to be, or not to be?

Answer 1

To be is better than not to be. That is the answer.

Answer 2

To be AND not to be, that's the answer. The statement to be OR not to be is the movement of the SELF positively or negatively. The movement of the self which we call WILL or free will is limited and it can never discover the everlasting life. If the self realized that any movement that he chose is always a limitation to see the truth, then the real silence of the truth is on the wheel. Then the self that is always longing to be ....is silent. Pure observation is happening.

Answer 3

Are you asking if YOU should "be" or "not be"? Nobody can answer that for you. I just think suicide is incredibly stupid...if that's what you mean! Why blow the (possible) only shot you get at this beautiful world?!

If you want analysis of the quote, the guy above did a pretty good job.

Answer 4

Personally I would say to be! but someone on the brink of suicide might not have the same point of view. The problem is: Is there really a "not to be." If someone dies does he simply cease to exist or go on? "Ah that is the rub"

Answer 5

This question relates to the deep philosophical/spiritual desire in man to know about his own existence.

The phrase "to be, or not to be" originates from Shakespear's work "Hamlet" where Hamlet contemplates the pros and cons of continuing life ("To be") or preferring death ("not to be"). Some commentators have read it as a debate on suicide. Other commentators have argued that it is a description of how one's ideas and visions seldom seem to come to fruition, due to one's own indecisiveness.

Schopenhauer interprets it as:
"The essential purport of the world-famous monologue in Hamlet is, in condensed form, that our state is so wretched that complete non-existence would be decidedly preferable to it. Now if suicide actually offered us this, so that the alternative "to be or not to be" lay before us in the full sense of the words, it could be chosen unconditionally as a highly desirable termination. There is something in us, however, which tells us that this is not so, that this is not the end of things, that death is not an absolute annihilation."

Essentially, this monologue conveys a very deep desire in humans to know about their own existence. This earthly life is full of problems/sorrows/pain. Does the end of this life put an end to all suffering? This is a deep philosophical issue with which philosophers/thinkers have been grappling since time immemorial. Atheists/materialists believe that man has no existence whatsoever beyond this physical life. So end of life means end of everything, including end of suffering. Christianity believes that end of life does not ensure end of suffering unless you are saved by your faith in Christ. Hinduism believes in transmigration of soul from one life to another (thereby pain, suffering etc.) unless man gets out of the karmic cycle of desire that binds the soul to the world of suffering. Whatever may be the belief in this regard, there is no denying the fact that "to be" holds the secret to "not to be". From the standpoint of atheists, if there is nothing left after end of life then it makes sense to make the most out of this life ("to be"). From the standpoint of religions like Christianity, Hinduism etc. our good deeds in life ("to be") hold the key to our status (pain or pleasure) after the end of life ("not to be"). From this perspective, ending life does not end suffering, as death is not complete annihilation. What matters is how we invest in "to be" to take better care of our "not to be".

Answer 6

that is the starting point of philosophy.

Answer 7

Maybe!

Answer 8

both