I would agree that Luna would be the most likely to be the next Dumbledore (as I mentioned in the Pottermore thread a few days ago), but I would also argue that Harry is more powerfully magical than Hermione in many ways. She may know more magic, but he'd win in a duel not because of 'non-magical' qualities like nerve and willpower, but because nerve and willpower give his spells an advantage, at least in that area of magic.

If we're considering mindset as a factor in how magical someone is, then we must consider that Harry is far more advanced in that area in a number of ways, as evidenced by his ability to sense 'the right moment' and other such things by the end of DH. There are various other examples of this esoteric sense throughout the books, that allow him to excel where Hermione is often limited. Her variety of understanding isn't the only one that applies to magical strength.

This is not to say she isn't more advanced than he is in some ways, but if we're considering how states of mind apply to one's magical skill, then obviously specialization is a factor, and we can allow for different mindsets to manifest as skills in different fields for those who do not exhibit Dumbledore's level of genius. Harry doesn't win in a duel because he's physically superior to Hermione, but because his mindset is better suited to more powerful combat and Defense oriented spells.

 

The approach described is interesting. However, if it is adopted for a story, it would entail somewhat bizarre implications for narrative and characterization. The perspective of a highly magical individual would need to be very different from that of a more mundane thinker, quite alien to the average reader's muggle sensibilities.

A question, if I may:
Suppose an arbitrarily intelligent muggle were to gain access to the totality of magical theory committed to book and parchment. Given time to study this wealth of material, would this super-genius muggle be able to figure things out about magic that would be impressive by the standards of powerful wizards?

 

I would say yes. Probably not spell creation, as that seems to involve a certain amount of trial and error, but more abstract stuff? I don't see why not, given a Muggle who is both intelligent and willing to accept ideas that may seem completely counter-intuitive. Wizards and Muggles have essentially the same brains, after all.

I picture magical theory mostly like the grand metaphysical systems of philosophy, using deductive reasoning and observed facts about the world to come up with an abstract system to explain the world.

Though I do imagine that magical theory would also be significantly more specific and detailed than those systems, as it is concerned with the particular behaviour of individual spells/branches of magic/magical phenomena as well as the world in general.

I picture there being competing systems, none of which can be completely endorsed as true but all of which capture some element of truth, some systems perhaps being better equipped to explain a certain type of magic (e.g. transfiguration) than others.

I think this theory has to be essentially non-mathematical, because we know mathematics is not taught at Hogwarts but magical theory is a part of all the core classes. Further, having magical theory use complex mathematics just seems too scientific.

(Arithmancy I see as being more like computer science than mathematics: it's used to model the behaviour of magic in various situations, but doesn't fundamentally underlie explanations of magical nature.)

An example of the kind of question magical theory might address is "What is food?" which is extremely relevant to the behaviour of magic.

This is an interesting theoretical question because:

1. It's not an objective fact. We know you can use transfiguration to create a pig, but that you can't use it to create pork chops. An objective treatment which concerned physical nature would class these two objects together.

2. It's not a subjective fact. If it was, then all it would take to break Gamp's Law was convincing yourself that something wasn't food, perhaps using the confundus charm. It wouldn't be much of a magical law if it was broken that easily.

In my own magical theory musings I have come up with something that doesn't make much sense to Muggles to solve this problem: the interjective fact. The idea here is that there's a class of truths that are somewhere between objective and subjective.

Importantly, the escape isn't just the belief of humanity in general. Even if you convinced over half of humanity that rocks are food, there's an important sense in which they're still not food.

There's a similar problem in the philosophy of biology, with regards to the question of biological function. Function is a fundamental concept used widely in biology: e.g the function of the heart is to pump blood. That's a fairly uncontroversial biological statement.

And yet...

The heart was never designed, so function cannot be what the heart was designed to do in the way we would talk about the function of human-created objects.

We cannot objectively say that function is the behaviour the heart displays within the system of the body in terms of inputs and outputs (pumping blood), because sometimes hearts don't pump blood and we need to delineate that behaviour from correct behaviour. That is, hearts malfunction. The concept of malfunction requires a value judgement: the universe doesn't care if the human organism dies or not. To separate correct function from incorrect function you have to value one arrangement of matter over the other.

We cannot say that it's what the heart does in the majority of cases, because that would mean that, if over 50% of humanity were to have tachycardia, you could say that tachycardia was part of the function of the heart. Which it isn't.

Nor can you say that the heart's function is the behaviour which was selected for by natural selection. The function of birds' feathers is to aid in flight, but they evolved as a form of waterproofing. The appendix evolved to help digest cellulose, but that is not its function in the human body. Evolutionary history and current function are not the same.

There's no escaping the value judgement: in order to state the important biological fact that the heart's function is to pump blood, you have to allow subjectivity into your concept of truth. It's an objective truth of the world that the heart's function is to pump blood, but that truth depends on a subjective human value of the biological organism continuing to live.

 

Meh.

Trying to set some kind of rules on magic takes magic out of magic. I like to think of the magical theory in HP as something like the Ptolemaic model of the universe with epicycles and other hacks and cheats: It more or less fits the observations and has some kind of value in explaining things that were already known, but is utterly wrong in every meaningful way and doesn't help in inventing new magic. The "true" theory of magic is unknown, and maybe even unknowable.

As you said magic is conceptual. A "powerful wizard" is a concept in itself, not a result of some kind of predictable or even discernible path of learning and practicing.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling we put more thought into how Magic works in the HP Universe than Rowling did?

 

And why would that be a bad thing?

 

Because I like it when Authors put a lot of thought in how the world they're creating works. When they seem to just be making it up as they go along, or just throw in things without much thought into their full potential, it just really bothers me.

 

The following is a long opinion piece on how I think magical natural talent works.

People have magical affinities. These seem to be based on both personality and innate.

That is to say, certain people are better and will learn faster in certain schools of magic. In addition, certain peoples spells in certain schools of magic will be more powerful.

Not all excellent wizards are excellent overall. Some are excellent only in charms, or only in transfiguration, or are good overall but only exceptional at one specific charm.

This makes sense, because each of the schools of magic follows completely different underlying laws and theory. You can't make food with transfiguration, but making food with charms is no issue. It follows that each school of magic is also performed significantly differently.

Those who see the world as disciplined, and moldable, who desire to impose order on the chaos around them, are excellent at transfigurations. We see this with Mcgonagal, and to a lesser extent Hermoine. We also see it with Dumbledore(Transfigurations were his best subject originally) but dumbledore is also excellent at just about everything. More on that later.

Charms seem to require more whimsical and flexible personalities. Flitwick is excited and jumpy. A belief that anything is possible also seems to help, for more advanced charms. Harry's shielding charm holds because Harry needs to protect everyone. A variety of traits such as determination seems to help with various charms. Charms is, in general, a much wider field then transfigurations, and a wider range of traits help with it.

Dark arts is a name for a variety of things. dark charms, curses, hexes, etc. We see several examples of curse requireing "darker" emotions such as anger, hate, enjoyment of the pain of others, the need to control. Ambition also seems to help. Snape is good at these because he needs to be in control, to manipulate others. Voldemort exemplifies these dark traits, and is not only naturally talented at them, but capable of using them instinctively, without a wand or any teachings. But Voldemort is also good at most other things. More on him later.

So, Dumbledore. He wants to impose order on the world around him. Hes also whimsical. He creates complex plans, and then fills them with obfuscating chaos. He is brave, determined, and ambitious. Does he just happen to have the perfect personality for spellcasting? In my opinion no. He's simply that good. He purposely works his mind into the proper mental state for each spell he casts, and can probably alter his personality at will. He couldn't do so completely without side affects though, and is basically insane.

Voldemort started with an excellent affinity for dark arts of all kinds, but that wasn't enough. He too learned to alter his personality to better cast spells of all kinds. However, his inability to comprehend love crippled him here, and he could never cast spells like the patronus. Furthermore, while he can, at will, make himself feel emotions like humour, he can hardly be described as whimsical. So, still better at charms then the rest of his generation, they aren't that powerful for him, and he constantly uses his exceptional dark arts skill instead.

Hermoine Granger is also a genius, in a way. but her talents lie more in wandwork and sheer intelligence, and not in the sort of mental agility DUmbledore and Voldemort are adept in. She can learn lots of spells very quickly, but they aren't necessarily any more powerful than other people. Her mind simply isn't twisty enough.

Neville Longbottom on the other hand is very unsuited to most forms of magic. He doesn't have the self confidence to feel he can impose order on chaos. He isn't really happy, or jovial, or whimsical at all. He could probably do the wand motions perfectly for hordes of spells, and yet be unable to cast them. Does this mean he is unmagical? Does this mean you could scan him and would say weak? No. He is just as magical as any other wizard. He can still learn to be as determined as anyone else, if he tries, and he could still cast the patronus, if he used the right happy memory.

Magical talent is a lot like real life talent. Some people are better or worse at math or art. But that doesn't make them more or less human. Anyone without a serious cognitive disability (like Voldemorts inability to comprehend love) can learn some math, but more anyltical people will learn faster, and be better at it.
TL;DR: In my opinion there is no such thing as magical power, but there is natural aptitude in various types of magic, and it is connected with personality.

 

Formatting a space between each paragraph would make that a lot easier to read.

OT: My favorite fantasy books have always been the ones with the most world building in them. Rowling's series works with whimsy, but this thread is reminding me of one of my favorite authors (L. E. Modesitt Jr.) who often builds his magic before he builds the story that the magic is in. That way it's consistent through different books.

 

The only thing I learned from that is that the Reapers are transfiguration masters.

It all makes more sense now.