To Be or Not To Be? An Existential Question

With his utterance of "to be or not to be," Hamlet voices the single most important question of human existence, the question that all of existentialism is built upon and the question that every human, regardless of race or religious affiliation, must ask themselves at least once. The question of existence, particularly its purpose, lies at the base of our lives, and is considered by some to be the motivation behind human institutions and petty strife. Hamlet's approach being is rather secular and open-minded, as he does not consider God as a motivation to prolong one's life. In fact, he believes the sole reason for man to "bear the whips and scorns of time" is to delay the death that man knows nothing of. Yet, it is obvious that this finitude deeply disturbs him, regardless of what is to come after the death, because of the implications death has for the actions of the living. He says that in light of death, "enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action," implying that action becomes difficult to justify in the absence of meaning that is caused by death. Our hero is still left with the question of how he should act, and more importantly, why he should act. As I mentioned in my last blog post, Hamlet has already been confronted by these questions, and has since sought some physical meaning in the reaction of Claudius in order to justify his revenge. While I feel that physical meaning has answered for Hamlet the question of why he can act, the "to be or not to be" soliloquy relates that the Prince has still not answered why he should act. An answer to this question is the ultimate purpose of my reading of the play through this lens, but the inconclusive way in which Hamlet ends the soliloquy indicates that he has not found an answer to this question himself. 

A Call for Substantiation

The second half of act 2 scene 2 sees Hamlet hear a speech by the First Player about the murder of Priam, King of Troy, at the hand of Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles. In killing Priam, Pyrrhus acts out of revenge for the death of his father, a course that Prince Hamlet surely desires to take as demonstrated by his interest in the player's speech, and the delivery of his own monologue that follows. Hamlet's monologue chiefly concerns itself with the will to take action, and is therefore necessarily an existential speech. Hamlet berates himself for his inability to act upon the injustice done unto his father by Claudius, labeling himself as "pigeon-livered." He insists that if he wasn't he would already have "fatted all the region kites with this slave's (Claudius) offal." He is filled with the same hesitation that, I believe, takes hold of Pyrrhus as he is about to strike Priam to death. That hesitation is born out of an existential need for substantiation of motive. The individual can never really know anything definitive about the world, and therefore action becomes difficult in light of the fact that it is difficult to justify any motivation. If nothing can surely be known, and the causes of events remain forever abstract, then there can never be complete reassurance that a course of action is justified. This is the cause of Pyrrhus's hesistation, but, feeling that substantial motive has been created by the indisputable death of his father at the hands of Priam, he is able to proceed. Hamlet, on the other hand, lacks this reassurance, and so his will to act is weaker. Although he has been told by the ghost about King Hamlet's death, the Prince wishes for more concrete proof of his, namely the reaction of Claudius to a tragic play resembling the murder of the King. The existential individual resides in a purely mechanical world, and so it is necessary that his actions are fed by motives grounded in reality. Hamlet cannot immediately act because he still fears the delusion of his own mind. He does not wish to lead an existence separate from the physical world, and so he requires substantiation.

The Existential Hamlet

As I previously discussed, post-structuralism has had a major impact on my reading of "Hamlet". Now into act 2, I am beginning to formulate a more coherent lens within Post-structuralist thought with which I can examine the play's characters. Because philosophy is at the root of post-structuralism, it is impossible to read with a Post-structuralist lens without keeping the philosophy upon which it is based in mind. Phenomenology, the study of being, is integral to Post-structuralism, as well as existentialism, the belief in the centrality of the individual. As both post-structuralism and existentialism are grounded in the same matter, they complement one another by challenging preconceived conceptions about existence and meaning. I will therefore be reading "Hamlet" chiefly as an existential text in order to study how the Prince copes with the sovereignty of his individuality. What initially inspired me to see the play in his way was the dialogue between Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Hamlet in act 2 scene 2, during which the Prince exclaims that "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." It is here that Hamlet expresses his belief in the objective meaninglessness of the world and commits the matter of his mind to painting the universe with significance. While reflecting on this notion, I recalled an earlier idea put forth by Hamlet from act 1 scene 2. After his mother comments on his seeming despair, Hamlet states "'Seems,' madame? Nay, it is. I know not "seems."...but I have that within which passes show, these but the trappings and suits of woe." Once again, our hero has rejected the notion of externally verifiable meaning, and posited that it is the inner workings of a person that constitutes that person's reality. As I continue to search for further commentary on this subject from Hamlet, I hope to determine how this individual struggle will play into his enactment of revenge upon Claudius and his relationship with Ophelia.

Looking at "Hamlet" with a lens.

Reading "Hamlet" with a an awareness of various schools of literary criticism has opened up new worlds in the text. Shakespeare's writing can become an historical document, or a metaphysical treatise, a social commentary, or a moral lesson. Having done research on Post-structuralism, and being familiar with some of the existential philosophy that underlies much of it, I am inclined to look at "Hamlet" with the idea of "meaning" in mind (or lack thereof). This meaning, though, is not in a broader didactic sense, but rather the sense of meaning with which each character views the world, and how this meaning influences their thoughts and actions. Since Post-structuralism holds that there is no inherent purpose or meaning in the universe, a play such as "Hamlet" can be viewed as an existential work in which the characters must create some purpose out of emptiness. It was the belief of philosopher Martin Heidegger that the human use of technology through the centuries has "enframed" our thinking, in that as a result of technology, we as a species are automatically inclined to think of and define objects merely in terms of their uses. I wish to extrapolate the idea of "enframent" to other aspects of the world and society, and study its effects on the characters in "Hamlet". For example, when Laertes warns Ophelia that Hamlet's interests are intrinsically dependent on the interests of the state, he assumes that Hamlet has in a sense been enframed by politics. However, as we learn that Hamlet is unconcerned with the rank and responsibility of the Danish Royal Court, we must conclude that Laertes's own thinking has been enframed, resulting in his assumption about Hamlet's behavior. It would interest me greatly to understand what has influenced Laertes in this way, and what drives the minds of the other characters in the play.