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.