Exploring the Depths of Existence: Hamlet’s Eternal Question
A Modern Exploration of an Age-Old Question
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. There’s the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s Contumely, [F: poore]
The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay, [F: dispriz’d]
The insolence of Office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear, [F: these Fardels]
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of Resolution
Is sicklied o’er, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment, [F: pith]
With this regard their Currents turn awry, [F: away]
And lose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia? Nymph, in thy Orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (spoken by Hamlet)
Hamlet’s Dilemma: A Journey Through Existential Musings
A comment on Hamlet’s soliloquy on Life’s Greatest Paradox: To be or not to be
Historical-literary context
The end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century mark a period of profound transformations in Europe. In this period, known as the English Renaissance, William Shakespeare writes ‘Hamlet’, one of his most enigmatic and profound works. The historical-literary context of ‘Hamlet’ is a complex fabric of religious tensions, scientific discoveries, and political changes that deeply influence the culture and literature of the time.
The monologue “To be or not to be” is located at this intersection of thoughts and ideas, reflecting the uncertainties and existential questions that characterize the period.
The Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation have doubted religious certainties, while the scientific method begins to challenge traditional conceptions of the universe.
In politics, the rise of absolute power of the monarchs contrasts with the demands for greater freedom and rights by the subjects.
In this context, Shakespeare’s theatre becomes a space for philosophical reflection and psychological investigation.
‘Hamlet’ in particular, with its monologue, explores the human condition, the meaning of life and death, morality and madness, in a way that resonates with the anxieties of its time but remains universal and current.
Hamlet: the philosopher prince
Hamlet, the protagonist of the eponymous tragedy, is often described as a philosopher prince, a man inclined to deep reflection and introspection. Hamlet is tormented by an existential conflict that makes him a complex and fascinating character. His monologue “To be or not to be” represents the culmination of his inner crisis, where he questions the nature of existence and the meaning of action and suffering.
The Prince of Denmark struggles between the desire to avenge his murdered father and the awareness of the vanity and futility of human existence.
Hamlet confronts doubt, death, morality, and the fear of the unknown, themes that lead him to reflect on the nobility of the human soul and on the choices that everyone must face in the face of pain and injustice.
His philosophical figure contrasts with the direct and impulsive action, typical of previous tragic heroes, and reflects a new awareness of interiority and psychological complexity.
Hamlet embodies the prototype of the modern man, the one who questions his role in the world and the moral responsibility of his actions, in a universe that appears increasingly devoid of order and meaning.
Hamlet’s monologue thus becomes a symbol of the search for meaning in a changing world, a reflection that continues to question readers and spectators of the tragedy, centuries after its composition.
To be or not to be: the existential dilemma
Hamlet’s monologue, “To be or not to be”, represents one of the deepest philosophical dilemmas ever expressed in world literature. Shakespeare places at the center of reflection the dualism between life, with all its sufferings and joys, and death, seen as a possible escape from this turmoil.
The question “To be or not to be” is not only a question about physical existence, but a profound analysis of the human soul, which struggles between action and passivity, between the desire to change one’s destiny and the stoic acceptance of what life presents.
In the context of the monologue, Hamlet reflects on the human condition and the tribulations it entails.
The “sea of troubles” from which he would like to free himself is a metaphor for the endless difficulties that man must face. Life is a continuous confrontation with suffering, and death may seem like a possible escape.
However, Hamlet’s doubt is precisely the uncertainty of what death may hold, thus making man a prisoner of life.
The nobility of suffering and action
The concept of nobility in Hamlet is articulated through the comparison between stoic endurance of adversity and the courage to actively face it.
On one hand, nobility could be seen in the patience and resilience of those who endure the hardships of life without complaining, maintaining an attitude of imperturbability in the face of existential storms.
On the other hand, it could be argued that true nobility lies in action, in not passively surrendering to pain and in fighting to restore justice and moral order.
Shakespeare, through Hamlet, shows us that the choice between endurance and action is never simple.
The Danish prince is tormented by doubt and fear that action may lead to consequences worse than the known evils. Yet, he cannot deny that inaction is a form of cowardice that paralyzes the soul and prevents the achievement of a more just and honorable life.
Death as liberation or escape
Death, in Hamlet’s monologue, is contemplated as a possible solution to the paradox of life.
Hamlet considers non-being as an option to free oneself from earthly pains, an annulment that could lead to a definitive peace. However, death is also seen as an escape, a way to avoid facing the challenges and responsibilities that life imposes.
Philosophical reflection goes beyond the mere cessation of physical existence, questioning the ethical and spiritual implications of the act of dying.
Is death perhaps a passage to an otherworldly condition of bliss, or is it the absolute nothingness that puts an end to every possibility of experience and knowledge?
The fear of the unknown that follows death is what, according to Hamlet, holds us back from taking the definitive step towards “non-being”, thus preferring to endure the known evils rather than venturing into the unknown.
Life after death and morality
In Hamlet’s monologue, reflection on “to be or not to be” is deeply intertwined with themes of morality and religion.
The philosophical question extends beyond mere earthly existence, probing the possibility of an afterlife and how this prospect influences the individual’s moral conduct. Hamlet is faced with an existential crossroads that not only questions the nobility of human action but also its compliance with moral and religious dictates.
The hope of an afterlife is not simply a comfort for earthly sufferings, but becomes a criterion for evaluating the actions performed in life. The question is not only whether it is nobler to endure adversity or to fight it, but also whether these choices make us worthy of an otherworldly beatitude.
Religion, with the promise of an afterlife, thus imposes a reflection on the ethical consequences of our actions, suggesting that true strength lies in the ability to endure injustices in view of a heavenly reward.
Hamlet reflects on the morality of the annulment of existence, whether philosophical or physical, and on the possibility that this may represent an escape from moral responsibilities.
Religion, with its emphasis on life after death, offers a perspective that goes beyond mere earthly existence, yet imposes a moral code that must be respected to access such hope.
Sin, fear, and uncertainty
The fear of sin and the unknown plays a crucial role in Hamlet’s monologue, deeply influencing his decision paralysis. The uncertainty of what awaits man after death — the “undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns” — generates a terror that can immobilize.
The fear of committing a sin, and therefore compromising one’s eternal salvation, becomes a burden that can hold the individual back from making decisive choices.
Hamlet finds himself suspended in a state of doubt and inertia, in which the fear of making the wrong move makes him unable to act. This state of uncertainty is amplified by the awareness of religious morality as an archetype of individual and collective human existence. The prospect of an otherworldly judgment becomes a brake that prevents radical decisions, especially those that could have irreversible moral consequences.
The fear of what could happen after death — both in terms of punishment for sins and confrontation with the unknown — is an element that Hamlet cannot ignore. Religion, with its emphasis on sin and redemption, thus proves to be a force that can induce endurance rather than action, whereas the unknown make the individual vulnerable to the torment of uncertainty.
Hamlet in modernity
The monologue of Hamlet, with its famous opening “To be or not to be”, has crossed the centuries, emerging as a universal symbol of the existential dilemma.
In it, Hamlet’s reflection resonates in contemporary issues, where the individual is often suspended between rationality and emotion, between action and reflection.
In an era characterized by rapid technological changes and a growing sense of alienation, Hamlet’s dilemma manifests itself in the choice between passive acceptance of an often oppressive reality and active search for significant change.
The nobility of which Hamlet speaks can be interpreted as personal integrity and ethical coherence in the modern era, where social and economic pressures push individuals towards moral compromises.
The struggle for justice and the endurance of injustices translate into an inner conflict that reflects the tension between the aspiration to an ideal of ataraxia, inner stoic peace, and the desire to act to fight the injustices of the world, to defend oneself or to realize oneself.
The philosophical death of which Hamlet speaks can be seen as a detachment from the frenzy of life, a desire for transcendence that clashes with the materiality and precariousness of existence.
Secularity, disengagement, and individualism of modern society are not only a spiritual liberation but also an escape from responsibilities and inner sufferings. This theme resonates deeply in an era of increasing secularization, nihilism, and absence of meaning.
In this context, Hamlet’s monologue stands as a mirror in which the contemporary individual can reflect on his life path, confronting the need for a reality that goes beyond mere materialism and the responsibility to live authentically and meaningfully.
Modern interpretations and adaptations
Hamlet’s monologue has inspired a wide range of modern interpretations and adaptations in different cultural and artistic contexts. From theatrical performances that emphasize identity crisis in a globalized world, to films and television series that explore the human psyche through the lens of uncertainty and doubt, the monologue continues to be an inexhaustible source of inspiration.
Modern adaptations often focus on themes of isolation, existential anxiety, and decision paralysis, reflecting the concerns of an era in which choices seem infinite yet limited by circumstances. Some adaptations have transposed the story into contemporary contexts, demonstrating how Hamlet’s inner conflict is universal and timeless.
In the film industry, for example, adaptations have placed the character in modern scenarios, using the monologue as a key to explore themes such as corruption, power, and morality. In literature, the monologue has been reinterpreted in a postmodern key, with narrators confronting metaphysics and existentialism in a world devoid of absolute certainties.
Hamlet’s monologue remains a milestone in world literature, whose relevance extends well beyond the Elizabethan context. Its words continue to resonate in modern consciences, offering fertile ground for new interpretations and adaptations that reflect the challenges and complexities of contemporary living.
TL;DR
Despite Hamlet’s famous quotes, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”, Hamlet is a philosopher.
He asks himself: to be or not to be, is it more noble to face the crossing in the sea of life by fighting, or by stoically enduring fate?
Should one cultivate the strength of the soul to face the challenges that fate throws at us, or to conquer a state of stable ataraxia*?
What is true nobility: the imperturbability of the soul or the courage to fight for justice?
Which is true strength: resilience or the ability to overthrow the unjust?
Which is the goal: peace or victory?
The nonbeing is the philosophical death, the detachment from life, the Nirvana: to exit the precarious existential condition, with awareness. The annihilation that leads to the abandonment of existence, to reach distance from the earthly condition and indifference towards life itself. Or choose to die, to “not be” physically, and to end the paradox of life with the liberation of death.
Life, inherently tethered to nature and the flesh, compels us into a relentless struggle for survival, to defend ourselves and our loved ones. This universal battle sometimes pits us against our own kin. The narrative of Oedipus illustrates this inevitability: despite efforts to escape, one’s cruel fate is ultimately encountered.
It’s useless to try to flee or hide: the inevitable storm sooner or later overwhelms. And at that point, we are at the mercy of events, we can no longer avoid evils, because we have already accepted the goods as well.
And then the only solution would be to die?
Yet, our existence is sustained by a fragile hope: : the prospect of a new life after the physical death. However, we must deserve this bliss, we must be worthy of God’s love. And therefore, we must endure the suffering and injustices of earthly life, for the hope of a peace beyond this world. Thus, we convince ourselves “that it is better to bear our troubles, rather than to run in search of others that we do not know”.
Hamlet’s predicament leaves us suspended in a limbo of doubt, teetering between existence and nonexistence. We remain at the mercy of doubt, between being and Nonbeing, between life and death, between action and immobility. But this is the only choice that “makes us cowards”.
- “unperturbedness”, “imperturbability”, “equanimity”, or “tranquility”
Translated from italian article: Essere o non essere
