Hamlet picked the "To be or NOT to be" choice wrong: Should be, "To BE - or- to DO"

[UTUSN]

As for the "be/being" part, well we're here a priori. Is it because we're aware/conscious that we're here that injects the "NOT to be" into it?

Seems like, since we're HERE, *how* to Be for the duration is more the issue, as opposed to cutting off the BE-ing.

The over-arching premise is existential meaningLESSness of it all, which applies both to the NOT-to-be and the HOW-to-be.

Injecting some theological facets, there's the Xtian thing that Works (HOW-to-be) will not save you, and also the (Buddhist?) thing or just '70s feel-good thing about "the Eternal Now" and the just experiencing the existence like a flower in the sun and then when it's over it's over. This would be the HOW (to be) part.

*** So, rewriting Hamlet, "To be or to DO - that is the question..."

Or, "To be or how to be, that is the question..."

[speak easy]

1. 'To be or not to be' can be understood as to be or not to be an avenger,

to take revenge against the man who has murdered Hamlet's father, despoiled Hamlet's mother, and usurped the throne. The play is about him taking the decision to kill the interloper.

The avenger, takes up take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them. This can't be understood as Hamlet's meditation on suicide that follows. Killing yourself is hardly taking up arms.

Hamlet considers what taking no revenge means to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

and it is from this the suicide offers an escape - from the slings and suffering, from depression -

... 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 wish'd. To die, to sleep;

This section deals with his current predicament

...who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes

The whips and scores of time, recalls the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but these cannot be defeated by taking up arms. Only death can end those.

So my take on the passage is that Hamlet is choosing between becoming the avenger, or do doing nothing, bearing outrageous pain, and facing suicide.

[UTUSN]

2. I knew I was wading out of my depth, outside of plot.

[dweller]

3. Do like me , dance instead ...

✌🏻

[UTUSN]

4. You "get" me!

[speak easy]

5. Sorry for the OD / TMI

Your OP put me in a time warp, straight back to college

[UTUSN]

7. Oh please, *NO* apology needed, I'm a post-first/retract-soon type!1 - I admire

your learning and thoughts.

[malthaussen]

9. Could be a meditation on "suicide by cop."

If he takes up arms against "a sea of troubles," they will eventually get him in the end. So it could be a conscious decision to oppose them, and thus end one's existence (which will also end the problems). This fits in nicely with his description of the torments he faces which would be ended by his death. This is, after a fashion, exactly what happens in the play.

When he muses on the "whips and scorns of time," and so on, he could be seen as reflecting that, if he does not act, he will be seen and despised as a coward, and that perhaps the sweetness of death is preferable to that.

So, my take is that he is trying to work out the dilemma in his head: to live scorned and rejected by all worthy men, or to do the noble thing, oppose the usurper, and die more-or-less gloriously. There's no sense (to me) that he might come out the other end still breathing.

-- Mal

[Wolf Frankula]

6. What's wrong with "Do be do be do?"

Frank said it's fine.

Wolf

[UTUSN]

8. Hah - that's the ticket!1

[malthaussen]

10. That's the old graffito...

...

"To be is to do" Socrates
"To do is to be" Plato
"Do be do be do" Sinatra

The attributions are off, though. Well, except for Frank's.

-- Mal