hah.

True, I take the position that there is no such thing as "light arts", mainly because there is no evidence of such a thing in canon. One can make the argument that Charms and Transfiguration are "light arts", but I'm not too keen on that idea for a few reasons. Traditionally in fantasy, "light" or "white" arts are healing/protective/faith based magics. From what I can tell, anyone can use healing and protective magic in HP so you can throw that out. There are no gods or higher beings which allows you to use faith based magic, so that's out.

Basically if you follow canon, there is either no such thing as "light arts", or you make a flimsy and awkward argument that Charms and Transfiguration are "light arts". Or you can invent new magics, but that almost always results in pure epic fail.

 

I still think that the very existence of the Patronus Charm completely disputes your theory. Its sole (intended) purpose is to drive off soul-sucking monsters. How is that not "Light Arts"?

 

I'll grant that considering it takes happiness, but it isn't referred to as 'light' in canon, just that it's extremely difficult and most adult wizards can't cast it. We have no other mention of spells that need happiness or other positive emotions. Nor any mention of so called light arts.

In contrast to that, we know a shitload about the Dark Arts.

If you want to claim the Patronus as a 'light' spell, then go ahead. The fact is though, that's the only spell we know of in canon of that sort. In this, 'light' arts are limited to only 1 spell, and thus irrelevant.

Unless you try to create new forms of magic (which inevitably results in epic fail), 'light' arts are irrelevant.

 

Unless of course you say that if something is not dark then it is light by definition.

 

which is lame.

for example, Charms and Transfiguration aren't "light" arts simply because they are not Dark arts. It doesn't work that way. Anyone can use Charms and Transfiguration. Voldemort in particular seems to be a genius at Transfiguration like Dumbledore. There's no stigma attached to these unlike the Dark arts. Why call it a "light" art when it can be used by anyone, including the darkest of wizards? It makes the whole thing unnecessarily convoluted and ridiculous.

Traditionally "light" arts are not usable by dark wizards. Besides the patronus (which I would venture say even most dark wizards could cast), there are no such spells or magics in canon like this.

 

no shit...

 

That's just it. Everyone in the universe could cast any spell, so long as they're skilled enough at magic. Dumbledore could cast any of the Dark Arts - he just chooses not to. The stigma is, as has been said many times before, likely just a social thing, while the only actual consequences are generally legal ones (unless post-DH Harry is corrupt from casting unforgivables). If that's the case, then it is not a stretch to say that anything that is not a "dark" art is a "light" art. Anyone can cast it, so casting limitations aren't an issue.

 

Traditionally?

I was merely talking definitions.

When speaking of light and dark, either something has light or it doesn't. If it doesn't not have light (i.e if it's not dark) then it is light by definition.

 

This seems like a false binary to me. Can you argue this position without resorting to wordsmithery? Seriously, tell me why all non dark arts are 'light' arts besides the "well if it's not dark, then it's automatically light" nonsense. Tell me why Charms and Transfiguration are 'light' arts beyond just not being dark arts.

 

The patronus seems pretty light to me. If Dark Magic is magic that takes dark emotions to cast, then Light Magic is magic that takes light emotions to cast. Pretty freaking simple.

For the stupid: Patronus is light because it takes happiness. Avada Kedavra is dark because it takes hatred and the desire to kill.

 

The problem with this is that we don't know if all dark magic requires dark or 'negative' emotions to cast. We know that AK requires hatred and the intent to kill and that the Cruciatus requires the desire to truly cause the recipient pain, but beyond that, it does not really seem that Dark Magic requires hatred, anger, sadism, etc. to cast.

As an example, in HBP Harry slices Draco with Sectumsempra, which Snape himself describes as dark magic, and Harry didn't use 'negative' emotions to cast it, just intent. He didn't even know what the spell did and it still worked. It seems pretty clear that beyond AK and Crucio, you just need intent to use most dark magic.

Another example is when Harry gets Imperious happy in Gringotts in DH. Harry didn't use any dark emotions to cast it, just the intent to control another being, which resulted in allowing them to escape.

Dark magic does not necessarily require 'negative' emotions, as we've seen in these instances. It's merely a tool a wizard can use in certain situations just like all other branches of magic.

Another problem I have with your definition is that besides the Patronus, we do not know of any other magic that requires positive or 'light' emotions. If there is only one spell in the HP universe that needs happiness or other 'light' emotions, then we don't even need to have a Light magic category. And like I said above, most attempts to create Light magic in fanfiction fail epically. So Light magic is pretty much irrelevant as far as we know.

 

Then apparently you know nothing of light.

Either there is the presence of light or there isn't.

If there isn't light, then it is dark.

If there is light, then it is light.

Simple as. There's no concept of "neutral" when it comes to light.

Why does there have to be any reason beyond that of them not being Dark?

We're talking about definitions: "wordsmithery" is the essence of the debate.

 

@Demons In The Night

The intent to control and command another being is a dark emotion, just as the desire to put another being in huge amounts of pain is a dark emotion.

In my mind, this was a plot hole by JKR. Harry knew nothing about the effects of the spell- he had never even tried the wand movements- but he cast it perfectly the first time.

Maybe he did have the intent to harm Malfoy, and that was what made the spell work- which ties into my ideas on Dark Magic.

We don't know of other spells that take light emotions because JKR didn't take the time to show us any.

It can easily be assumed though that the Cheering Charm takes a desire to see someone else happy (Guys, desire and intent are completely the same thing). Anyways, the Fidelius charm probably takes either the desire to protect or a great fear to cast.

It is all speculation, as we do not know many spells, so we can't just assume that I am correct, but we also can't assume that there isn't light magic because we haven't seen much about it. We have seen enough to speculate that there may be a light side to magic, and that is as much as you get from JKR.

EDIT: It is a lovely feeling to have someone completely disregard your post...

 

We aren't talking about light though, we are talking about magic (or at least I am). You're thinking too literally. I'm not going to argue with you any further because I don't see anything coming out of it. You are pretty stubborn and will argue something to death, sometimes I think just for the sake of being contrary. I don't want to go down that path. If you can't see the point I was trying to make, then I can't help you.

 

Dark magic.

The concept of Dark magic draws an analogy between magic and light.

I can see the point that you're trying to make, but I think it's irrelevant to the discussion on this particular aspect of the topic.

When deriving the existence of "Light magic" from the existence of "Dark magic" we are dealing solely with definitions: Dark magic represents one side of a bipolar dichotomy, and the other side of this is, by definition, Light magic. The requirements by which any particular spell is classified as light or dark does not factor into this: we are simply saying that the idea of "light magic" necessarily exists if you have the idea of "Dark magic", not anything about what it consists of.

You seem to have a assumption that Light magic must consist of "holy" spells cast with positive emotions and so forth, like the Patronus, and thus believe that Transfiguration and Charms cannot be light magic. There is no reason to believe this. We certainly have seen that not all Dark magic needs negative emotion to cast (though to desire to cast them in the first place you must have some sort of harmful intent).

In addition, if we say, as many in this thread have, that Dark magic is the magic which is cast by Dark wizards - magic that people only want to cast if they already are feeling negative emotions or harmful intent (thus saying that negative emotions are not magically necessary for the casting of the spells, but instead motivationally necessary) then we could say that Light magic, as the opposite to Dark magic, is magic which is cast with peaceful intent/positive emotions. This pretty much encompasses all magic which is not Dark magic - including Transfiguration and charms.

 

Ehh, why am I reminded of Final Fantasy White magic? Healing, protecting etc... (Not probably very relevant to the discussion at hand)

 

I don't like the argument from definitions simply because there is no evidence of Light magic in canon. When considering things as canon, Light magic falls short as there is simply no evidence or allusion to said magic, no matter what kind of pedantic arguments you come up with.

Also, where does it say that you need positive emotions use Transfiguration or Charms, and where does it say you can only use them for peaceful intents? I must have missed that part .

Transfiguration can be just as effective a weapon as your traditional dueling spells as we see in the battle at the ministry in OoTP and DH. I'd also say that a creative mind can use Charms in a duel effectively to distract, harm, or incapacitate your opponent. Flitwick is said to be a dueling champion, and his area of specialty is Charms, so it's reasonable to assume he is one of said creative persons who can use Charms in a duel to great effect.

 

I never said "only"

But the majority of the time, you will be casting under peaceful intent. And then we have to consider the possibility that the moment you cast Transfiguration/Charms with harmful intent then they stop being Transfiguration/Charms and become the Dark Arts.

However, I can appreciate the not-canon argument. It's the same reason why I reject the terminology "wards".

 

Would "Protective Enchantments" fit better?

 

There is no single word that encompasses protective spells in canon.