That is the question: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
2007-01-24 04:57:31 · 9 answers · asked by C D 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I've pondered this soliloquy of Shakespeare's many times.
What a tough question!
If you adhere to the standard interpretation of it...then, no...I don't believe that ending life by your own will is ever a solution.
But, if you impose a new meaning on it, then, yes...take arms against injustice, against apathy, against indifference...you may not end them, but you will give new meaning to those around you!
2007-01-24 05:05:39 · answer #1 · answered by aidan402 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if anyone thinks they can somehow end "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" by their own ingenuity, they have another thing coming. i have yet to meet the person who hasn't suffered some sort of hardship in his or her life.
however, i also don't know if "suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" is always noble. it depends on how you handle the situation. if you're going around, being indecisive, manipulative, and passive aggressive, as hamlet was, then i would say that's not particularly noble--this is "not to be," as you might be living, but you're not living a life without much value.
2007-01-24 13:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by ctccoord14621 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
80% of humanity, the religious folks, don't need to ask the meaning of life, the church tells them....the supernatural explanation. But the rest of us can't swallow religious dogma, because there's no evidence. Nobody can prove that there life after death, that people are tortured or rewarded after life or that there's invisible spirits running around.
I've come to two conclusions recently:
1. Life has no meaning
2. Life has a million meanings.
First, there's a certainty that death and annihilation awaits not only you, but the Earth in general. It's an astonomical certainty that our sun will supernova and leave the earth a burnt crisp, not to mention all the other extinction level events around the corner.
Second, the million things that give us meaning are the pleasurable experiences we can conjure up during the short period we are here on the earth, in the form of the relationships we have with our kids and other people, and the 'housekeeping' types of purposes. What i mean by that are the curing disease, ending hunger, improving literacy, reducing crime, preventing war, helping other kinds of things.
So the bottom line is, we only have a temporary meaning to life, to reduce pain and increase pleasure, other than that everything is lost to oblivion.
To be or not to be? "To be" is temporary and "not to be" is inevitable.....
2007-01-25 01:37:50 · answer #3 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mr. Shakespeare was right on the money!
We can either go with or against the flow. That's if one's "lucky" to even get to the point of asking the Q. Then find out about the flow and the rest is history.
I guess eventually we'll all get there.
2007-01-24 13:07:34 · answer #4 · answered by Alex 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Suicide is never the answer. Suffer the slings and arrows.
2007-01-24 13:09:09 · answer #5 · answered by Immortal Cordova 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"To be" is the answer. It is nobler to suffer and at least give it your best shot at trying!!
2007-01-24 13:01:48 · answer #6 · answered by ruthie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it is nobler to survive and live another day?
2007-01-24 13:01:25 · answer #7 · answered by Friend 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You heard about the doctor who had perfected cloning? He had so many patients wanting to be cloned that he couldn't get to the regular patients. He was forced to add another question to the patient check in form to separate them
Be two, or not be two, that is the question....
2007-01-24 13:06:21 · answer #8 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd rather be.
2007-01-24 21:15:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋