Slytherins And Ravenclaw?

Yeah, well, the prophecy had almost no role in DH, he lived because of his mother's sacrifice, and he defeated Voldemort based on wand possesion. So, it really could have been anyone who disarmed Draco, in the very end, if they had destroyed all the Horcruxes on way or another... and technically I guess they'd have to kill off Harry. Ah, some sacrifices must be made, I guess. :P


Well, YOU happen to be rather Slytherin for a Puff, I was thinking more along the lines of Finch-Fletchley. Besides, wisdom depends on IQ in many cases and integrity is worthless when based on lies and ignorance or brainwashing. *Snickers as jelf becomes distracted and loses control of broom, as she is unable to multitask, flying as well as "huffing off" being too much to handle. *

Jelf may become many things, but never distracted when discussing wisdom while on a broom. No, wisdom is not based on IQ - check out Forest Gump -
I have found that sometimes (not in your case I'm sure Teddy) that the higher the IQ the more close-minded a person may become to the gifts of those around them - gifts that often would have benefited the situation had the brilliant person dropped from their superior chair long enough to seek the unique strength of those near him.

Forest Gump is a great movie- but a movie nonetheless. However, I DID say "most cases", that statement wasn't meant to be a strict generalization, certainly many exceptions.
Oh, of course, but it works the other way, as well- it's rather a paradox. Those who, in their minds, rise above the Machiavellien cannot exist in the human world without the Machiavellian, the Machiavellian who claim to protect integrity violate integrity in doing so. All perceptions limit those who bear them, and yet it is impossible to be perception-less.

[quote=teddylupin;40479]Forest Gump is a great movie- but a movie nonetheless. However, I DID say "most cases", that statement wasn't meant to be a strict generalization, certainly many exceptions.
Oh, of course, but it works the other way, as well- it's rather a paradox. Those who, in their minds, rise above the Machiavellien cannot exist in the human world without the Machiavellian, the Machiavellian who claim to protect integrity violate integrity in doing so. All perceptions limit those who bear them, and yet it is impossible to be perception-less.[/quote Can't power be Machiavellienless? Does high IQ cancel out the ability to perceive clearly?

yes,well...
Life IS like a box of chocolates. I'm with Jelf on this one.....I think. Yep.

Hmm, I overdid the philosophy on that one, my apologies my lost little lambs. (Pats Puffs on head). XP

No, High IQ doesn't cancel out open-mindedness, although it stereotypically comes with a few personality traits that make people prone to narrow perceptions.
A "clear" perception is a perception in itself, and techincally probably unachievable.
Power can be Machiavellian-less, but that power is almost always somehow connected to other power that is Machiavellian, or dependent on Machiavellian power.

LOL as you pat me on the head - I was trying to get you to clarify your thinking as it was quite murky... I wasn't asking you a question in confusion, I was asking a question in hopes that you would explain your thinking in a manner that was a bit more, er, focused.
As to your last post, you think a clear perception is technically unachievable???

I'm rather Luna-esque at times, sorry about that. Well, a clear perception would imply it was void of obstruction, while simply looking through eyes, is limited in itself. I think the only way to have a clear perception is to lack perception, which, in itself IS a perception. (Pretty much, if you look at something, you can never see everything. There is always something beyond or behind you.)
As to power, the only thing I can think of is to give the CIA as an example. Their goal is to protect the US and what it stands for, correct? Integrity, justice, freedom, liberty. The paradox is that while they protect these idealologies, they also break them in the pursuit of that protection. At the same time, the protection IS needed. Any clearer?

Ooh, you're right about the ravenclaw- slytherin thing(from the first post).
But that doesn't mean Ravenclaws have to like them BACK, right?