Sherlock's Heart

[Arcadia]

This is prompted by Mycroft's question in "Scandal":
 

My brother has the brain of a scientist or a philosopher, yet he elects to be a detective. What might we deduce about his heart?

 

Neither he nor John have an answer to that question, but what do you think? Why did Steven Moffat insert that line into the episode if he wasn't going to answer it?

[Shadow Dweller]

Someone with less than stellar understanding about human nature and yet choose a profession that depend on the said quality.

[Arcadia]

That's something else that puzzles me; some of Sherlock's deductions rely on a rather keen understanding of human nature! And he seems to see through John pretty well at times. ("Oh, you're angry with me, so you won't help.") Maybe ... he understands what the human reactions ARE, but not always why they happen? Hmmmm.....

[Carol the Dabbler]

Or maybe he also understands why, but thinks people are idiots for reacting that way?

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think his profession requires him to understand human nature but not as part of it.

 

He has to be able to look at it as outsider, so he can make logical and objective deductions, not clouded or affected with emotions.

[Arcadia]

Or maybe he also understands why, but thinks people are idiots for reacting that way?

I actually have some sympathy with that p.o.v. sometimes. ;)

[Shadow Dweller]

No no, he know how people would react to some degree but thanks to isolation for how long and his own attempt to scorn human interaction with 'lesser minds', Sherlock did not really understand how 'ordinary' people's mind work, the intricate 5W that lead to the synthesis of a working model of it.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

In real life a genius can misunderstand the why of someone's reaction.  Same as those on the autism spectrum.  When my son was younger, he could see that someone was angry by their facial expression but not understand why they had that expression.  Maybe Sherlock has a similar issue.  He can understand what people do but not always why they do it.  He even says in the beginning of TEH that he does not understand human nature which very much could have been at least in part a ruse.  He can figure out what someone does then has to think awhile to figure out the why.

[J.P.]

I have written it somewhere already - I see another resemblance to myself: I can read people in certain situations, but as soon as I am somehow emotionally involved, I turn blind. This could also be the case with Sherlock, and a reason why he tries so desperately to stay away from any emotional ties. And right so - his love for John blurred his judgment on Mary, and he paid dearly for that.

 

But I don't think it's what Mycroft was trying to say.

 

Being a philosopher or scientist - or the Britisch Government - demand to stay above any kind of sympathies, or even above ethics/morals. There is no good or bad neither in science nor in philosophy (even if good an evil are the subject). But it is in being a detective and chasing villains.

 

This says that in his heart Sherlock is a romantic, trying to help people. A dragon slayer.* In Mycroft's eyes it is a weakness, and he tried to protect his little brother against that.

 

 

*PS: and suddenly I see some parallels to the main character from "The Witcher" books. Funny, that.

[Arcadia]

I'm not sure I agree that scientists, philosophers and government officials are above sympathy, ethics or morals! Or rather maybe they are, but I don't agree they should be ... and I rather suspect they don't either, as a group. On a one to one basis, of course, it's fluid, as it is with all humans. One person's do-gooder is another person's meddler, and all that.

 

Still, I agree with your point ... Sherlock does see himself as a dragon slayer - whether he admits it or not. Or as one person on another forum said, he's fonder of humanity than he's willing to let on. Sort of a cynical romantic, if such a thing is possible.

[J.P.]

Maybe the way I wrote it wasn't the best. But somehow science and philosophy seem to be emotionally neutral. And politics? Sometimes you have to make a decision like that about Coventry (if the story is true), when normal ethics/moral don't apply anymore. Sorry, cannot explain it in a better way. Maybe it's Mycroft's way of seeing things affecting me?

[Arcadia]

Well, I think they are all supposed to be neutral in the sense of being objective; fact driven, not opinion driven. But that doesn't rule out ethical responsibility; for example. Coventry could be perceived as sacrificing few to save many ... both an ethical and objective decision, even if the outcome was disaster for the victims.

 

Wow, where am I wandering off to?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Well, I think they are all supposed to be neutral in the sense of being objective; fact driven, not opinion driven. But that doesn't rule out ethical responsibility; for example. Coventry could be perceived as sacrificing few to save many ... both an ethical and objective decision, even if the outcome was disaster for the victims.

 

Wow, where am I wandering off to?

 

Maybe you're just trying to your own thread

[Arcadia]

I wouldn't be surprised. :p

[BlackButterfly]

I think Sherlocks heart and the metamorphosis into the good man is kind of the main theme and the scientist philosopher brain is central to that. To me they are opposites in a way a bit like John being soldier - and a doctor.

 

Philosophers ask questions..and scientists try to answer them..and when this is done symbiotically it works brilliantly deduction wise , but for Sherlocks emotional and more philosophical development the scientist seems to struggle for answers.

Interesting that he describes love as a chemical defect and tests the truth of Irenes claims scientifically. Also his -on the loosing side -claim speaks to me of a past lesson that has been backed up by his own experiences in TGG , TRF and HLV where his emotions for John are used against him.Sherlock seemed to mature rapidly emotionally in series 3 and I think a lot of that was because he was having to deal with his and others emotions in a more philosophical way in order to regain his friendships.I think a lot of Sherlocks struggles are something of an attempt to emulate Mycrofts teaching but unlike Mycroft , Sherlock has been unable to remain detached from sentiment.

 

There was still a lot of Mycrofts 'creature' about Sherlock, and something of 'Dr Frankenstien' about Mycroft until the very end of HLV when Sherlock sort of gives in to sentiment and shoots Magnussen and finally abandons Mycrofts - caring is not an advantage - adage .

I think/ hope in S04 we will get the more accepting of sentiment mature Sherlock and a Mycroft that hasn't really abandoned Sherlock for his defect ..as I think they tired to make it look.

 

It's interesting to speculate where they can take Sherlocks character development@heart now as it seemed completed at the end of HLV.Working the case he could be as ruthless as ever -Janine- and yet away from that we saw a lot of his heart and imo -he became the good man .

It would be really good if we got the truly great @ astonishing Holmes of Doyles creation at last.

[J.P.]

Wow, I really like the Frankenstein parallel.

 

 

There was still a lot of Mycrofts 'creature' about Sherlock, and something of 'Dr Frankenstien' about Mycroft until the very end of HLV when Sherlock sort of gives in to sentiment and shoots Magnussen and finally abandons Mycrofts - caring is not an advantage - adage .

 

And somehow, at the same time he proves Mycroft right.

 

I found another explanation:

Philosophers and scientists work for the mankind. Sherlock helps people. Still a dragon slayer.

 

Which makes me wonder why he wanted to be a pirate as a kid. And what Mycroft wanted to be - the Britisch Government from the age of 3?

[Arcadia]

Sherlock accuses John of being a romantic, but maybe it's Sherlock who's the romantic ... what's more romantic to a boy than being a pirate? Especially if it's a Robin Hood type pirate who only robs from bad guys. :P Being a dragon slayer is pretty romantic too (unless you happen to love dragons!) Philosophy and science; pretty dry stuff, not as romantic as detective work ...

[J.P.]

Sherlock accuses John of being a romantic, but maybe it's Sherlock who's the romantic ...

 

Typical case of projection

[Experimental]

I don't think anyone understands human nature. It doesn't make sense, it's not supposed to. Some of us think it's natural or empathize with it, so we don't question it. But some of us who are rigorously rational (or think we are), do. A fruitless effort, in any case.

 

Rationalists make the most helpless romantics imo, poor things at odds with their own nature. But I think its Redbeard that makes me think Sherlock is prone to romantic attachment. If you love your dog, it's usually quite telling. With humans, less transparent, so subtext, deception, denial, throwing random american CIA agents off buildings, committing crimes of passion etc. Ok maybe that's rather transparent.

 

And then Mycroft is there, constantly saying "don't do it don't do it", if that's not foreboding. then there's "I'm not involved" and "I'm a sociopath" if you need to defend something, it means you're likely already going downhill. Mycroft provides a bit of contrast that shows you Sherlock's true colors, until "please I'm not prone to outbursts of brotherly compassion" and "your loss would break my heart" and you realize even the iceman is falling downhill. 

 

I liked that philosopher question a lot, namely because I don't think there's an answer to that. Not that we'll no for sure anyway. I think its meant to be.. playful, open-ended, food for thought : ) 

[Boton]

I think Mycroft's implication is that Sherlock is a romantic at heart.  Not necessarily the relationship type of romantic, but the type that sees himself swashbuckling his way across violent seas, fighting the good fight regardless of legalities, taking on adventure whenever it comes his way, but living life somewhat outside the established social structure.

 

To me, both a scientist and a philosopher have to approach their study from a position of dispassion.  Not that these people don't have vested interests and preferred outcomes, but that they have to put them aside to employ the empirical tools of their discipline. In fact, I think that part of the statement says more about Mycroft than it does about Sherlock; Mycroft is the one that thinks the ability to remove one's own feelings from one's work is the highest calling.

[Arcadia]

 

Sherlock accuses John of being a romantic, but maybe it's Sherlock who's the romantic ...

 

Typical case of projection

 

 

Perfect! :D

 

I think John really is a romantic too, just a little more practical than Sherlock ... he sees the advantage of blending in with everyone else, while Sherlock loves to stand out. But for sure John romanticizes Sherlock, and what he and Sherlock do, don't you think? He believes what they do makes the world a better place.

 

One thing I wonder ... why would Mycroft have so much influence over a young Sherlock, instead of the parents? They didn't strike me as particularly uncaring or distant. Of course, we really didn't see much family interaction, but the implication is that Mum and Dad Holmes are "ordinary." Ordinary people don't leave it to their eldest to raise their youngest, do they? I suppose they could have been largely absent at one point .....

[Experimental]

 Mycroft resonates with him in a way his parents don't.. His parents are very affectionate, which is a bit at odds with Sherlock's personality.. Mycroft is closer in ideology, therefore easier to relate to.

 

It appears that Sherlock learned a lot of his behaviors from him, maybe that's why he doesn't respond well to his parents open affection.  

 

(the part where Sherlock's mom touches his face? http://hiddlesbensmith.tumblr.com/post/112229335215/tomhazeldines-new-blog-used-to-be 

The disgrace! XD)

 

I think their rivalry is just.. Sherlock trying to catch up with him. Sherlock might have admired Mycroft for his intelligence and detachment. I'd even go as far as to say Sherlock might have idolized him.

 

I could talk forever about this but in short.. it's usually the person you can't have, that you want to be with the most.  And Mycroft is obviously the most emotionally distant of his family, the one person out of reach, the arch enemy posing a constant intellectual challenge. Sherlock probably became absorbed in the challenge Mycroft presented, instead of the simple, outspoken, background love of his parents.

 

Why they act like they do now I think is because of their shared "caring is not an advantage" ideology, and perhaps Sherlock despises him a bit.. but it's not really a mystery why. 

[J.P.]

I agree, Experimental. I would say that Sherlock's showing off is still trying to impress Mycroft. (Transference: "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood.") He wanted be like his older brother, he never could live up to him, not only because Mycroft was smarter, but simply because of the age difference. I even risk a theory that without Mycroft, Sherlock wouldn't be Sherlock. He would be quite normal person, maybe a bit smarter than the average, because deduction, observation, Mind Palace - it all can be trained.

I really wonder why the family was so isolated that for a long time the kids had no contact with another children, so Mycroft was only role model available to Sherlock.

 

The part you referring to as being cut - it is there in my version.

[Experimental]

You're right- he'd be a completely different person.. crazy how parental figures shape you change you scar you. Intelligence might have been an isolating factor.. uncertain. But he might not even have been as smart as he is now, without his competitor. What if Sherlock's intelligence is all learned and only Mycroft is naturally gifted.. who knows. Intelligence is both environmental and genetic, and I feel like having his brother there, taunting him, calling him stupid might have hit the reverse psychology switch, driven him to ambitions of brilliance, if only to live up to his brother like you said or to get Mycroft to say "hey, you're smart. I like you." 

 

EDIT That's weird, your remark about transference made me think.. now he has John to do that. Childhood influences at play in his current relationship maybe... thoughts. 

 

[Inge l-w]

Dear Boton,

By definition, philosophy finds utterly mysterious what the rest of us find mundane, and then tries to extrapolate why. Even worse than the various schools of psychology, really! As for empirical methods, it is again an assortment: philosophy of science has some very fixed guidelines, as do those of history and mathematics, but once you enter the realm of ethics, it's everyone for themselves, and you should see the fights that erupt over minutiae! Our little CURLY issue pales before what has been said in open fora by eminent scholars!