Hamlet and Abraham... a connection?

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

you are misleading people...whoever Hamlet was and whatever he did, if he lived in medieval Europe and had something between his ears, he would not have been deterred from killing a man just because he would be afraid god would spank his ass because to want to kill a man and not do it because you are afraid of gods punishment is as much of a sin as killing a man despite that fear...and you are grossly over-simplifying the great philosophical and theological legacy of the great Catholic Church and the protestant Churches. so...I clarified it.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

btw,,,,i apologise for shoving myself in and undermining your authority like that...but there are no manners on these forums, only frenzied pigs.(except Dan and few others not present in this thread).

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

hey phone,,,why do you ignore my PMs???

[phoneutria]

you are misleading people...whoever Hamlet was and whatever he did, if he lived in medieval Europe and had something between his ears, he would not have been deterred from killing a man just because he would be afraid god would spank his ass because to want to kill a man and not do it because you are afraid of gods punishment is as much of a sin as killing a man despite that fear...and you are grossly over-simplifying the great philosophical and theological legacy of the great Catholic Church and the protestant Churches. so...I clarified it.

i don't give a shit about the legacy of the catholic chuch
i am speaking about what's in shakespeare's novel

[Meno_]

Ah, so, it's more like Peter, the author of this forum You are referring to rather then Saint Peter, when saying they are facing the gate.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

you people are fucking nuts.

[Meno_]

you are misleading people...whoever Hamlet was and whatever he did, if he lived in medieval Europe and had something between his ears, he would not have been deterred from killing a man just because he would be afraid god would spank his ass because to want to kill a man and not do it because you are afraid of gods punishment is as much of a sin as killing a man despite that fear...and you are grossly over-simplifying the great philosophical and theological legacy of the great Catholic Church and the protestant Churches. so...I clarified it.

That kind of guilt, of Hamlets predates modern philosophy of intensuons, intensions had some basis by Heudegger, people became in the know that one had to earn rhem not simply shovel our some dough ti buy them.

Ine could simply arrive to the conclusion that nothing will scurry one to hell faster then abecoming a willing partner in blasphemous crime.

Once that is duspised of, one can simply transpose the mind into a spotless France of nines and get away even with murder.

Of course there ought to be some noble cause to enable one to believe that. However there are a multitude of causes that can be so attached.

[Meno_]

you people are fucking nuts.

And so was Hamlet, literally hearing ghosts. Abraham , on the other hand was wise in ascertaining who could come through the pearly gates.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

Heidegger is a nobody who plagiarized and re-wrote medieval Christian theologians into his bizarre and pretentious idiocies and the only reason he resonates with some people is either because they like anything associated with Nazism or because they have been brainwashed into admiring him by their leftie, lunatic colleges which are hell-bent on perverting and undermining Western legacy.

[Peter Kropotkin]

to put this into other terms.... we have an inner, personal voice telling us
to act in a certain way, in defiance to the rules of society... we have this
"TRUTH" which we can only hear advocating actions in defiance to the rules
of society.....who do we listen to? do we hold to our inner truth
or do we bow down to the "TRUTHS" of the society and do not act
as our own inner voices have commanded us to?

You should always do what you wholeheartedly believe you should do. The emphasis is on the word "wholeheartedly" because every part of you must agree with your chosen course of action. If there's just one part of you disagreeing with your decision, you should postpone it until internal consensus is reached.

The case that you present is a case in which a person is split between two different voices, one coming from within (what you currently think) and one coming from without (what others think.) To resolve the problem, you have to postpone action until internal disagreement is reached. Once internal consensus is reached, you might end up 1) completely ignoring what others think, 2) taking into consideration what others think but concluding that they are wrong, or 3) taking into consideration what others think and concluding that they are right. Exactly which one you should pick should be decided entirely by internal consensus. Since the best course of action for one situation is not necessarily the best for another, I am not going to present a general solution of the form "Always take into consideration what others are saying" or "Never completely disregard other people's thoughts". The only general rule of the form "Always do X" that I can provide, and guarantee to be true, is "Always make sure you wholeheartedly agree with what you do". The rest is largely situation-dependent.

One might ask "How do you resolve internal disagreements?" The answer is "Through trial and error". Basically, you come up with a proposal (an idea about what to do) and then you observe how you feel about it. If it doesn't feel completely right, you throw it away and you look for another one. You keep repeating the process until you find one that completely agrees with you.

In general, it makes no sense -- indeed, it's not preferrable at all -- to not do what you believe you should do. Consider the alternative: doing what you don't believe you should do. How is that preferrable? Note that "doing what you believe you should do" is not the same as "disregarding what other people think". In fact, you might believe that in certain situations you should seriously consider what others are saying. Indeed, you might even believe that in certain situations you should take their word for it. But also, you might believe that in certain situations you shouldn't. And it is you who has to decide when and to what extent you want to listen to others and when and to what extent you should simply ignore them.

But what are we trusting? Aren't they feelings no less fabricated existentially through years of indoctrination as children, through a unique sequence of personal experiences and relationships out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially?

It's much more difficult to deceive someone who is "connected to himself" than someone who isn't. It's not impossible but it's significantly more difficult to do so.

K: the conflict is not, NOT internal... the real conflict is the internal "do what you want"
and the external which says, "Do what we want".. or "you can only do what is allowed
by the law"...... the internal, the "I", conflicts with the external, the "We" or "society"
that is the real battle... how do we resolved this conflict between doing what we
want to do and what society demands we do?

an example, I want to run around buck naked and wack off whenever...
and society says, no, and hell no.... but I want it...
and society still will say, ummm no....it doesn't matter how much I
am attempting to reach my real values, if I have a conflict with society
values.... who is right and why?

my chosen course of action which I believe in whole hardly is in conflict
with society......now what?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

"and I believe that comes from the introduction of the state that so
dominates our lives and Hamlet's life...."

no
Hamlet's hesitation to kill
comes from the fact that he is christian
he doesn't speak of any concern for being arrested
to him denmark is a prison already
but he does fear the damnation of his soul

no idea what point you're making here
sounds like a biggie thread
but i had to correct that small point
once i saw it

K: a couple of things... there is nothing in Hamlet to suggest that religion/Christianity
has a role in Hamlet's thinking.. recall, that Hamlet was written by an obscure writer
name Shakespeare........ in researching his religious beliefs, it is pretty clear
that this Shakespeare fellow doesn't really have or follow any religion......
his PLAYS, not novels, are basically religion free...

no, Hamlet is driven by other factors outside of religion.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Ah, so, it's more like Peter, the author of this forum You are referring to rather then Saint Peter, when saying they are facing the gate.

K: WHAT, I am not the guy at the pearly gate? shit... I am in deep trouble now...
ok, so how do I suck up to this other Peter guy at the pearly gates to heaven?

Kropotkin

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

You are similar to the knowthyself goons...just like you would expect given you all come from the same country, are all below par in both intelligence and sanity and have s chip of smartassery on your shoulder.
Vulgar, arrogant, selfish, stupid, insane.
We all can see how being a yank smartass is going for you.
All the best.
Really.
I am
Not
Tripping
Out

[Magnus Anderson]

the conflict is not, NOT internal... the real conflict is the internal "do what you want"
and the external which says, "Do what we want".. or "you can only do what is allowed
by the law"...... the internal, the "I", conflicts with the external, the "We" or "society"
that is the real battle... how do we resolved this conflict between doing what we
want to do and what society demands we do?

It's internal in the sense that part of you wants to do what you currently think is he best thing to do and part of you wants to consider you're wrong and/or do what others think is the best. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't have been a dilemma in the first place. You'd either do what you currently think is the best thing to do or you'd question yourself and/or do what others think is right.

an example, I want to run around buck naked and wack off whenever...
and society says, no, and hell no.... but I want it...
and society still will say, ummm no....it doesn't matter how much I
am attempting to reach my real values, if I have a conflict with society
values.... who is right and why?

Yes, you want to run around naked but also you don't want to annoy others. Kinda like how you want to eat but you also don't want to be fat.

[phoneutria]

"and I believe that comes from the introduction of the state that so
dominates our lives and Hamlet's life...."

no
Hamlet's hesitation to kill
comes from the fact that he is christian
he doesn't speak of any concern for being arrested
to him denmark is a prison already
but he does fear the damnation of his soul

no idea what point you're making here
sounds like a biggie thread
but i had to correct that small point
once i saw it

K: a couple of things... there is nothing in Hamlet to suggest that religion/Christianity
has a role in Hamlet's thinking.. recall, that Hamlet was written by an obscure writer
name Shakespeare........ in researching his religious beliefs, it is pretty clear
that this Shakespeare fellow doesn't really have or follow any religion......
his PLAYS, not novels, are basically religion free...

no, Hamlet is driven by other factors outside of religion.....

Kropotkin

lol I see you are a light reader
if you read it at all
because it's quite shocking to see someone claim
"there is nothing in Hamlet to suggest that religion/Christianity
has a role in Hamlet's thinking."
unless your purpose is to willingly portray yourself as an idiot

in hamlet's most famous excerpt
his soliloquy
he talks about fearing what will come after death
"for in that sleep of death what dreams may come"
does he not?
I trust you don't need me to quote that bit
it's in act III, scene I
he's afraid to commit suicide
because the church condemns it

then, a "suicide" does happen in the play
ophelia's death, when ruled a suicide
becomes a scandal
they give her a midnight burial
in fact
this obscure writer spends considerable amount of time
on christian concerns

First Clown
Is she to be buried in Christian burial that
wilfully seeks her own salvation?

Second Clown
I tell thee she is: and therefore make her grave
straight: the crowner hath sat on her, and finds it
Christian burial.

First Clown
How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her
own defence?

Second Clown
Why, 'tis found so.

First Clown
It must be 'se offendendo;' it cannot be else. For
here lies the point: if I drown myself wittingly,
it argues an act: and an act hath three branches: it
is, to act, to do, to perform: argal, she drowned
herself wittingly.

Second Clown
Nay, but hear you, goodman delver,--

First Clown
Give me leave. Here lies the water; good: here
stands the man; good; if the man go to this water,
and drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, he
goes,--mark you that; but if the water come to him
and drown him, he drowns not himself: argal, he
that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own life.

Second Clown
But is this law?

First Clown
Ay, marry, is't; crowner's quest law.

Second Clown:
Will you ha' the truth on't? If this had not been
a gentlewoman, she should have been buried out o'
Christian burial.

First Clown:
Why, there thou say'st: and the more pity that
great folk should have countenance in this world to
drown or hang themselves, more than their even
Christian.

First Priest
Her obsequies have been as far enlarged
As we have warrantise: her death was doubtful;
And, but that great command o'ersways the order,
She should in ground unsanctified have lodged
Till the last trumpet: for charitable prayers,
Shards, flints and pebbles should be thrown on her;
Yet here she is allow'd her virgin crants,
Her maiden strewments and the bringing home
Of bell and burial.

LAERTES
Must there no more be done?

First Priest
No more be done:
We should profane the service of the dead
To sing a requiem and such rest to her
As to peace-parted souls.

in fact,
the thing that settles hamlet's mind on murdering claudius
is the fact that claudius is out to kill him
when the plot to send him to england
and have him killed during the trip
is revealed
at that point it becomes a matter of kill or get killed

maybe read the book again

[iambiguous]

One starts out with a human being who has evolved over millions of years to have certain 'tendencies'.

Cue Satyr. Only he insists that despite the vast panoply of conflicting social, political and economic memes that we as a species have been deluged with down through the ages, none of that matters nearly as much as thinking exactly as he does in regard to millions of years of genetic evolution. Not sure about race and gender and sexual orientation? Not sure about the "natural" way to behave in any and all contexts?

Just ask him to explain it. Or his clique/claque here.

Next ... indoctrination is not random. It has specific intentions.

Yes, in any given historical and cultural context the intention of the indoctrination is to pass on to the kids the thoughts and the feelings of the adults. Then the part about political economy and power. And God. And being "good citizens".

Similarly ... human experience is not random. Humans have similar experiences because their biology makes them act like other human beings ... eat, poop, fuck, sleep on planet Earth shapes our experience.

On the other hand, it is random enough such that the next person you bump into might not share your own moral and political value judgments.

So, sure, philosophy was invented as a possible path in which to resolve these things.

Still, we'll need a context.

And a point of view. Rooted or not rooted in dasein.

Shakespeare and the folks who wrote the the Bible merely explored all of this given their own particular historical/cultural/circumstantial narratives.

[iambiguous]

"and I believe that comes from the introduction of the state that so
dominates our lives and Hamlet's life...."

no
Hamlet's hesitation to kill
comes from the fact that he is christian
he doesn't speak of any concern for being arrested
to him denmark is a prison already
but he does fear the damnation of his soul

Right, and what does Hamlet's thinking here have to do with the manner in which I explore human identity here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Instead, there is the way she thinks about the individual and the state and God. And all of our thinking will be measured against that. Then it's just a matter of how close or how far she gets -- in particular moods? -- to the fulminating fanatics way out on the right wing of the political spectrum.

no idea what point you're making here
sounds like a biggie thread
but i had to correct that small point
once i saw it

Unfortunately, she is still too chickenshit to explore this with me. You'd think she would revel in the opportunity to "correct" my points.

Right?

[Peter Kropotkin]

"and I believe that comes from the introduction of the state that so
dominates our lives and Hamlet's life...."

no
Hamlet's hesitation to kill
comes from the fact that he is christian
he doesn't speak of any concern for being arrested
to him denmark is a prison already
but he does fear the damnation of his soul

no idea what point you're making here
sounds like a biggie thread
but i had to correct that small point
once i saw it

K: a couple of things... there is nothing in Hamlet to suggest that religion/Christianity
has a role in Hamlet's thinking.. recall, that Hamlet was written by an obscure writer
name Shakespeare........ in researching his religious beliefs, it is pretty clear
that this Shakespeare fellow doesn't really have or follow any religion......
his PLAYS, not novels, are basically religion free...

no, Hamlet is driven by other factors outside of religion.....

Kropotkin

lol I see you are a light reader
if you read it at all
because it's quite shocking to see someone claim
"there is nothing in Hamlet to suggest that religion/Christianity
has a role in Hamlet's thinking."
unless your purpose is to willingly portray yourself as an idiot

in hamlet's most famous excerpt
his soliloquy
he talks about fearing what will come after death
"for in that sleep of death what dreams may come"
does he not?
I trust you don't need me to quote that bit
it's in act III, scene I
he's afraid to commit suicide
because the church condemns it

then, a "suicide" does happen in the play
ophelia's death, when ruled a suicide
becomes a scandal
they give her a midnight burial
in fact
this obscure writer spends considerable amount of time
on christian concerns

First Clown
Is she to be buried in Christian burial that
wilfully seeks her own salvation?

Second Clown
I tell thee she is: and therefore make her grave
straight: the crowner hath sat on her, and finds it
Christian burial.

First Clown
How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her
own defence?

Second Clown
Why, 'tis found so.

First Clown
It must be 'se offendendo;' it cannot be else. For
here lies the point: if I drown myself wittingly,
it argues an act: and an act hath three branches: it
is, to act, to do, to perform: argal, she drowned
herself wittingly.

Second Clown
Nay, but hear you, goodman delver,--

First Clown
Give me leave. Here lies the water; good: here
stands the man; good; if the man go to this water,
and drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, he
goes,--mark you that; but if the water come to him
and drown him, he drowns not himself: argal, he
that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own life.

Second Clown
But is this law?

First Clown
Ay, marry, is't; crowner's quest law.

Second Clown:
Will you ha' the truth on't? If this had not been
a gentlewoman, she should have been buried out o'
Christian burial.

First Clown:
Why, there thou say'st: and the more pity that
great folk should have countenance in this world to
drown or hang themselves, more than their even
Christian.

First Priest
Her obsequies have been as far enlarged
As we have warrantise: her death was doubtful;
And, but that great command o'ersways the order,
She should in ground unsanctified have lodged
Till the last trumpet: for charitable prayers,
Shards, flints and pebbles should be thrown on her;
Yet here she is allow'd her virgin crants,
Her maiden strewments and the bringing home
Of bell and burial.

LAERTES
Must there no more be done?

First Priest
No more be done:
We should profane the service of the dead
To sing a requiem and such rest to her
As to peace-parted souls.

in fact,
the thing that settles hamlet's mind on murdering claudius
is the fact that claudius is out to kill him
when the plot to send him to england
and have him killed during the trip
is revealed
at that point it becomes a matter of kill or get killed

maybe read the book again

K: Hamlet's soliloquy isn't religious based... he doesn't mention heaven
or hell or god in it... it is death itself that gives "one pause"...
it is, as Shakespeare says, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all"
not a religious context, but his "conscience" that make him pause

for example, "to sleep (death)... perchance to dream: aye there's the rub,
for in that sleep of death what dreams may come.
when we shuffled off this mortal coil,
must give us pause. There's the respect that makes a calamity
of so long life. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
th's oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
the pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
the insolence of office, and the spurns,
that patient merit of th' unworthy takes
with a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, to grunt
and sweat under a weary life.....

in this entire monologue from Hamlet there is not a single
mention of religion, heaven, hell or god... he speaks entirely
of human emotions and feelings, not of religion...

the parts you listed are not Hamlet's but other people talkin about
and it doesn't mean it is part of or even any part of
Shakespeare beliefs.... writers can write about stuff they don't
believe in, to prove some point or another...

I quite often write about god or heaven or hell,
and yet, I do not believe in any of them....
they can be used as examples... and that is all their purpose...

Kropotkin

[phoneutria]

you made the OP be about hamlet
not shakespeare
thus what shakespeare believed or not is irrelevant
what is relevant is hamlet's state of mind
regarding his hesitation to act
and as to your claim that there is nothing in that book
to suggest that religion/Christianity has a role in Hamlet's thinking
i proved that you are factually incorrect

want more?

when claudius is praying
and hamlet is about to kill him
he then pauses and thinks that
by killing him then he would send claudius to heaven
and he thinks that not a sufficient revenge
he stops then and decides to wait to find claudius
in the incestuous bed or some other sinful situation
for then his soul would be certainly damned

HAMLET
Now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying,
And now I’ll do ’t. He draws his sword.
And so he goes to heaven,
And so am I revenged. That would be scanned:
A villain kills my father, and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.
He took my father grossly, full of bread,
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how his audit stands who knows save heaven.
But in our circumstance and course of thought
’Tis heavy with him. And am I then revenged
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?
No.
Up sword, and know thou a more horrid hent.
He sheathes his sword.
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in th’ incestuous pleasure of his bed,
At game, a-swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in ’t—
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damned and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays.
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.

so when hamlet himself is talking to himself
about specific circumstances of death
being associated when someone going to heaven
or having their soul be as damned and black as hell whereto it goes
are we to believe that hamlet was not religious?
that considerations of heaven and hell
and of good and bad deeds
are not in his mind throughout the play?

read it again dude
i've read it a dozen times

[Peter Kropotkin]

you made the OP be about hamlet
not shakespeare
thus what shakespeare believed or not is irrelevant
what is relevant is hamlet's state of mind
regarding his hesitation to act
and as to your claim that there is nothing in that book
to suggest that religion/Christianity has a role in Hamlet's thinking
i proved that you are factually incorrect

want more?

when claudius is praying
and hamlet is about to kill him
he then pauses and thinks that
by killing him then he would send claudius to heaven
and he thinks that not a sufficient revenge
he stops then and decides to wait to find claudius
in the incestuous bed or some other sinful situation
for then his soul would be certainly damned

HAMLET
Now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying,
And now I’ll do ’t. He draws his sword.
And so he goes to heaven,
And so am I revenged. That would be scanned:
A villain kills my father, and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.
He took my father grossly, full of bread,
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how his audit stands who knows save heaven.
But in our circumstance and course of thought
’Tis heavy with him. And am I then revenged
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?
No.
Up sword, and know thou a more horrid hent.
He sheathes his sword.
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in th’ incestuous pleasure of his bed,
At game, a-swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in ’t—
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damned and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays.
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.

so when hamlet himself is talking to himself
about specific circumstances of death
being associated when someone going to heaven
or having their soul be as damned and black as hell whereto it goes
are we to believe that hamlet was not religious?
that considerations of heaven and hell
and of good and bad deeds
are not in his mind throughout the play?

read it again dude
i've read it a dozen times

K: you cannot, cannot separate out a fictional character and
the writer to match some conclusion of yours...

to say, Hamlet said this, but Shakespeare says this, is to divorce the
two... you cannot claim a character in a play has different feelings
then the author unless, unless the author is trying to make a point...

which is what Shakespeare is trying to do....

read his works, which I have, I have done a modest study of Shakespeare
and see that in his works, he spends little or no time on religion....
outside to make some point....
recall that he was born just a few years after Henry the 5th, overthrew or
changed England from Catholic to Protestant....

you can tell that even experts are not clear upon any Shakespeare
religious feelings..... from the writings of Shakespeare,
one can make the argument that he was Catholic, Protestant or
even an atheist....or any combination of all three....

the use of religion as a plot point is hardly new, even in Shakespeare's time...

so, who do you follow? do you follow a fictional character or do
you follow the actual writer of the fictional character?

personally, I would follow the writer instead of the character....

I have published a book and in that books I advance points that
I personally may or may not believe in to make a point...
to offer up a choice as it were...and that is the value of
putting up choices or advancing an author's position.....

Kropotkin

[phoneutria]

a writer can write about whatever he wants
he can imagine a serial killer and write about it
without himself being a serial killer

he can imagine a christian character
which he did
because hamlet is one

the fact stands that hamlet, the character, was christian
which is one of the reasons why he hesitated about killing

there is ample evidence to that in the book
and there is no evidence to your claim
that he hesitated because of the state
he was not afraid of getting caught and going to prison
in fact, he ultimately murdered claudius in front of the entire court

you can dance around the subject if you want to
or you can insist on being wrong
at which point there is nothing else i can tell you

[iambiguous]

a writer can write about whatever he wants
he can imagine a serial killer and write about it
without himself being a serial killer

he can imagine a christian character
which he did
because hamlet is one

the fact stands that hamlet, the character, was christian
which is one of the reasons why he hesitated about killing

there is ample evidence to that in the book
and there is no evidence to your claim
that he hesitated because of the state
he was not afraid of getting caught and going to prison
in fact, he ultimately murdered claudius in front of the entire court

you can dance around the subject if you want to
or you can insist on being wrong
at which point there is nothing else i can tell you

Google "was Hamlet a Christian?" and you get this: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... ent=psy-ab

On the other hand, there are those who insist that only their own answer constitutes the whole objective truth.

Next up: Whatever Hamlet was, ought he to have been something else instead?

What you believe for example.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Ok, let us try this.....

If I were a religious man, and to be clear I am not, but
if I were a religious man, and I had a quandary about
an action, be it murder or be it suicide, I would go to a church,
to seek out an religious answer, but at no point does Hamlet even
think about going to any type of religious place or even speak to
a priest......he refers to his "conscience" as being....

"thus conscience does make cowards of us all"...

he doesn't say god or religion or the church...
he specifically says conscience...
this is not the words of a religious man...
he doesn't make a religious connotation
that a religious person might make...

I know that murder or suicide is a violation of god's law and thus
I hesitate... no....he never says this and in this age of religion,
it would have been appropriate to say this.... but he doesn't....

Shakespeare brilliance lies in his new understanding of human beings...

and to see this new difference in the understanding of human beings, read
"Don Quixote" by Cervantes....

in this book, a novel, the point is that Quixote never changes...
he remains the same throughout the entire book...and this book was
written around the same time as Hamlet...whereas Hamlet and other characters
of Shakespeare do change in time... and this was a radical departure
from other works of fiction...

the hemming and hawing of Hamlet show us the new side of human beings...

and in reading Hamlet, one see's that events drive his actions more then his
pondering the events do...for example it is the ghost that originally drives Hamlet
actions and thinking....and after killing Polonius, his actions are reprimanded
by the ghost again...the plot to kill Hamlet drives much of the last part of the play....

the play brings up a modern point, which is to focus on the character of
Hamlet instead of the actions of Hamlet....again, Don Quixote, focuses
on the actions and not on the character because it is accepted right from the start
that Quixote is unhinged by reading too many romance novels....

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

pfft. You guys read the cliffsnotes. I've read Shakespeare 14 times coughphoneutriacough and I know for certain he was a branch davidian.

[phoneutria]

Kropo

you can dance around the subject if you want to
or you can insist on being wrong
at which point there is nothing else i can tell you