Hamlet and Abraham... a connection?

[Meno_]

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

Ultimately , he owes his actions to the writer


His actions are muted by the writer, so the character fades away. So what's left of the play but a revised authorship.

There are claims Shakespeare was Queen Elizabeth herself, not the second Elizabeth, unless she reincarnated.

What difference does even the fact around what religion Hamlet or even Shakespeare was, when his musings while contemplating the bust of the dead man - could be Homer-.

With the Writer demonished , we come to a deeply stated area of concern everyone is reluctant to talk about.




"For many Greeks, Homer's novels were used as a spiritual and moral guide. Homer's epics were used to demonstrate the religion of Greeks. The Homeric Gods represent ethical values. The virtues of the warrior are often seen as being courageous and generous."

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

Ancient Greece lasted 8 thousand years and spanned Asia Africa Europe and included Asians Europeans and Africans, one of many many things the modern Greek smartasses fail to realise because their knowledge is found in300 movie and their demented uncles Facebook YouTube videos.

[Magnus Anderson]

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

He's point is that . . .

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?

The source of Hamlet's hesitation doesn't seem that relevant.

[Meno_]

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

He's point is that . . .

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?

The source of Hamlet's hesitation doesn't seem that relevant.

What is the source? Quantum insecurity between political, court intrigue or fear of it going heavenward by some 'mytic vibration'?

And once found, why wouldn't be relevant?

[phoneutria]

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

He's point is that . . .

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?

The source of Hamlet's hesitation doesn't seem that relevant.

well
the hesitations
or the process of listening to your inner voices
or caving to societal pressures
is the core idea of this thread i reckon

the reason for hamlet's hesitation
being either religion or the state
is possibly irrelevant
but i did qualify that in my first post
that i was just correcting a minor point
and don't really care to discuss
what sounds like basically a biggie thread

how do you act, ultimately?
sometimes the right course of action
is as clear as water
sometimes it ain't
it is a complicated process
unique to each individual
and it is as personal as it gets
and it takes more than mere logic
feelings, intuitions, and subconscious cues
are as much a sense as sight and hearing
everybody deals with doubt
there is no recipe for making decisions
sometimes even with careful analysis
you still choose wrong
but it is an important freedom
few things insult the human being more
than to feel like he is not in charge of his own decisions
thus as stupid or incapable as one may seem
he must still be free to fuck his own life up
if he chooses
to deny that freedom is imoral
that is all i have to say about that

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

phone i like the way you stand your ground
but
why
do
you
write
like
this?

[phoneutria]

style

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

you
are
a
freak
B
E
A
.
I
like
it
.
A
lot.
.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

regarding characters in any dramas or plays...the authors purposefully never develop them fully because their audience is varied and everybody interprets the world and people in it based on who he is so even if they would have purposefully remained stringent with their outlines of characters, their audiences variability would have undermined their stringency completely and would have conjured their unique imaginations, plus a character is also what the outlines character does at all times, so if you wanted your own character to be the readers character then you would have to have two narratives: one normal and one external, intervening and re-interpreting the readers interpretation whenever such interpretation of who the character is would have arisen(practically at every step).
PEACE
OUT
BAE
!!!
!!
!

[Meno_]

Thanks, now that really settled it and.now I can go back to sleep..

Plays , like.........hm
.....well even the Trump script deluge the audience with variable characterizations, that the author(s) that dreamed it up must have realized the audience participation in defining the source and the course of the drift, and the two ways it can go is convincing.

And no one at this point should suppose otherwise that that play was not within a larger, all consuming play!

Brilliant'

and
I would
agree with Polish's
agreement and admiration
with styalistic gravitas within the
stylistically poetic freedom whereby




Apologies, it's just that the Truman and Trump shows are so very similar.

THE TRUMAN SHOW QUOTES

Christof: Say something, god dammit! You are in television! You're live to the whole world!

Truman Burbank: Was nothing real?
Christof: You were real... that's what make you so good to watch.

Truman Burbank: Was nothing real?
Christof: You were real... that's what make you so good to watch.

Christof: Seahaven is the way the world should be.

Christof: We accept the reality of the world with which we’re presented. It’s as simple as that.
Christof: We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented. It's as simple as that.


Christof: I know you better than you know yourself.
Truman Burbank: You never had a camera in my head.

Truman Burbank: Who are you?
Christof: I am the Creator - of a television show that gives hope and joy and inspiration to millions.
Truman Burbank: Then who am I?
Christof: You're the star.

Lauren/Sylvia: Look at what you've done to him!
Christof: I have given Truman the chance to lead a normal life. The world, the place you live in, is the sick place.

Truman Burbank: You're going to the top of the mountain, broken legs and all.

Truman Burbank: "In case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight"
Truman Burbank: In case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight.

Meryl: Let me get you some help Truman, you're not well!

Christof: It's no accident that I wear this goofy little beanie.

Truman Burbank: Born free, as free as the grass grows, as free as the wind blows...

Lauren/Sylvia: Your Butt My Face
Lauren/Sylvia: Your butt my face.

Christof: We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.

Truman Burbank: Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, Good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.

Truman Burbank: Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

Christof: We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.

Truman Burbank: In case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening and good night!
Truman Burbank: Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

Network Executive: You can't kill him on live TV!
Network Executive: We can't let him die in front of a live audience!
Christof: He was born on live TV.
Christof: He was born in front of a live audience.

Christof: I am the Creator... of a television show that brings joy to many viewers!
Christof: I am the creator of a television show that gives hope and joy and inspiration to millions.

Christof: That's our hero shot.

Christof: Cue the sun!

Truman Burbank: The early bird gathers no moss! The rolling stone catches the worm!

Truman Burbank: And if I don't see you, Good Afternoon, Good Evening, and Good Night


Copyright © Fandango.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

Bro check into a local psychiatrist and stop littering this space with your bizzare and completely displaced insanities.

[phoneutria]

regarding characters in any dramas or plays...the authors purposefully never develop them fully because their audience is varied and everybody interprets the world and people in it based on who he is so even if they would have purposefully remained stringent with their outlines of characters, their audiences variability would have undermined their stringency completely and would have conjured their unique imaginations, plus a character is also what the outlines character does at all times, so if you wanted your own character to be the readers character then you would have to have two narratives: one normal and one external, intervening and re-interpreting the readers interpretation whenever such interpretation of who the character is would have arisen(practically at every step).
PEACE
OUT
BAE
!!!
!!
!

yeah
to succeed at creating a relatability between character and reader
they need to strike a balance
between developing a character that has psychological depth
but without revealing so much about them
that they become too specific
and therefore too focus on a niche audience

[Meno_]

Bro check into a local psychiatrist and stop littering this space with your bizzare and completely displaced insanities.

Ouch...expect less from bordering ilk , not more , bro.


Too bad, for me not knowing pleasure from pain
I am the vessel through which hostility can be purified. Like that . remember, this is all about connections of emotional content , emotionally repressed, to culturally redacted , multiform conditioning that can be made out within certain contexts.


Though the demolition of Polish iron curtain preceded that of the heart of Europe, Hungary. I grant You that much.

Note: the intensity of felt emotion needs to be clarified between Hamlet and Abraham , yes, but with the larger scope of Evreryman in mind.

[Meno_]

Hamlet
William Shakespeare

Writing Help

Main Ideas Is Hamlet really mad?

Hamlet may already be going mad when the play begins, and his later decision to fake madness is just a cover for real insanity. The first line addressed to Hamlet is: “How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” (I.ii.): Claudius thinks it’s strange and unhealthy that Hamlet is still grieving for his father. In the same scene Hamlet tells us that he is wearing “solemn black” and a “dejected ‘havior” (I.ii.), which audiences in Shakespeare’s time would have recognised as signs of “melancholy,” a condition which Renaissance doctors believed could lead to madness. Although several characters see the Ghost during Act One, only Hamlet hears it speak, which opens the possibility that the Ghost’s speech is a hallucination of Hamlet’s. Later Hamlet wonders the same thing, asking whether the Ghost’s story was a trick played on him by the Devil, “Out of my weakness and my melancholy,/As he is very potent with such spirits” (II.ii.). The possibility that Hamlet is mad when the play begins forces us to question the truth of everything he says, making his character even more mysterious.

Hamlet’s misogynistic behavior toward Gertrude and Ophelia can be seen as evidence that Hamlet really is going mad, because these scenes have little to do with is quest for justice, and yet they seem to provoke his strongest feelings. We see little evidence in the play that either Gertrude or Ophelia is guilty of any wrongdoing, and they both appear to feel genuine affection and concern for Hamlet. Yet he treats them both with paranoia, suspicion, and cruelty, suggesting he has lost the ability to accurately interpret other people’s motivations. Hamlet describes Gertrude’s marriage as “incestuous” (I.ii.), but no one else in the play agrees with his opinion. Even though the Ghost instructs Hamlet not to “contrive against thy mother aught” (I.v), Hamlet’s disgust with his mother’s sex life mounts as the play continues: when he finally confronts Gertrude he paints a picture of her “honeying and making love over the nasty sty” (III.iii). Hamlet demonstrates a similar attitude to Ophelia’s sexuality, telling her “Get thee to a nunnery” rather than become “a breeder of sinners” (III.i). After giving Ophelia a long list of what he sees as women’s faults, Hamlet confesses: “It hath made me mad” (III.i). The fact that Hamlet’s biggest emotional outbursts are directed against the sexual feelings of the women in his life suggests that his mad behavior is not just a ploy to disguise his revenge plans.

Despite the evidence that Hamlet is actually mad, we also see substantial evidence that he is just pretending. The most obvious evidence is that Hamlet himself says he is going to pretend to be mad, suggesting he is at least sane enough to be able to tell the difference between disordered and rational behavior. Hamlet tells Horatio and Marcellus that he plans to “put an antic disposition on” (I.v). His “mad” remarks to Polonius—“you are a fishmonger” (II.ii)—are too silly and sometimes too clever to be genuinely mad: even Polonius notes “How pregnant sometimes his replies are” (II.ii.). Hamlet’s most mad-seeming outburst, against Ophelia, may be explained by the fact that Claudius and Polonius are spying on the conversation: if Hamlet suspects that he’s being spied on, he may be acting more deranged than he really is for the benefit of his listeners. If Hamlet does know that Claudius and Polonius are listening, the fact that he can instantly adjust his behavior points toward the idea that he has a firm grip on reality and his own mind. Similarly, when Hamlet is sent to England, he acts skilfully and ruthlessly to escape, which suggests that even at this late stage in the play he is capable of perfectly sane behavior. For every piece of evidence that Hamlet is mad, we can also point to evidence that he’s sane, which contributes to the mystery of Hamlet’s character.

By making the audience constantly question whether Hamlet is really mad or just pretending, Hamlet asks us whether the line between reality and acting is as clear-cut as it seems. Hamlet tells us that he believes the purpose of acting is “to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to Nature” (III.ii), that is, to be as close to reality as possible. The First Player cries as he delivers a sad speech, and Hamlet asks whether the Player’s pretended feelings are stronger than his own real feelings, since Hamlet’s feelings are not strong enough to make him cry. Hamlet seems to believe that acting can be as real, or realer, than real-life emotion, which raises the possibility that by pretending to be mad, Hamlet has actually caused his own mental breakdown. Another interpretation could be that Hamlet acts mad as a way to express the strong, troubling emotions he can’t allow himself to feel when he’s sane, just as the actor can cry easily when playing a role. Throughout the play, Hamlet struggles to determine which role he should play—thoughtful, reticent scholar, or revenge-minded, decisive heir to the throne—and by acting both parts, Hamlet explores what his true role should be. Hamlet forces us to question what the truth is: how can we the reality and pretence






Most Popular No Fear Shakespeare





Copyright © 2021 SparkNotes LLC

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

Bro check into a local psychiatrist and stop littering this space with your bizzare and completely displaced insanities.

Ouch...expect less from bordering ilk , not more , bro.


Too bad, for me not knowing pleasure from pain
I am the vessel through which hostility can be purified. Like that . remember, this is all about connections of emotional content , emotionally repressed, to culturally redacted , multiform conditioning that can be made out within certain contexts.


Though the demolition of Polish iron curtain preceded that of the heart of Europe, Hungary. I grant You that much.

Note: the intensity of felt emotion needs to be clarified between Hamlet and Abraham , yes, but with the larger scope of Evreryman in mind.

your attempts at shaming me by implying you are from a better nation are especially funny given your pretentious liberalism and the fact that Netherlands is and always has been either British or German colony, with even less to say and lesser role to perform in the world history than Poland, you moronic goon and they wont work either-way because I am neither fully Polish nor have I lived in the poorer part of Europe most of my life anyhow(rather opposite, the wealthiest in the biggest cities for the better half of my life), you pathetic dimwit. your kind of bizarre and cowardly patriotism tells me you are about 45-65 and blame immigrants for everything, including your lack of erections but are afraid to admit it publically...am I right?

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

regarding characters in any dramas or plays...the authors purposefully never develop them fully because their audience is varied and everybody interprets the world and people in it based on who he is so even if they would have purposefully remained stringent with their outlines of characters, their audiences variability would have undermined their stringency completely and would have conjured their unique imaginations, plus a character is also what the outlines character does at all times, so if you wanted your own character to be the readers character then you would have to have two narratives: one normal and one external, intervening and re-interpreting the readers interpretation whenever such interpretation of who the character is would have arisen(practically at every step).
PEACE
OUT
BAE
!!!
!!
!

yeah
to succeed at creating a relatability between character and reader
they need to strike a balance
between developing a character that has psychological depth
but without revealing so much about them
that they become too specific
and therefore too focus on a niche audience

you
are
oversimplifying
but
you
get
the
gist
of
it

[phoneutria]

of course i am oversimplifying
you think i got all day
to sit around typing shit on a forum?
i've got toys to deliver

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

of course i am oversimplifying
you think i got all day
to sit around typing shit on a forum?
i've got toys to deliver

stop
taking
everything
personally
and
stop
being
mean
you
little
flower

[Meno_]

Bro check into a local psychiatrist and stop littering this space with your bizzare and completely displaced insanities.

Ouch...expect less from bordering ilk , not more , bro.


Too bad, for me not knowing pleasure from pain
I am the vessel through which hostility can be purified. Like that . remember, this is all about connections of emotional content , emotionally repressed, to culturally redacted , multiform conditioning that can be made out within certain contexts.


Though the demolition of Polish iron curtain preceded that of the heart of Europe, Hungary. I grant You that much.

Note: the intensity of felt emotion needs to be clarified between Hamlet and Abraham , yes, but with the larger scope of Evreryman in mind.

your attempts at shaming me by implying you are from a better nation are especially funny given your pretentious liberalism and the fact that Netherlands is and always has been either British or German colony, with even less to say and lesser role to perform in the world history than Poland, you moronic goon and they wont work either-way because I am neither fully Polish nor have I lived in the poorer part of Europe most of my life anyhow(rather opposite, the wealthiest in the biggest cities for the better half of my life), you pathetic dimwit. your kind of bizarre and cowardly patriotism tells me you are about 45-65 and blame immigrants for everything, including your lack of erections but are afraid to admit it publically...am I right?

True to form , I won't push the issue. And that is the very best I can do presently.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

Removed too much anger sorry all Meno did not deserve it that badly!!!

[Meno_]

removed

[Magnus Anderson]

the reason for hamlet's hesitation
being either religion or the state
is possibly irrelevant
but i did qualify that in my first post
that i was just correcting a minor point
and don't really care to discuss
what sounds like basically a biggie thread

Yes, you did qualify it. My post was actually directed at others (such as PK) rather than you, it's just that I didn't bother to clarify it.

And yes, this is a Biggie thread. Though I don't feel the same way about it.

how do you act, ultimately?
sometimes the right course of action
is as clear as water
sometimes it ain't
it is a complicated process
unique to each individual
and it is as personal as it gets
and it takes more than mere logic
feelings, intuitions, and subconscious cues
are as much a sense as sight and hearing
everybody deals with doubt
there is no recipe for making decisions

Perhaps no recipe for making decisions exists at the present time but does that mean we shouldn't be looking for one?

And then there's the question of what kind of recipe we're looking for.

I already presented one -- a very general one. The basic idea is that you come up with an idea on what to do and then you observe how you feel about it. If you feel bad about it, you throw it away and look for another one until you finally find the one you feel good about. It's super simple.

But then, it might be the case that PK is not looking for that sort of recipe.

sometimes even with careful analysis
you still choose wrong
but it is an important freedom
few things insult the human being more
than to feel like he is not in charge of his own decisions
thus as stupid or incapable as one may seem
he must still be free to fuck his own life up
if he chooses
to deny that freedom is imoral
that is all i have to say about that

I agree with that.

[phoneutria]

Perhaps no recipe for making decisions exists at the present time but does that mean we shouldn't be looking for one?

And then there's the question of what kind of recipe we're looking for.

I already presented one -- a very general one. The basic idea is that you come up with an idea on what to do and then you observe how you feel about it. If you feel bad about it, you throw it away and look for another one until you finally find the one you feel good about. It's super simple.

for sure most people use their history of decision making
and how they felt about them
to guide future decisions
but then
there is the issue of life altering and irreversible decisions
one is not able to throw it away
after realizing that that was a bad decision
raskolnikov type of situation
it's not super simple

sometimes even with careful analysis
you still choose wrong
but it is an important freedom
few things insult the human being more
than to feel like he is not in charge of his own decisions
thus as stupid or incapable as one may seem
he must still be free to fuck his own life up
if he chooses
to deny that freedom is imoral
that is all i have to say about that

I agree with that.

that said,
when it comes to killing one's own son or uncle
based on what was heard from a ghost or from god's voice
the matter of mental competence has to be looked at
for public safety

there are a few people on this very board that make you wonder

[Sculptor]

I am placing this post here because of its conclusions,
not because of its content....

we have two historical figures, one clearly fictional and
the other?

I see Hamlet as being a continuation of the Abraham story.....

what the fuck, Kropotkin? what are you smoking?
nothing hear me out....

let us set the stage...

Abraham hears the voice of god.. who demands he kills his son,
Isaac, as a sign of devotion to god... Abraham being a "believer"
takes Isaac on a three day journey to obey God's command..

at the appointed place, Abraham lifts the knife and.....
an angel appears and stops this event.... replacing
Isaac with a random Ram who was wondering by...

and in Hamlet, Hamlet see's a ghost of his dead father who commands
that Hamlet avenges the father's death by killing the new king,
King Claudius... who killed Hamlet father and took his throne and wife....
Hamlet mother....

so we have two voices, one claiming to be god and one a ghost claiming to be
Hamlet father, asking their respective protagonist, Abraham and Hamlet
to kill the objective of the voices....

Is that all ya got??
Abraham is asked to kill his son.
In Hamlet "god" asks Hamlet to kill his uncle (god brother).
In the Bible God stays Abraham's hand, not so in Hamlet. This is not test. The deed was done and the poison was poured. Caludius is guilty, Abraham's son is innocent.
You might as well pick ANY story where an authority figure asks a subject to kill another person.
Al Capone. The story of Thomas Beckett. ad nauseam.

we can see that Hamlet is the more modern story because of the
hesitation of Hamlet to kill that isn't in the biblical story.....
..
and how do we solve this dilemma? which voice shall we listen to,
the state/society/culture or do we listen to the voice in our head?

Kropotkin

Duh

[Meno_]

"dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil , " ...