Comer Josh
5th
3-7-12
Hamlet is to be considered one of the best pieces of English literature in the English language.
This play touches and messes around with many ideas and also teases with the ideas of existentialism.
His ideas raised in Hamlet are more simply shown through the definition of existentialism in Stanford’s
Encyclopedia of philosophy by their definition:
What makes this current of inquiry distinct is not its concern with “existence” in
general, but rather its claim that thinking about human existence requires new
categories not found in the conceptual repertoire of ancient or modern thought;
human beings can be understood neither as substances with fixed properties,
nor as subjects interacting with a world of objects. (end of paragraph 2).
This idea here shows that humans, reguardless of their more modern or old ideas, can not be seen as
subjects in a world of objects. Thus concluding fate is ultimately left to the individual, not to others.
Although this encyclopedia goes on to say this to further shape and help define the ideas with this
thought:
Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics,
biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter,
causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It
claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor
can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture
with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame,
responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects
of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of
the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth)
suffices. (end of 4th paragraph).
This excerpt helps to show that human existence is not defined by the scientific research done by man,
but more some aspects of moral value can help solve the plight to helping make the individual. But,
simply is being said here is this: in Shakespeare’s Hamlet it is Shakespeare to first come up and discover
these ideas for the individual and possibly create a character to fit the existential needs. Shakespeare
does this through modern recognition of suicide, death, and the ideas of creating your own moral
values; thus Shakespeare created the pillars to modern existentialism.
Shakespeare’s solution or resolution to this story is quite simple, there isn’t one. As known, the
story ends with a death of all the main characters in the play causing Fortinbras to eventually take the
throne. But this is where things begin to get tricky; does Shakespeare cause us to focus more on internal
problem resolution or external problem resolution to seem to resolve the play? Well in order for
Shakespeare to answer the problem he posed to us through his literature and his very own main
character it must be internal problems that must be resolved. This is why Hamlet is to be considered an
existential hero.
Hamlet, is the world’s first existential character. Even his first line in the play, “A little more than
kin, less than kind,” can be seen as his first existential idea, showing the separation between them due
to moral beliefs and even action (once the backstory is given that is). It is also Hamlet who recognizes
that human beings cannot be recognized as subjects interacting with a world of objects, because it can
cause one to later be mad. This is idea is shown very much here when said in Act 3 scene 1, “Whether
‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” (53). This quote here
recognizes, is it better to suffer with in surmounts of fictitious objects around you for the rest of your
life, but be able to make your own decisions. Which is why lady Ophelia is to go mad, her difference in
action, compared to Hamlet, is to show the affect of predetermined fates this is because she treats the
world as objects that she needs to interact with,. This is seen at the beginning when she is recognized as
a pawn by both her father and brother here, “This for all: I would not, in plain terms, from this time
forth, have you so slander any moment leisure, as to give words or talk with Lord Hamlet,” (19). This
here shows from the beginning that Ophelia is just interacting with objects and playing her part, that’s
why once her father is killed she may go mad.
Hamlet can be compared to a modern Albert Camus. Camus states in his book, The Myth of
Sisyphus, that suicide is rather a paradox; and recognition of this paradox is rather a better way to look
at life then as to there is no great meaning in life. Hamlet‘s recognition of the paradoxical suicide may be
the first step in Shakespeare’s idea of finding, or even stumbling upon, the idea of existentialism. This
recognition of death may be considered to Shakespeare, and others, as the first step in understanding
the existential plight. In Act 3 scene 1 Hamlet’s question, “To be or not to be; that is the question,” (53)
is the recognition of suicide, and death, from Hamlet. It also here that Hamlet, as well as Camus,
recognizes suicide as a paradox:
To die; to sleep; to sleep; perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub; For in that
sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal
coil, Must give us pause – there’s the respect That makes calamity of so long
life. (53)
These lines here show that Hamlet comprehends that suicide is a paradox, because through your sleep
you still don’t know what will come of it, good or bad, and ultimately it may or may not even be worth it.
It also after this soliloquy, and recognition of death, you see a change in our character; he begins to
think less and act more. This can be seen here in Act 3 scene 4, with his murder Polonius without his
normal routine of thinking it through before going through with his actions.
As stated earlier this recognition of death gives Hamlet a guide into the birth of existentialism,
his birth begins after this soliloquy and his emersion in this thought is seen through his impulsive killing
of Polonius. This killing is the first existential murder shown in literature; I am lead to believe, which
then flips Hamlet’s moral values as opposed to his culture due to his new philosophical idea on
determining your own fate in life. In the first 3 Acts of this play he holds true to the cultural norms,
playing his part in his family and holding true to religious beliefs, it is though after Act 3 you see him
being to change his moral system to what he believes appeals to his best interest, regaining his footing
in the promise to his father. For example, killing Polonius is an existential murder, also shows a change
in his morals and values because he would have usually used his logic to say something and think before
he acts; but instead it is Hamlet who acts out without thinking, existentialism, and kills Polonius. It is also
after Act 3 that Hamlet recognizes death is inevitable, whether we do it ourselves or let it just naturally
come to us when our time is up.
Through Shakespeare’s literature, you see him creating the pillars for the existentialism. It is
through Hamlet though that Shakespeare ultimately shows and even creates this void for human
existence. Hamlet’s indifference to suicide, and his changing morals and values to improve his own
internal resolution and quality of life; head towards an existential lifestyle towards the end of the play.
His part in this piece shows that Shakespeare comprehended and may have possibly created
existentialism without coining a term for it.