, or his duty to uphold the law, it is strong.
Also consider that some facts are not initially recognized as facts. Dumbledore mentions the Room of Requirement in book four, but for other reasons we do not recognize it to be true until the fifth. Also realize that the opposite can occur. Facts can be taken as truth, but later found out to be totally false. Example: Snape as the cause of Harry's jinxed broom in book one. This leads to all sorts of confusion, especially when we are corrected, or are forced to change our convictions (again, see the first book).
This idea applies to all knowledge in general. In United States history, the impetus to enter the Vietnam war in 1954 was the Gulf of Tonkin 'Incident', when a Vietnamese ship fired upon an American ship. It was perceived at the time to be a huge event, violating American interests in Asia. So when more than ten years later the American public found out that the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not really occur, it caused many to question the reason for our being in Vietnam. This lead to many protests.
My point is that the perception of events, whether they really occurred, or whether it is based on untruth, can create problems in perception. We must realize that even now we might be being misled. The truth, when dealing with not only motivations of the Potions Professor but of life in general, is uncertain. Confess your ignorance. I do.
*A Note: Though I seem to condone this sort of approach, I only speak of it in a purely objective way to bring awareness to the process. I am of the camp that theory always involves some sort of emotion, and that total elimination of emotion from theory-generating is detrimental.*
I am eager to recieve all of your comments on my observations.