Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Shakespeare's critics and commentators can say anything. anything, build philosophical theories and describe the behavior and feelings of the Prince of Denmark in intricate terms.
But if you put it in your own words, having comprehended “Hamlet” after repeated reading, then the prince fell into the trap of feelings and duty. On the one hand – filial duty, which encourages revenge; grief and hatred for the murderer of the father. On the other hand, a person's desire for the “human” – love for Ophelia, involuntary adoration for Laertes, the love of a son for his mother, attempts to break out of a deadly vicious circle. All this comes into an inevitable conflict, in which Hamlet breaks himself, subjugating and destroying his own “I”, putting everything in the service of revenge. Naturally, this could not pass without a trace, and the death of Hamlet is only one of the inevitable endings. Another would have ended in real madness, not imaginary.