Sherlock - Blog Posts
Sherlock's Wisdom on Getting Married
I quite recently watched a Sherlock episode, titled: The Sign of Three. It was, in my sincere opinion, a relief after the surprisingly disappointing season premier--and I haven't watched the season finale, so please don't spoil that for me.
In this episode, besides of a number of complicated and smartly intertwined cases being solved by Sherlock, Dr. Watson gets married. Well, marriage is and has now been for a pretty good while a sensitive and controversial subject and no one blog entry could contain the expression of the complete set of my views on this topic, so I'll just reflect on one thing.
As Sherlock prepares for his awkward and unromantic best man speech, he points out a flaw in the institution of marriage. He says, that a wedding is not a big day, since two adults, who already live in the same household, will merely continue their relationship, without any addition or alternation in regards of form or content, just implementing a brief intermission consisting of a grand celebration and a short vacation.
Sherlock's argument against marriage is, however, not, that it should be done differently but that it shouldn't be done at all, having understood the little relevance it has. Of course we discard this argument as a trivial mistake. We feel this way because the essence of marriage and what it constitutes are unuttured but very valuable things.
The essence of marriage is problem #1. Out of all the definitions I've heard in my short life, the most easily acceptable and most up-to-date is this: a union between two willing adults, sanctified by the state, promoting romantic values. This is fairly true to popular contemporary views I believe.
On to problem #2: what does marriage constitute? To answer this question, we will now draw consequences about our answer to problem #1. Marriage essentially constitutes a state, in which the participants have their relationship recognized by the state and their pursue of romantic goals is hence justified.
I will now try to contradict my previous statements and conclusions by explaining faults I believe to have identified.
Fault #1: the state's sanctification is inadequate. I will demonstrate this by one argument but I believe even more exist. My example is this: take a christian couple. They get married and according to their beliefs their marriage was sanctified not solely by the state but also by God. If we define marriage as a thing getting its sanctification by the state we have disrespected and at least the way the given couple sees it, degraded their marriage. On the contrary, it would be problematic to change the definition in their favor because that would be misfit for the people not sharing christian faith.
Fault #2: in case marriage essentially promotes romantic values, such as romantic love, fidelity, companionship and such ones, it must mark the distinction between the state of promotion and the state, where these values were not promoted or not in the same manner. This means, that, for instance, before the marriage you have the liberty to break up the relationship you have, however, after you're married, you willingly give this up and thus will never have the freedom to get a divorce. Of course this seems extremely orthodox and hard to accept but given the definition above, the state of marriage does not allow you to violate the institution of it.
The list of problems and faults may be too short or inaccurate in contrast with others' views but I believe it's quite enough food for thought for now.
Both faults, listed above, originate from how we define the essence of marriage and what we want it to constitute. Now, that I have questioned and denied the modern day thinking about this topic, it may seem, that I agree with Sherlock and see marriage as an irrelevant contingency in life but that's not the case either. What I personally think about it is, that as long as we don't have a unanimous definition of marriage, we can't make court rulings or legislations defining its aims, since no matter how liberal we are, it will always take away the freedom of at least a few. And to give my view on what to make of the current problem, I will say, that marriage is valuable and it should continue to exist, however, to fill it with importance, contemporary thinking about it should indeed be changed.
Being Sherlock
Have you ever felt, that someone was talking to you like they were absoutely superior? As if they positioned themselves far over you intellectually? I suppose you hate those people but sadly... I am them.
The thing that bugs me the most in this wide world is stupidity and slow-thinking, thus I am impatient, egoistic and of course high-minded. But let's just take a step back: from my point of view, in obvious situations, I simply point out trivial truths. A phrase, which I find extremely fitting to use in most of the cases is "because I am right". How arrogant, isn't it?
But then, why do I treat people like that? It's because I've grown accustomed to behaving this way. When in an argument with my father, I never was (and still am not) allowed to reason because he considers that to be disrespect. What I've learned from this is, that though I am 99% right, reasoning and negotiating are not options. I know it's not good, sorry...
Taking it to a little more universal level: Why are there people, who have no compassion? Why can't we simply talk through things? What could be done?
Well, I must say, Sherlock is not Sherlock out of will but out of inevitability.
Randomness rules!
| Rule: Name your top 10 favorite characters from 10 different fandoms, and then tag 10 people.|
Alright guys, I was tagged by @fastet-p (i hate you for this), soooo... Let’s do this !!
1. MCU // Tony Stark as Iron Man
2. MCU // Stephen Strange as Doctor Strange
3. Sherlock (BBC) // Sherlock Holmes
4. DCEU // Diana Prince as Wonder Woman
5. Arrowverse // Cisco Ramón as The Vibe
6. Arrowverse // Barry Allen as The Flash
7. Arrowverse // Laurel Lance as Black Canary
8. Mamma Mia! // Harry Bright (i’m sorry, this one is so random but i love this guy so much)
9. MCU // Bruce Banner as The Hulk
10. MCU // Bucky Barnes as The Winter Soldier
I’m not going to tag anyone but feel free to do it if you want to
god I’m so high but I hope this makes sense. I think more people need to realize there is not a Sherlock Holmes. There are many Sherlock Holmeses. And I don’t mean the different adaptations. I mean that every time a kid picks up a book or a grown adult rediscovers the stories, a new Holmes is born. And every person has their own flawed yet invincible hero that lives in our heads and helps us with life’s little mysteries. There is not a Sherlock Holmes; there’s your Sherlock Holmes
Happy birthday to my favorite fictional detective <3
So in my friend group we use knee touching as a sign of romantic affection (as a joke)
Just saying...
Le loup de wall street ne respecte vraiment rien ! (Sherlock a vu le loup !)
The wolf of wall street really respects nothing !
Imagine Henry De Baskerville as a very very sexy men ! And John wondering how Sherlock reacting ?
Imaginez si Henry De Baskerville était un homme très très sexy ! Et John se demandant comment Sherlock va réagir ?
Mary Morstan: Who is Cobb offering the inception this time ?
Mary Morstan : A qui Cobb propose l’inception cette fois ?
Happy New Year Sherlokians... Olé !
HAPPY NEW YEAR JOHNLOCK (2018 first morning in 221B)
S5... happy together !
cdlafere : “thanks for your amazing fake !”
...So, i made a fake for the CD box jacket (inside) !
A new “heavy metal band” coming soon !!!
...et si Janine avait été un homme !?
...if Janine had been a man !
Romeo and Juliet - The “JohnLock” version
Sherlock as Clark/Superman !
Si Irène ADLER “relookait” Sherlock...
Irene’s relooking !