Sunday, November 3, 2013

Sherlock Holmes: The Epitome of the (Extreme) חכם

This week, we delved into the character and philosophy of the חכם, or the wise guy. At the core of his philosophy is the belief that an understanding of the world will come through the use of man's intellect. In this regard, man will supposedly be able to fully understand the world as G-d intended. As a result of this view, the חכם runs into a few obstacles to his own beliefs. First, this world in unjust. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Why? Second, where does G-d's involvement come into the picture? Isn't G-d supposed to punish the sinners? The fact that there is no swift retribution for man's sins is הבל. The evil sin, die happily, are not physically punished in this life, and are soon forgotten. How is that fair?

When we first started learning about the חכם, the first character I immediately thought of was Sherlock Holmes. In the original series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Holmes was a mysterious detective who had a knack for solving unsolvable cases. As a result, the villains got smarter and scarier, causing Holmes to have to up his game. This picture from BBC's Sherlock basically sums it all up:



Sherlock is the epitome of the חכם. He uses his intellect to understand everything about the world. In the BBC's Sherlock, deductions, just like the one pictured above, tend to float around the screen as Sherlock realizes what they are. His understanding of the world comes exclusively through the power of his own mind. Not only is Sherlock the חכם, but he also has a bit of the עמל's personality as well. He wants to create perfection in this world through his own intellectual understanding of the world. Its application in his life is a perfectly-solved crime against a worthy opposition.

I find it particularly interesting that the עמל has already been written out of Kohelet for extremism. What about the חכם? As I see it, the חכם's words in Kohelet were not particularly more extreme than anyone else's. My main problem with the חכם is the emphasis he puts on human intellect. (Throughout the series, Sherlock has been known to tell people of lesser intellect to "be quiet" so that he can think more clearly.) What happens when human intellect fails?

In my own life, I can see bits of both the חכם and the עמל in me. The more knowledge I acquire, the more confidence I have in my own intellect. While this is great for life as an informed and educated citizen of Earth, it might also make me forget that human intellect is not the most important component of understanding the world. When I get a 98 on an assignment instead of a 100, I get upset because I missed my chance at perfection.  As Mrs. Perl is constantly reminding us, all we need is a change in perspective. I guess the take-home lesson from Sherlock, the עמל, the חכם, and life as a high school student is that everything should come in moderation. Balancing work ethic, the pursuit of knowledge, and life's challenges will lead to some kind of satisfaction, I think. As for what Kohelet's final message will be about the meaning of life, I can only guess. However, I can imagine that there is something more than just human work ethic and intellect.

2 comments:

  1. I saw that you made a Sherlock post, and I got way too excited...
    Anyway, I just wanted to say that the contrast between this and what CS Lewis seems to think about the חכם/יראי אלוקים conundrum (look at my post) is kind of funny. Here, חכמה is a good thing. Good only in moderation, but still good. Seemingly according to CS Lewis, blind belief is waaay more important, maybe even to the point of turning to belief without relying on the human intellect at all. It would be pretty interesting to watch a face off between CS Lewis and Sherlock Holmes, no?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the end, isn't everything human intellect, though? Everything that we know, everything that we are discussing, everything that we can comprehend is human intellect. We don't know anything out of it. Why would you believe anybody who says otherwise.

    ReplyDelete