Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 4 weeks ago

To be kr not to be- Shakespeare/ Hamlet's famous soliloquy, do you think it contains echoes of Albert Camus' essay, the Myth of Sisyphus?

4 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago
    Favorite Answer

    Camus came much later than Shakespeare. If anything Camus is echoing Shakespeare. Also Camus was one of the Existential writers so he would be aware that his ideas were echoes of other people's including Shakespeare.

    Source(s): Shakespeare and Existentialism
  • Isabel
    Lv 4
    4 weeks ago

    Only thematically.

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    "Echo" = re-sound, so you might find "prefigures" or "presages" Sisyphus a clearer and more accurate word-cup to in-form or hold your parallelism.

    And, imo, yes, Hamlet is echoing oops the Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean position of living without an absolute Comfort safety net, a God at hand.

    So, when Hamlet's world has the stuffing kicked out of it (mom marries murderous uncle, a riff on Oedipus displaced one degree), he, especially like Nietzsche, is left Fatherless, and must return to the "foul rag-and-bone-shop of the heart," to quote Yeats, whose poem "The Circus Animals' Desertion" who at first is "starved for the bosom of his fairy bride" (cf "A Midsummer Night's Dream") but then evinces a "counter-truth fill[ing] out its play, 'The Countess Cathleen' was the name I gave it [cf Adamic or atomic man giving names to all the animals]," Cathleen being a pure Ophelia and/or Cordelia (Greek katharos, pure, clean, spotless, free, clear; and yes, Yeats, as with most excellent writers, knew the import of the words he chose).  In Yeats' poem, Cathleen, like Margarete in Goethe's "Faust, part 2" (and in Gounod's opera) and the young female dancer in Stravinsky's original staging of "Rite of Spring," gives away her soul...the young female being a trope for soul, which is the feminine polarity (eve; cf Jung) of the masculine spirit (adamic) in the mystery school.  Yeats concludes his musing upon existence with the notion that his (Jacobean) Ladder is now gone (Yeats' consciousness of God, Love, Truth, Being, is no longer transformational, poetic, Israelitish, but ordinary outer waking consciousness, and therefore he must return to the foul rag-and-bone-shop (equivalent to the Dollar Store, no offense intended) of his own heart's love--in essence, to reboot by observing the first Energy law, that of harmonizing and reflecting divine Love).

    Hamlet is confronting the need for manning up, much as Nietzsche, and so the metaphor of Sisyphus' "Boy, you're going to carry that weight" (in Beatle-speak) is simply a degree of karmic entanglement more grave than Hamlet's, who "only" must needs to decide whether to take action against a sea (emotion, e-motion, energy in motion) of troubles, or sit like Eeyore.  "The Myth of Sisyphus" comes out of what Camus knew most intimately--his life:  a poor family, very early death of his father (Albert never knew him, Lucien died in 1914, when Albert was 1 year old), infected with dread tuberculosis as a schoolboy, had therefore to move away from his impoverished mother (his disease being infectious), called a "black-foot" in France because he was born in Algeria, and worked part-time to support his studies, which were difficult in part due to his sources of physical exhaustion (work, study, and disease).  So the young Camus was carrying some heavy, entangling burdens, perhaps beyond the psychological theater of fatherless, of black-foot, and those attitudes connected with material poverty, and like Neo or Joseph Garcin in Sartre's "No Exit," there is a recurring stone which must needs be rolled up the hill--or, in Camus' case, in his last years exploring the message or essence of Christianity, a stone which may be rolled away from the entombing matter matrix.

    Heidegger was another of that era who in his major early project, "Being and Time," sought to explore the oppressive violence of the machine re Dasein, or simply being-here-now.  Heidegger coins the term "Gestell" in a manner like von Neumann's strategy of framing the problem of any Godelian argument--that there are truth-claims unsolvable (e.g., to be or not to be) within the axiomized matrix (e.g., lustful uncle murders beloved father, beds now-faithless mother); Gestell means enframing, and it is the Wittgenstein-choice to look at techne, rather than simply lie down before it.  In Heidegger's work, techne is the Untergrund or mode of ordering which in-forms and mechanizes man, and the active parsing of the Untergrund by Gestell is Heidegger's task, as mechanization ~ = death of Dasein.

    Heidegger gave up the outward "Being and Time" as a kind of myth of Sisyphus endeavor, imho more due to his reluctance to add a transcendental and immanent Godliness to his dilemma.  Peter Sloterdijk has taken up Heidegger's project, and imho has relativized it per his main concept of spherology--the quickening of returning energy or karmic sowing and reaping, perhaps accelerated in good measure by a swiftly moving technological environment and its demands for specialization.  Part of the Sloterdijk program is Maslowian:  those who become spherical being-cognitive almost always find traces of a higher organizing principle, e.g. "God," in their spheres.

    So, the sphere of Sisyphus as deficit-cognition may become a sphere of realization, iff one masters techne with Gestell:'s_hierarchy_o...  In that framing, the tower of Babel is avoided by a more sentient awareness, even as Kant's Categorical Imperative, or golden rule.  In terms of mechanization transhumanism, it remains to be seen whether such "being" is kantian or babelian, caring for Other or using e.g. inferior "meat people" as means to other elitist, and even unsavory, ends.  It is predictable that the global elite(s) as supermass will tend to avail themselves of such enhancing technologies, well before the masscult.

    p.s.  Would note that the "wrong forum" judgment re this question is in fact a category error.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    WRONG FORUM. Doesn't belong in Philosophy. Fail.  You also need to learn the rules of punctuation.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.