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 Shakespeare's writing can become an historical document, or a metaphysical treatise, a social commentary, or a moral lesson.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.