#ksanalysis

this is a fairly subjective interpretation on my part, but I have previously conducted several analyses of religious references in manga, so I have now decided to approach this one specifically through philosophy

Some philosophers, such as Bruno Bauer, once believed that criticism must be directed primarily at religion. In their view, liberation from religion equates to liberation of society. In Ludwig Feuerbach's work, the critique becomes more developed: God is merely a projection of human essence. People unconsciously attribute their own qualities to God and then begin to worship this projection. However, philosophers as Karl Marx, who initially shared this view, later stated that criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism. For him, religion is only an expression of human suffering, and therefore one must examine the social conditions that produce this suffering. The full quotation reads as follows: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." The logic here is that if suffering and exploitation were to disappear entirely, the need to seek consolation in religion would also disappear. From this follows my interpretation of the religious references, in which Albert gradually begins to see less and less of William in religious terms. William becomes a form of salvation at the level of Albert’s internal motivation, where a clear parallel can be observed. His worldview changes not because someone convinces him of the falsity of religion, but because he begins to believe in the possibility of transforming the world itself, which previously seemed unchangeable. For Albert, religion initially functions as a response to experienced alienation and injustice. However, once the possibility of acting to change the social order emerges, the need for religion as the primary form of reconciliation with reality diminishes. What changes is not belief itself, but rather Albert's relationship to his own capacity to transform the world.

The attempt to pursue truth objectively founders upon the rocks of stubbornness at moments that tempt us to select and interpret exclusively that which confirms our already cherished convictions. This is the psychological inclination to defend and uphold one's own views or to avoid discomfort. This constitutes motivated reasoning: we accept only what aligns with our beliefs, yet scrutinise and challenge more rigorously that which contradicts them. It is a cognitive mechanism whereby a desired conclusion dictates the accommodation of any convenient arguments. This is not a flaw nor a weakness of logic, but a reflection of the narrative mode of human thought, given that most do not operate within juridical categories. This forms the ironic prelude to this discussion, for I am about to address a precarious subject: the canonicity of rings as proof of the Sherliams' marriage. My aim is neither to argue for nor against, but to expose the error of false equivalence. I shall employ legal theory with clinical precision in a domain where others are guided by emotional reasoning, unable to distinguish between "I simply like it this way" and "this is established by canon."

— They cannot be married. Same-sex marriages were illegal in their time.

— Murder was also illegal, yet Liam and Sherly committed it. Therefore, their marriage is valid.

I’m not surprised by the popularity of the Sherliam ship or the fact that William’s entire character is often reduced to this ship. This reflects a broader tendency: we struggle to view something as a whole without filtering it through something else. That’s why people often find it difficult to be alone with themselves and answer the question, “Who am I?” without needing or wanting to see themselves through the eyes of others. But I’m delving too deeply into psychology and human behaviour in society and solitude, so let’s return to William.

The problem with understanding William as a person (or character) and the issues surrounding the Sherliam ship stem from a misunderstanding of William’s political mindset. No matter how you look at it, the ideal conclusion to his story was his death on that bridge. And honestly, despite my distaste for Sherliam, I’ll admit that the ship could have had a far more symbolic and beautiful connection if both of them had died in that jump. But they didn’t, and trust me, if William had truly felt anything for Sherlock, he would have shown it far more openly.

For William, his plan was his life in every sense of the word. Since his plan was deeply tied to his country, you could say that his life’s purpose was his people, for whom he was prepared to die. He remained a kind person to the very end, and his death wasn’t an act of cowardice, as Sherlock accused him of. In fact, Sherlock could have said anything to him on that bridge — it wouldn’t have made a difference. William would have jumped regardless.

William was a mathematician and will always be one at heart. Solving societal issues was, for him, like solving an equation. He believed he had derived the most ideal formula for change. However, his decision to die wasn’t because it was the perfect solution — his plan was ongoing, and he knew his close allies and society itself would carry it forward. It was the ideal solution for him, because he understood how much people would hate him and wish him harm. He accepted this and chose to end his own story within the larger narrative. Everything William did was for his people, and that’s why he chose to die — he knew he wouldn’t be able to face the people he loved.