Nah, I disagree, it's not actually that contradictory once you get down to it. It's totally possible for him to be conflicted, and still competent and wise. Or for him to undertake the act of doing good for pathological or tragic reasons. Honestly I'm more interested in the ways Dumbledore is dishonest to himself than trying to reconstruct a Freshman Ethics course from the intricacies of his actions.

 

Or has too much baggage to be an effective leader against an completely ruthless enemy (Dumbledore's side won both times through dumb luck, plain and simple).

 

When was he a less affective leader than anyone else?

 

And that's the problem! Among the blind, the guy with the one-eyed man with the poor eyesight is the king. The Wizarding World as portrayed in the books is a joke, without anything like competent leaders and rife with bigotry (there was no Nobby Leach in the books)!

 

I don't believe a person can have Dumbledore's intelligence and experience and still be haunted by his tragic past or have inner conflict about the amount of power he does / can / should wield.

What? Being conflicted and dishonest to oneself AND being competent and wise at the same time? That is stupid.

 

That is stupid. What kind of logic is this?

 

What do you mean, what kind of logic? Intelligence, experience (and emotional control) helps you deal with shit. Even though his shit was quite worse than peoples' usual shit, he would eventually deal with it.

 

Is it stupid? Ariana's death obviously still causes him extreme guilt (the scene at the lake in HbP, limbo in DH) and still provides the key to understanding his actions almost a hundred years later. I could see why someone might be hesitant to characterize Dumbledore's attempts to redeem himself as delusional - but I do not think it's actually all that contradictory to say his outward actions are apparently morally justified, and even contextually necessary, but motivated by extreme inner confliction and guilt. Dumbledore is, by definition, not an open book.

It would be the difference between what Dumbledore is, and what he does. Or, why he does what he does, and what he actually does.

 

Except that he apparently didn't.

 

Some things you don't just "deal with," no matter how intelligent, experienced, or controlled you are. Some things you don't get over. Some things stay with you, always.

Like watching a friend - influenced in no small part by your own beliefs - become a mass-murdering Dark wizard.

Like having to confront that friend, violently, and stop him.

Like not knowing if you were the one who killed your own sister.

 

It helps him deal with it, yes, but only to a certain degree. Does it make him forget? No. Does make him love Ariana any less? No. The fact that his decision to pursue power with Grindelwald directly led to the death of his beloved sister will haunt him to his dying day and will impact any decision he makes in regards to power.

 

But that absolutely does not make him "evil".

 

I know, that it doesn't, see Hanlon's razor, but from a certain level of incompetence it doesn't matter, whether it was incompetence or malice, the result is the same, which is the source of the misconception of people thinking, that Dumbledore is evil.

 

You know I'll just cite Occam's instead because honestly I do not see where you read incompetence in for the place of human error.

 

Well said. Therapy is painful and intelligence can often make you "deal with" your internal mental problems more badly than if you were stupid.

 

I always understood that the Horcrux potion was something like Dementor-in-potion, this showing you your greatest fear as truth. That, however doesn't mean that he's actively influenced by this uncertainty, just that his greatest fear is the certainty of murdering of his sister. As for Limbo scene, I've just read it in the book (translated), and it sounds as if he spent quite some time dealing with shit, trying to assuage his guilt and ultimately he got over it. I acknowledge that that might be bad translation though.

I understand what you're saying — about him feeling guilt and being somewhat fearful of what he could have become in the past (or can become any given moment, having the power he has). I am not saying he was like "My best friend is Dark Lord and I probably killed my sister. Meh."

I just can't see him nearly as angst driven as Philemon makes him sound.

 

Can't quote you for some reason, jZab, but I would say Dumbledore is driven by regret more than angst.

 

Maybe I used too dramatic words. I just think Dumbledore is more interesting read as an ambiguous character who does good things for bad reasons with questionable means. More tragic in that he's the architect of his own flaws than anything else. That his punishment is fundamentally his own. And angst seems like a rather infantilizing word to do justice to Dumbledore's experiences. (Like almost being magic-Hitler, for instance)

 

God, is it that difficult to see that Dumbledore is human and that doesn't mean he is a terrible person? It's like every good argument that is made against your opinion of him you rebate with "but if he truly was the Messiah that shitted diamonds/I can't buy that he was God incarnate..." he wasn't, and never was intended to be and that does not mean he is bad.

 

Huh, the quote function is working for me again.

Anyway, the above is why I say that Dumbledore is driven by regret, not angst (which is more usually associated with teenagers). Dumbeldore regrets that he didn't do more to stop Grindelwald, he regrets that he waited so long. Dumbledore regrets that he didn't stop the rise of Tom Riddle, even though he foresaw it happening based on Tom's actions in the orphanage. More than anything though, Dumbledore regrets that he chose the pursuit of power over spending time with and caring for his sister.