Hamlet Essay

Submitted By Jamal-Freedom
Words: 2344
Pages: 10

A majority of the human race has always seemed to have trouble remembering what it truly means to be insane. Is sanity not defined as being rational, and finding convincing justifications for what you have done, are doing, or will do? As this is the case, it appears as if our poor Hamlet has been a victim of society’s habit to mark anything unusual or different to them as weird or crazy. This is due to the fact that the goal of most communities is to eventually accomplish an established mindset or lifestyle that they want everyone and anyone to abide by without doubt; they define this as normality (or, if you ask certain philosophers, religion). This desire for something that does not exist, as normality is actually a fabricated state of mind, is simply a reflection of the human race’s unjustified (and therefore irrational) fear of what they cannot predict due to a lack of understanding or comprehension. If Hamlet is insane, then, he is no more insane than almost the entirety of the human race, as the desire for normality originates from a fear that forms only in the insane. The fact that a majority of the world would define Hamlet’s behaviour as insane is actually fairly ironic, as he is also Shakespeare’s most human character in any and all of his plays. Hamlet is only a victim of his own human nature, allowing himself to do what his emotions tell him to do without first logically thinking about the consequences. However, what is very unhuman of him, but still at the same time is something only a human could do, is the fact that he overcomes his ignorance of the truth regarding life and himself. He acknowledges and accepts his mortality, while also admitting that he is just as flawed and cowardly as the any other human; due to this realization, however, his mind is left in a state of constant inner-conflict regarding his and the rest of the world’s morality. Even his somewhat horrid, cruel treatment when it came to his mother (Gertrude) and Ophelia was a reflection of his human nature and inner-conflict.
As humans, we usually fall victim to our own emotions. We let them control us, manipulate us, and make decisions for us… and the only reason we allow it to happen is because it feels right; it makes us feel good. Hamlet, like us, constantly falls victim to his own emotions (less and less, though, as the play goes on), and lets them be the main driving force behind most of his actions and decisions; only after doing something will he usually think logically and unbiased about it. When you are enraged, everything right feels wrong, and when you are overjoyed, everything wrong feels right; in other words, by instinct, if you are mad, you want to stay mad, and if you are happy, you want to stay happy. Hamlet allows his despair to almost push him to suicide, hoping his “…too too sullied (solid) flesh would melt,” and then allows his anger to convince him to commit murder, despite the fact that it would lead to eternal suffering in hell. But are these thoughts not human-like? A person would be lying if he or she said they had never been so angry, or so sad, that they believed, thought, or even said something that seemed very extreme (be it due to their morals or due to the consequences) simply to satisfy the extreme emotion they were feeling. Hamlet does the same; this justifies how he speaks and thinks at certain times where his emotions are out of control, and also explains why it seems as if he never takes action and constantly procrastinates. He eventually takes into account the possible consequences, and, subsequently, realizes that his thoughts or intentions are way too simple and instinctive. It is at these points where reality hits him and he must put his emotions aside to actually think clearly, like any other logical human being (surprisingly rare) would.
Despite the fact that Hamlet becomes better and better as they play goes on at stopping his emotions from controlling his actions, he always seems to “lose his