This quote is often too narrowly understood as meaning (and only meaning) that Horatio, upon seeing the ghost of Hamlet's father, has his educated world turned on its head. Out of this, then, skeptics often have to endure this quote from woo-ers, as if it is either relevant to, or made a point within, an anti-woo argument.
First things first, quoting someone else is, then, some one else's point and not your own; so, if you're going to use some one else's work then at least be sure it is (a) in, not out of, context and (b) being presented faithfully to the point at hand.
In the case of Shakespeare's Hamlet and the woo/anti-woo conversation, often neither (a) nor (b) is met.
It is rarely the case that this quote is used in context. First, Shakespeare is fiction. And, unless you live under a rock, or are a fanatical determinist or positivist, yes, fiction is often meaningful, just as a metaphor is meaningful in explaining, or making, a point. However, presenting a metaphor--figurative language--as literal is wrong. Figurative language--beyond the beauty and music of language--is a heuristic, or rhetorical (beyond my discussion here), device. That is to say, it is a means to an ends, not an ends itself.
The world of fiction is, indeed, important and meaningful to human beings--it is also often complementary to science and critical thinking, not in competition with them. The world of fiction is, obviously, the world of indirect, figurative meanings; a 'world', technically speaking, where truth is secondary to verisimilitude, or believability.
For example, no one sane sees anything real (literal) in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Sadly (perhaps, or perhaps not) there are no Hobbits, Wizards, or elves and, thankfully no Uruk-hai, Balrogs, or cave trolls. Yet, to say that there is not something meaningful in his epic is equally erroneous. Simply put, the LotR is about relationships, friendships, self-sacrifice, and overcoming adversity. That is, the world of morals, virtues, and ideals.
Stories, like Tolkien's, allow us to engage with such ideas because such ideas are not simply, or easily, understood only through reasoning (it would, in fact, be a very dull world if it were). But, they are mis-judged when they are judged through the lens of 'truth' (epistemologically speaking--warts and all). They are equally mis-read when taken as literal.
So, to return to Shakespeare, when we use Hamlet's comment to Horatio as evidence (the literal world of truth-seeking) we are using it out of context.
As an important aside, it should also be noted that, because this is fiction, the actual purpose of this whole scene, within which this is just one quote, speaks not only to the continuity of dialogue for this scene but, much more importantly, is part of the larger plot--that is, it is a dramatic, not factual (even to the world of the characters) device. This is to say, the purpose of the quote was not an instance of Shakespeare slyly staking out his attitude toward ghosts (anachronistic reading aside), rather to propel the plot forward while uniting it with events past. It is, actually, a rather crude (even for then) deus ex machina device.
In this last sense then, a simple response to the woo-er using it is simply to say they are missing the forest through the trees in analyzing a single, relatively unimportant, quote at the expense of the larger, much more important, plot point and foreshadowing. In a phrase, they're mis-reading the scene.
Second, often the speakers meaning when using this quote is too declarative in meaning and too narrow in definition. Certainly, a person would not be wrong if they analyzed this quote and said that it is a reflection of Hamlet (equally educated and reasonable, if slightly depressed, a person as Horatio), who has the advantage of already seeing and inter-acting with his father's ghost previously (and before Horatio), as now one who accepts that there are ghosts and, perhaps, an other-world.
But this is only one of several ways to read this quote (and, as is the sign of any great literature or art, there are a myriad of ways of interpreting their works--granted, there are also limitations).
For one, as Frank Kermode has explained, the use of "your" in Middle English is more akin to our use of the word as 'the', or the more vulgar 'yer'. Therefore, knowing/accepting this, Hamlet's use of "your" can be equally understood as recognizing Horatio's (and, possibly, his own) limits of logic in understanding what they see, but not at the expense of what they know (remember, Hamlet has already explained to Horatio what he thinks vis-a-vis the murder of his father). That is to say, it could equally be read as Hamlet saying, after Horatio's clear surprise in 'seeing' a ghost: "Whoa, dude, chill. Reason can probably explain this, but for right now let's just move the plot forward."
For another, if we read this a bit more psycho-analytically, this event is easily seen as a manifestation of group projection. That is, every one in Hamlet's circle knows who's guilty, but is equally aware of the complexity of the solution and, more drastic, the consequences. The ghost of Hamlet's father is symbolic; a manifestation of the collective consciousness, if you will--much in the same way that young men and women willfully go to war to possibly die and/or be maimed for 'a cause' as represented by the flag, your regiment's cap badge/honour, for freedom, etc. You cannot see honour, but many a Patricia has died to keep the ric-a-dam-doo from falling into enemy hands (as did Napoleon's soldiers to keep the eagle). Everyone knows it's just a flag, but it is imbued, and represents, much more because we need it to. This does not make it anymore than a flag, or more (or less) 'real'.
Overall, some one using this quote--or this kind of quote--is, on the one hand, comparing apples and oranges at the expense of the apples and oranges. If you want to make a point about apples--which every one understands as an apple--then compare it to apples, a metaphor or allegory to explain your point is just, and simply, unnecessarily obfuscating, and confusing, the point at hand. On the other hand, by literally interpreting the figurative you are gutting the power (not too mention beauty) of the latter. Figurative language is about wonder and complexity that is the human condition; it is equally about attempting to understand that which is both experienced by all of us, yet understood only individually (if it is to have meaning). Therefore, it is a starting point,not an end point. It is, at least to a point, malleable and dynamic not rigidly defined and static.
When you analyze art you open a beautiful can o' worms. And you'll only fully understand it one day after the day you die (that's a joke, not a tip o' the hat to John Edwards et al). This is to say, it is something that, in engaging, discussing, and agreeing and disagreeing about ideas, you come to understand not the thing, rather yourself (and those around you) a little better.
If, however, you use art to find the 'answer', you won't and you never will.
Let science and critical thinking engage with the physical world and art the meta-physical (I use this term in a popular not technical way). Critical thinking, for example, requires, and is a compliment to, creative thinking. Humans also need and desire methods to understand the details of how a thing works (science and critical thinking) as well as a reason or method in understanding why we're here and what we're to do while here.
These approaches are complimentary ways of understanding our world, our-selves, each other, and our individual and shared experiences with and in it.
Science can tell you something about the stars, just as science fiction can tell you something about why we're so enthralled by, and motivated toward, them. One chose one over the other at the expense of both..?
First things first, quoting someone else is, then, some one else's point and not your own; so, if you're going to use some one else's work then at least be sure it is (a) in, not out of, context and (b) being presented faithfully to the point at hand.
In the case of Shakespeare's Hamlet and the woo/anti-woo conversation, often neither (a) nor (b) is met.
It is rarely the case that this quote is used in context. First, Shakespeare is fiction. And, unless you live under a rock, or are a fanatical determinist or positivist, yes, fiction is often meaningful, just as a metaphor is meaningful in explaining, or making, a point. However, presenting a metaphor--figurative language--as literal is wrong. Figurative language--beyond the beauty and music of language--is a heuristic, or rhetorical (beyond my discussion here), device. That is to say, it is a means to an ends, not an ends itself.
The world of fiction is, indeed, important and meaningful to human beings--it is also often complementary to science and critical thinking, not in competition with them. The world of fiction is, obviously, the world of indirect, figurative meanings; a 'world', technically speaking, where truth is secondary to verisimilitude, or believability.
For example, no one sane sees anything real (literal) in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Sadly (perhaps, or perhaps not) there are no Hobbits, Wizards, or elves and, thankfully no Uruk-hai, Balrogs, or cave trolls. Yet, to say that there is not something meaningful in his epic is equally erroneous. Simply put, the LotR is about relationships, friendships, self-sacrifice, and overcoming adversity. That is, the world of morals, virtues, and ideals.
Stories, like Tolkien's, allow us to engage with such ideas because such ideas are not simply, or easily, understood only through reasoning (it would, in fact, be a very dull world if it were). But, they are mis-judged when they are judged through the lens of 'truth' (epistemologically speaking--warts and all). They are equally mis-read when taken as literal.
So, to return to Shakespeare, when we use Hamlet's comment to Horatio as evidence (the literal world of truth-seeking) we are using it out of context.
As an important aside, it should also be noted that, because this is fiction, the actual purpose of this whole scene, within which this is just one quote, speaks not only to the continuity of dialogue for this scene but, much more importantly, is part of the larger plot--that is, it is a dramatic, not factual (even to the world of the characters) device. This is to say, the purpose of the quote was not an instance of Shakespeare slyly staking out his attitude toward ghosts (anachronistic reading aside), rather to propel the plot forward while uniting it with events past. It is, actually, a rather crude (even for then) deus ex machina device.
In this last sense then, a simple response to the woo-er using it is simply to say they are missing the forest through the trees in analyzing a single, relatively unimportant, quote at the expense of the larger, much more important, plot point and foreshadowing. In a phrase, they're mis-reading the scene.
Second, often the speakers meaning when using this quote is too declarative in meaning and too narrow in definition. Certainly, a person would not be wrong if they analyzed this quote and said that it is a reflection of Hamlet (equally educated and reasonable, if slightly depressed, a person as Horatio), who has the advantage of already seeing and inter-acting with his father's ghost previously (and before Horatio), as now one who accepts that there are ghosts and, perhaps, an other-world.
But this is only one of several ways to read this quote (and, as is the sign of any great literature or art, there are a myriad of ways of interpreting their works--granted, there are also limitations).
For one, as Frank Kermode has explained, the use of "your" in Middle English is more akin to our use of the word as 'the', or the more vulgar 'yer'. Therefore, knowing/accepting this, Hamlet's use of "your" can be equally understood as recognizing Horatio's (and, possibly, his own) limits of logic in understanding what they see, but not at the expense of what they know (remember, Hamlet has already explained to Horatio what he thinks vis-a-vis the murder of his father). That is to say, it could equally be read as Hamlet saying, after Horatio's clear surprise in 'seeing' a ghost: "Whoa, dude, chill. Reason can probably explain this, but for right now let's just move the plot forward."
For another, if we read this a bit more psycho-analytically, this event is easily seen as a manifestation of group projection. That is, every one in Hamlet's circle knows who's guilty, but is equally aware of the complexity of the solution and, more drastic, the consequences. The ghost of Hamlet's father is symbolic; a manifestation of the collective consciousness, if you will--much in the same way that young men and women willfully go to war to possibly die and/or be maimed for 'a cause' as represented by the flag, your regiment's cap badge/honour, for freedom, etc. You cannot see honour, but many a Patricia has died to keep the ric-a-dam-doo from falling into enemy hands (as did Napoleon's soldiers to keep the eagle). Everyone knows it's just a flag, but it is imbued, and represents, much more because we need it to. This does not make it anymore than a flag, or more (or less) 'real'.
Overall, some one using this quote--or this kind of quote--is, on the one hand, comparing apples and oranges at the expense of the apples and oranges. If you want to make a point about apples--which every one understands as an apple--then compare it to apples, a metaphor or allegory to explain your point is just, and simply, unnecessarily obfuscating, and confusing, the point at hand. On the other hand, by literally interpreting the figurative you are gutting the power (not too mention beauty) of the latter. Figurative language is about wonder and complexity that is the human condition; it is equally about attempting to understand that which is both experienced by all of us, yet understood only individually (if it is to have meaning). Therefore, it is a starting point,not an end point. It is, at least to a point, malleable and dynamic not rigidly defined and static.
When you analyze art you open a beautiful can o' worms. And you'll only fully understand it one day after the day you die (that's a joke, not a tip o' the hat to John Edwards et al). This is to say, it is something that, in engaging, discussing, and agreeing and disagreeing about ideas, you come to understand not the thing, rather yourself (and those around you) a little better.
If, however, you use art to find the 'answer', you won't and you never will.
Let science and critical thinking engage with the physical world and art the meta-physical (I use this term in a popular not technical way). Critical thinking, for example, requires, and is a compliment to, creative thinking. Humans also need and desire methods to understand the details of how a thing works (science and critical thinking) as well as a reason or method in understanding why we're here and what we're to do while here.
These approaches are complimentary ways of understanding our world, our-selves, each other, and our individual and shared experiences with and in it.
Science can tell you something about the stars, just as science fiction can tell you something about why we're so enthralled by, and motivated toward, them. One chose one over the other at the expense of both..?
One of the most amazing analysis of Shakespeare quote I have ever read..... I applaud the writer.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis of an often carelessly quoted line.
ReplyDeleteI like to think of that quote as a predecessor, maybe an ancestor, to English statistician George Box's "All models are wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong). Viewed in this spirit, the line supports the vitality of reason rather than declaring it an illusion.