Shakespeare & Philosophy: "To be, or not to be."

This is the first in a series of posts regarding philosophical questions/ points raised in Shakespeare's works. We will look at this not in the pure context of the play, as it was told in the storyline of the play, but as a stand-alone piece meditating on existential problems some 250 years before existentialism became a recognized branch of philosophy. This may be one of the most depressing pieces of literature outside of Edgar Allen Poe, being clearly nihilistic in nature. It comes from Hamlet, one of the greatest tragedies ever written, just short of Macbeth and the last season of Lost (in the sense that it was a tragedy for everyone watching).

"To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer

The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,

Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep

No more; and by a sleep, to say we end

The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks

That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,

To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,

For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause."

In modern English, Hamlet is asking whether it is better to resist the pressures and threats against him in order to sustain his existence, or if the unknown of death is a better option, trading the pain and suffering for the possibility of something better. He muses on the idea of "noble suffering" less so in the sense of physical torture but in persevering against mental torture, or perhaps even the human condition itself. There is an acknowledgement here, too, that merely being alive is highly fortunate as self-consciousness and self-reflection are the cause of many of life's greatest questions (i.e., why am I here, what is my purpose, what caused me to exist). Taking arms against that "sea of troubles" is an allusion to suicide, ending the mental suffering.

Heidegger may have given the clearest explanation of the existential problem (which, believe me, is monumental given the clarity of his work). It is the feeling of being suspended over a void, and looking into that void. It is how one adjusts themselves towards death, and their knowledge of their own death, falling into that void. For Heidegger, existentialism is the study of how someone gives meaning to their finite life with the understanding that their time is limited.

Hamlet's speech directly touches on the same issue but with a brighter outlook (which may have just been to keep the Church at bay like Descartes did in his work.) In sleep there is no worldly pain for a person to resist against. Often the dream world is significantly more desired than the reality we live in. Shakespeare seems to understand that the dream world is a subjective creation, housing our deepest desires that may never come to fruition in the objective world. Death, to him, is permanently living in that world. The dream becomes reality, so to speak. This is not assured, nor is Hamlet at all certain about this possibility, as is made clear from the second-guessing nature of his words. There is a major distinction between the sleep of the living and the sleep of the dead when Hamlet questions the possibilities once he has "shuffled off this mortal coil."

Hamlet looks at death as more of a positive change which must come in it's own time, not by one's own hand. He view's that nobility in resisting the world as a reason to live. This can be equated to Nietzsche's "Will to Power" where the meaning of life is to make objective reality match a person's subjective views, or to force their will onto that reality. Yet, even though he will continue with his life, he longs for that chance to dream in death. What he displays may not be considered faith, but it is certainly the hope that keeps him pressing on in life.

The first line, "to be or not to be," can be evaluated on it's own as well. Is it better to be the fortunate person who is born into life with the understanding of death, or to not be born at all without the dread of death? Is it ethical to create a child who will deal with these same issues, struggling against nature, other creatures, and their own mental anguish? This line brings up different issues for different people, which is why I find Shakespeare to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

Steve