Destroying a soul?

[Mistress Siana]

I find the whole Horcrux business somewhat dubious. I mean, what exactly happens when a Horcrux is destroyed? Obviously, the object is destroyed, and the spell that binds the particular piece of soul to the object is broken too, but what happens to the soul? I mean, if a body is destroyed, the soul doesn't die, it goes on to afterlife. JKR has established this as a fact in the world she created. So I have a bit of a problem believing that the destruction of an object leads to the detruction of the soul, if even the death of the body doesn't accomplish that.

My point is: When somebody creates a Horcrux, he stores half of his soul in an object, so that when he dies, his soul doesn't go on but remains connected to the half in the object. Now, if the object is destroyed, shouldn't it be the same thing? The part in the object doesn't die but remains connected to the half in the body.

Isn't that the very reason why Horcruxes work in the first place? That a soul only passes on when it's whole? What actually happened to the pieces stored in the diary, the ring etc? Erased? I think the book suggest there's a bit more to it than we might believe.

[sorcerer83]

if a body is destroyed, the soul doesn't die, it goes on to afterlife. JKR has established this as a fact

where exactly do you see that? i mean there are ghosts and who dosen't stay as a ghost does on - but that doesn't mean that the soul doesn't die - it dies by the standards of this world - it can now only exist in the after life - therefore one can not in any way shape or form return from the dead which jkr often said also herself and through her charachters.
if the soul didnt die there could be reincarnation or return froim the dead.

so when a horcrux is destroyed that part of the soul dies - or goes on to the after life and thus the person whose horcrux was destroyed remains with a soul that isnt whole

[Mistress Siana]

Well, what I meant was: If the soul goes on, it doesn't die. I meant die as in cease to exist, as the body does.

the person whose horcrux was destroyed remains with a soul that isnt whole

No. See. A Horcrux stops the natural process. When a person who has a Horcrux dies, the soul is bound to the object. Because a soul is supposed to remain intact, it doesn't go on when it isn't. So it's only natural that the part in the object does the same. No?

[sorcerer83]

nope. in hbp (horcruxes, page 475 - english version):

" 'So if all of his Horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort could be killed?'

'yes I think so,' said Dumbledore. Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul...
... while his soul may be damaged beyond repair..' "

maimed and diminshed, damaged - thats how vold's soul is according to dd, because (i think) parts of his soul died=moved on/disappeared - anyways cannot return to him or be used by him again.
as dd explains - this doesnt mean that his brain or magical power are weakened. but (my theory) that he is more evil and currupted and more engulfed in it and has less (none) chance to get out of it (of being evil), and maybe that he is more vulnerable - has less hit/life points if you want

[Mistress Siana]

I'm well aware that this is what Dumbledore thinks. However, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Actually, 'damaging a soul beyond repair' is exactly what I have a problem with. It's a gruesome concept. I mean, we know the books will end with love defeating evil in the end. So, love triumphs by destroying a soul, bit by bit, and in the end killing a man in spite of killing alone being the ultimate act of evil. Can love triumph like that? How hollow a victory will that be? My main problem, I think, results of Tom Riddle's backstory. With all the emphasis that's put on choices, Lord Voldemort of all people hasn't made one, he's simply never known love. If he'd ever known the value of love and an intact soul and consciously decided against it, I wouldn't mind. But complete destruction, as in destroying the soul, for somebody who, to put it simple, doesn't know better, and the cause of this destruction being love...sorry, I find that horrible.










JKR herself said in an interview that, yes, book 7 would be influenced by her being a Christian. Now, to suggest that a soul can be destroyed--worse even, to have it destroyed by as much as a bit of snake venom--would be blasphemious to an extend The Da Vinci Code wouldn't even dream of.

[sorcerer83]

well i wouldnt know about Christianity, being a jew and an atheist at that...

but i think the analysis you gave is just beautiful. i just disagree with one theme - "How hollow a victory will that be?" - it wouldnt be a hollow victory - it would be a realistic victory, a down to earth not cosmic, not purist victory... and yes love can triumph that way - defensive love but still love - love for those who love who try to

you maybe right that vold didnt choose to be where he is (though it isnt accurate at all), but even so it was proven - if not to us then yes to dd and i think to harry too that he cannot repent, and therefore he must be destroyed - not because he's guilty (wheather he is or isnt), not because he deserves it - both are meaningless - but because that's the only way to save the world, save love, save the loved ones