Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was actually a rather fine writer, perhaps not quite at the top level of all English writers, but, fairly close. Say, at the level of his fellow doctor-writer Somerset Maugham, if not a Shakespeare or a Charles Dickens. However, the fine writing we can see in his historical novel "The White Company", or his superb ghost story "The Captain of the Polestar", simply didn't earn him as good a living as he wished to have. In these, his more "literary" works, which he much preferred writing of course, because of their variety and subtlety, Conan Doyle manifests his real personality and understanding of the world as it actually is. And, the world is not a simple place, at all. The world is not a simple place morally, it is not a simple place materially, people are not simple psychologically, and cannot easily be classified into "good", and "bad". Put simply, we really almost never know exactly what is happening, or why, around us, ever. And, people always find this very frustrating, and unsatisfying. And, Conan Doyle understood this very well indeed, much better than most, I should say.
And, this brings us to the world of the Sherlock Holmes novels. Because, this, most certainly, is not the real world, at all. And, Conan Doyle certainly knew this better than anyone, much better than he would have liked to, no doubt, referring to by far his most popular creation as "cheap fiction". Put simply, Conan Doyle was reduced to creating upscale "penny dreadfuls", in order to become rich. And, he did just that, and was very unhappy doing just that, and was immensely successful doing just that.
Because people know they are uncertain, and are frightened, virtually all the time, the illusion of the serene, detached, all-knowing sage -- the Sherlock Holmes -- is immensely satisfying.
Conan Doyle got the idea for Holmes from Edward Allen Poe's Auguste Dupin, an eccentric, intuitive young genius who uses his perceptive mind to solve crimes by means totally invisible to the police. The Poe character of Dupin is, in fact, a perfectly plausible one, in real life. However, Conan Doyle did something to the character to make him much more appealing, and much less realistic. He turned him into an invincible superman. While Dupin is a talented amateur who sometimes can do things the police cannot, Holmes literally can do anything. He's not merely an intellectual superman, he's a physical superman too, something Dupin certainly was not! Holmes cannot be defeated, if you have Sherlock Holmes on your side, in any situation, you cannot possibly lose, Sherlock Holmes is your Good Shepard, your Talisman, your Messiah, your God!
And, we can well understand just how very uncomfortable the good Doctor Doyle must have been with that idea. It wasn't Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's idea to create a religion, I suspect. He just wanted to make money. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wasn't at all like science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, was he? Or, was he?
Very interesting post. I think that philosophically, the Holmes character applied rational science and observation to theories about murderers. We learn the most from him about the importance of observing the minutest details, keen deduction, and then applications of scientific approaches to the observed facts, forensics, chemistry, and observations of other people while he was in disguiese, etc. He used logical inference to link networks of various clues and details into a coherent theory. His philosophy was empirical, based on observable facts. He'd say that "theories suit facts," and that one shouldn't try to "twist facts to suit theories."
I think Sherlock Holmes could, actually, be compared directly to Sir Isaac Newton. And Isaac Newton was an ordained Anglican Minister, and, in his own way, a very religious man.
Certain philosophers have warned about using empiricism and deduction because these things require use of our senses to make observations and measurements. I think that's the point to be made with Sherlock Holmes cocaine and morphine addictions. These can cause hallucinations which make your senses untrustworthy. So the point would just be to not rely only on that, other philosophies can be valid or even religions.
Another interesting thing is that in many cases you need to believe other people. Most people have not seen direct observation of an electron. Most people haven't even seen indirect observation of quantized electrons. So most people have to believe it on somebody's word. On the front of denying religion a lazy argument is "you don't have anything I can observe." But it is a bit of a double standard because they have never applied that to all aspects of science they have been taught. At the end of the day someone believes and claims they have had an observation and shares that with other people. Someone else takes that someone else claims an observation to be evidence. On a logical basis they are equivalent because the circumstances are perfectly symmetric.
Do primordial black holes exist and definitely not formed recently because you have observed that fact, or because someone believes it, expressed it, and you accept it without evidence?
I'm not really trying to attack science with this point. My only point is to attack the argument that one claiming they only accept what they can observe makes them a superior person. Because it's not true. It's just an outright lie that they do that. And they can't be better than others for claiming something false about themselves. Maybe they are better if we judge between the two in some way if we choose our own standard. But their argument for why becomes an immediate lie if they claim to be a purely empirical person, and better on that basis. If they are better and more rational they need another argument to support it. That argument may exist. But claiming to be a purely empirical person and claiming another doesn't value it at all isn't it.
This ties into my point that Sherlock Holmes to some extent seems to be rather modeled on Sir Isaac Newton. And, Isaac Newton did say, notably, at the send of the second edition of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, his most important definition of his work, "I make no hypotheses". In other words, Newton is presuming to say he deals with pure fact, in the abstract, pure data. This is complete nonsense, of course, and Newton was well aware of it. Newton wrote unpublished Tomes on the Book of Revelation, and was quite the underground theologian, in his own way.
Bear in mind, Isaac Newton was something of a politician, he served a couple of terms in parliament, and he certainly had to lobby for his government position of "Master of the Mint", roughly equivalent to being head of the Federal Reserve Bank, in the US. Newton was always trying to gain intellectual advantage, and even power, to some extent, he certainly was not a pure, logical thinking machine, and he certainly knew it.
I believe that the unknown is evidence of God, not because that can be used to fill gaps of information (God-of-the-gaps) but because we should always know that everything cannot be understood, that we sometimes have to admit to now knowing about some phenomena. And where we might know something, we have to consider the least refutable evidence. Karl Popper applied this to the study of history, arguing that it should not be an affirming study, but one that considers what remiains or is least refutable, after everything else has been refuted. God is always there, always part of the unexplained aspect of something. Hence we appreciate our own lack of knowledge and we appreciate God through faith, not reason. To appreciate what others know about quantum information and quantum mechanics, we can look to their research. And they will appreciate that there are still many unknowns. Some of the most devout, spiritual people I've met have been mathemeticians, regardless of their potential interest in a religion. Good mathematicians know that only they can provide irrefutable, logical evidence of finite facts through calculations, and that the more we study those finite facts the more we appreciate how much we also do not know. For some of us, that's an appreciation of God's existence, that God is a necessity in our lives, the unknowable that is in everything. God can be the unsayable that is 'contained unsayably in the said,' as Wittgenstein put it (though he was not discussing God when he said it). God is humility. So it is only through sustained looking that we can begin to see what is truly there and what is unknown to us as individuals and what might be understrood by others. That was central to the methodology of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. It's a discovery of being and nothingness, and the admission that the unsayable of that so-called presumption of 'nothingness' is a universal mystery, and where God exists, while God exists in everything else, not as a being, not an old man in the clouds, but as something we don't know, and which is necessary.
God can be construed as the unknowable, whatever that might be, or mean. And assuming that we will never know everything, is the essence of belief in God, in my very humble opinion. This is perhaps the clearest message directly implied by the Book of Job, in the Bible.
I think Conan Doyle was actually just referring to contemporary events and people in having Sherlock Holmes use Cocaine. It wasn't really a conscious creation, more of a fairly obvious observation at the time he was writing. Bear in mind, Coca-Cola was originally created as a tonic, in 1886, and each glass of Coca-Cola contained 9 milligrams of Cocaine. It was considered therapeutic. This is exactly the same year that "A Study in Scarlet" was written. In the earlier references to his Cocaine use, there is no particular implication that this is a problem for Holmes, it was perfectly legal, and wasn't considered to be dangerous. Sigmund Freud, for example, was seriously addicted to Cocaine for years, and some of his scientist friends died from Cocaine addiction. It is only in the 1904 story, "The Adventure of the missing Three-Quarter", that Holmes' cocaine use is first described as a dangerous addiction. It is certainly not a coincidence that it was in 1903, that Cocaine was first removed from the Coca-Cola formula, under mounting public pressure about its dangers and addictive properties. It was still legal, however, and it wasn't until 1929 that all traces of the drug were removed from Coca-Cola.
So, you probably shouldn't read too much into the fact that Sherlock Holmes used Cocaine, probably most scientists and doctors did, from time to time, when Conan Doyle developed the stories. No more-so than from the fact that Holmes smokes a great deal, as well.
In a modern context, this isn't unusual at all; a recurring character who keeps doing the same thing over and over, reliably for your loyal customers.
Perhaps the philosophical intent was to say that you will always (or perhaps, overall, in the long term) win by applying reason and logic over vibes-based thinking.
Holmes isn't just doing the same things over and over for his loyal fans. He's all powerful. He's unbeatable. He's a super-hero. He's batman, he's superman. This from Doctor Doyle, who prides himself on his analytical skills. Indeed, this superman, IS a superman because of his analytical skills. This is inherently self-contradictory, because your own analytical skills will tell you that human analysis has practical limitations that are very, very easy to see, all the time. We can debate whether logic is preferable to intuition, but, neither come even close to working all the time.
Isn't he a super man as nietzche would define it? Not supernatural.
Definitely a superman as Nietzsche would define it. Quite literally not super-natural. But, what does that really exclude? Batman certainly isn't supernatural. Is Superman, in the comics, supernatural, or, just a "higher" state of nature?
Yeah Batman is kind of like Sherlock Holmes but some of his technology isn't realistic and verges on the super natural. Superman is definitely the opposite, very stupid, just has super natural powers.
Another similar thing tho is the resurrections, super heroes often die and come back to life in stories, Batman and Superman have, most super heroes have.
Okay. I'm not too familiar with the works, I think I read one or two stories decades ago. I wasn't aware of how much of a "superman" he was supposed to be.
Take a look at them sometime. They're an important part of all of western culture, by this time, they're that popular.
Good post. Doyle also had Sherlock Holmes die in a story as a way to end the character so he could make new works but he brought him back for money reasons.
Correct. Conan Doyle didn't want to admit to himself that he created a religion, for money. L. Ron Hubbard did it quite intentionally!
A lot of the holmes stories involved religion or mysticism. The first story a study in Scarlett is about Mormons. He was a Freemason and founded a secret society called our society .
Correct. But, I don't think it was Conan Doyle's intention to actually create a religion, with Holmes. I think that's why he was so uncomfortable, ultimately, with the Holmes character. The character got beyond him, he lost control of it.
Sherlock represents Jesus in some ways. Was resurrected for similar reasons. Such a successful story people wanted more. Jesus got killed by Romans and his followers were dismayed. So popular books started being made about how he came back to life. Hubbard was really writing a self help book but it became popular enough to be a religion. It's interesting to see this process happen many times thru history.
Interesting analysis. I agree, Conan Doyle probably unintentionally and unconsciously actually played into Christian symbolism with Holmes, one of the reasons for his continuing immense popularity. L. Ron Hubbard did, consciously and intentionally, want to get into the religion "business", he saw it as much more profitable than churning out science fiction for a penny a word.
Christianity is based, of course, on a very old tradition of death and renewal -- a tradition much, much older than human history -- of "temporary Kings", whose death renews the earth.
The relationship between professional writing and real world religion is an interesting one. Are all good writers, effectively, "prophets"?
Yeah and all prophets want profits. If one based a religion on the Sherlock Holmes stories, what would it be like, there wasn't really anything super natural, Sherlock used his mental powers for deduction and reason. He'd investigate things like vampires and disprove them. There's a lot of Freemason symbolism which is a religion where men worship themselves as gods. I appreciate Doyle tho.
Interesting. Leads into the general point about whether Atheism is just another religion. I tend to think that it is, actually.
I think it is when it's like Spinozas philosophy where it doesn't deny a god exists. But god = the universe. Conan Doyle wrote another story mentioning this, The Man from Archangel. I think Doyle had this view earlier in life when writing his earlier Holmes stories but as he got older he got into spiritualism due to being afraid of dying.
Wasn't Conan Doyle's obsession with spiritualism related to the deaths of his sons in WWI? Personally, I think most belief in the afterlife is less about fear of death, than fear about losing important relationships, forever. After all, if you don't believe in an afterlife, what's to fear from death, for yourself? You ain't a gonna be around!
I think its about either fear of death or wanting your friends and relatives who die to be able to go to an afterlife so you can see them again. So yeah I agree. If we die and then go to a private heaven where we're all by ourselves, what would be the point of that? And I don't think any religions say that, because if they did they wouldn't get popular.
Exactly. Atheists tend to be loners.
God bless the Atheists and Skeptics, they keep us religous people on our toes.
This is the correct attitude, my friend. Well done!