Hamlet Philosophy: what does ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead’ say about Free Will?

so funny , i was wondering if shakespear and philosophy intertwined for philosophers and if his work mattered to them and their theory until i see that you already made a a whole video about it (wish it was longer but this is fun)

02:10 – roz philosophy

03:18 – guil philosophy

What is this play about? Nothing. Nonsense is the main, core theme of this work. We see the plot of Shakespeare's play through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who resemble two pieces of wood in the grip of a storm. They are unable to understand or evaluate the events taking place around them. Their conversation constantly gets bogged down in grammatical and logical contradictions, which in no way prevents one of them from conducting natural science experiments that are well known to us from school textbooks. The arrogantly significant tone of the narration and the elusive meaning of what is happening enhance the reverence for this work.

I have question about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: if I can understand Husserl and Heidegger, why can't I find meaning in this play?

Because making meaningless what is happening is the main task of this work. It turns out that everything is not as simple as described by Shakespeare in Hamlet. Everything is confused in Elsinore – it is no longer possible to understand who is right, who is wrong, who is sane and who is not. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no longer a couple of rogues serving the murderer of Hamlet's father, but two confused characters drawn by an inevitable fate. Even in their hour of death, they are not able to understand how they managed to end up on the gallows. As a result, no stone is left unturned from the ethical discourse of Shakespeare's tragedy, and Hamlet himself turns into what he was only trying to seem like – a crazy prince.

Imagine that when asked by a person who has never seen a smartphone to explain the purpose and principle of its operation, a heap of parts from which the smartphone is assembled is dumped in front of him. How much will he understand by looking at these parts and even receiving detailed information about the principle of operation and purpose of each of them? Can anyone who explains how a smartphone works in this way be considered to be doing the right thing? In fact, the question in this case should be different: why is he doing this? Why is it so important for him to hide the true purpose of the smartphone and how to use it?

Why did Tom Stoppard fill up the plot of Hamlet with a bunch of unnecessary rubbish, burying the meaning of the play under it? To free modern Rosencrants and Guildensterns from ethical chains. In the semantic fog of the play, the boundaries between good and evil are blurred. Operational space opens up for scoundrels and scoundrels. White and black colors are replaced by fifty shades of gray.

What should the scientific experiments conducted by one of the two characters in Stoppard's play tell us? The fact that these same scoundrels and scoundrels are the engines of scientific and technological progress. While the Hamlets suffer from all sorts of nonsense, the Rosencrants and Guildensterns make scientific and geographical discoveries, develop trade and industry, build roads, hospitals and schools. And now we are faced with no fog, but a new clarity with the meaning turned upside down. The moralist Hamlet is a talker and a slacker, afraid to get his hands dirty with real business. The true creators of history are Claudius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Tom Stoppard's play, written in the 60s of the last century, performed two historically significant functions. First, it neutralized the unambiguous interpretation of Hamlet, which had determined the moral discourse of Western civilization for centuries. Second, it provided an excuse for behavior that was considered immoral in the context of Shakespeare's play. The postmodern porridge brewed in Stoppard's play became a breeding ground for the further reproduction of the Rosencrants and Guildensterns.

When I expressed my point of view on Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead , I missed one important nuance that is proof of the version I proposed. Stoppard bypassed the flute scene in his play. There aren't many scenes featuring these characters in Shakespeare's play, so it seemed odd to me to shorten something that wasn't already in abundance. But if you compare Hamlet's words and the image of these characters in Stoppard's play, you can detect a discrepancy. Hamlet openly calls Rosencrantz and Guildenstern manipulators in the flute scene. Stoppard portrays them as victims of circumstance. And they can only look like that if you remove the scene with the flute. This means that my view of Stoppard's play is not a figment of my imagination, but a proven fact.

In legal arenas/theatres/court you are in for a "racket" and thus your 'play at it/game' is to "hit the ball/quest" back over the net untill your opponent does not return it.. The one stuck with the balm on his side looses "in the racket"..

Nouns are names for "thing (-s)" and "answering to a name" makes (contracts) " you into the" legal rackets" as a "thing" /"dead"/"objectified" /"slave (under the racketering of legal framing)".. You "become" a "noun/name/pronoun"

The eternal wisdom is "proverb" since living beings are "verb/living/actions" and follows self evident truths/"natural law".. (..note how this movie has the "law of nature/physics" allegorically possible to be a "natural law vs law of things/man" as a paralell theme running all through the film)

Proverbs is the versed higher language like in "universe" or the (one/uni) higher teaching language.. It is law or as Norse languages holds it in its word "lawful by praise of the priceless creation/natures self evident wonders" (lov/lovligt)

(Swedish: Ske lov och pris för skapelsen (skapad av skaparen)) ="lovligt/lawful"..

It is keenly interesting how the story line of this film (as many many films do) obviously lends itself to "secrets in plain sight presented" since "plausible deniability" is modus operandi for all "higher esoteric veiling in shrouds of mist".. (to "mistify")

The "trick" to make it "appear" as "a secret" even still in plain sight is to "misdirect" efforts of attention towards focusing on the semi transperent mist" in favor of "mistifying" with a "mist" something obvious shining through upon an observant indipendent (curious instead of misdirected) mind..

Your presentation still and all the same holds valid to its own points and is worthy of its own hurray!

In "court" you are assumed "dead" or a "name" thus "a piece of (dead) meat and thus a" thing/slave" and the "racketers of the courts" lends their sand box" to whomever "enters the game (the racketers set up)" and by "God" (not really though, actually like "Lucifer/the fallen angel") it will play "you" by its own set up rules.. Aka acts in case (-s) by legal framing of "a play for the plebes" thus the "public (audience)" is but to "hear" what is written in sentences sequence forming the outline (rules) of what the authors of the play has been ordered by the "one" who "pays the piper".. .

Good sports.. You (adhering to names) are the game..

Plebes be enter- (de-) -tained and he who pays the author to script the act is "your master"..

Let the veil open for the act of theatrics to commence and higher wisdom is proverbially superior to pronouns/plebes/slaves/things..

You vers be in natural law of man (living life in reality) or pronouned into the scripted "legally dead" as a "slave/name"..

The Bible teaches: "Put no faith in a title (legal construct)" yet the Priest (a title) summons his "commune" when to preach is what a proverb really means and being a priest (title) is a pronoun and is faithlessly and untrue in to preach to the vers of higher (natural) law and natural order..

What can we say to drag it out wanker……

Too many teeth😊

I think the question of whether or not we can do other than what we do ignores the further implications of a deterministic universe, eg that you'd also be unable to want to do what you want to do, because your thoughts, being as much a product of the state of your brain as your actions are a product of the state of your thoughts, is also predetermined. You won't ever do other than what you end up doing, because you won't ever want to do other than what you end up doing.

I think the more interesting question is whether or not what *happens to you* could have been anything other than what happened; that is to say, if something that randomly occurs to you was predetermined or not. Is there any randomness in the universe at all, or was someone who was hit by a car at a specific place and time predestined to get hit by the car, could it have been any other person who happened to be there, *could there possibly have been any other person there besides them, or were they, from the inception of the universe onward, always going to be hit by a car at that place and time? Are the connections and intersections between every single atom completely predetermined and unavoidable?

I know I'm several years late but this just popped up on my feed and I had to watch it as R&G is my all-time favourite play.
If you don't mind, I'd like to tell a little story…
While doing a performing arts BTEC at college, I was in an even-numbered group of students and we were given the task of performing a short scene with only two characters. The rest of the group formed into pairs, except for three girls who decided they'd be the witches from Macbeth. Hence I was left alone. So in keeping with the spirit of the task, I performed the 'Questions' game from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by myself, taking both parts.
Thank you for this, it's great to see some real deep diving going on into what is one of the all-time great pieces of Absurdist comedy.

Looked this up to help me with the reading, and found an old philosophy tube vide! Slay!!!

I´m a bit late to the party, but holy shit, i´m so happy you did a thing about this.

The funny thing is that my last name is actually Rosencrantz wich is very uncommon btw i live in sweden

Just a thought: If they did have free will, but their lives are completely scripted – as they are characters in a play, wouldn't it in reality not be free will if they, for instance, wanted to tell Hamlet about the plot to kill him, but in the script it was stated that they HAD to make the decision to not tell him? Are their "free choices" actually free if they have been pre-determined? Say if you didn't want to eat cake, but the script says you are going to make the choice to eat it… You get my point. This meta-perspective is killing my brain.

For Hume the bell tolls! Lol!