The Meaning Of Death In Hamlet

Hamlet 's Philosophy: What is the meaning of death? "To be or not to be? That is the question." (Shakespeare 57) Hamlet opens his famous soliloquy with the question whether it is harder to live and endure the many vicissitudes of life or to die and face the unknown territory of death. He wondered what happens after one dies, and what awaits each of us. The uncertainty in knowing what is to come of us after death, led Hamlet to believe that fear is generated by the unknown, for it makes people fear the things they cannot see and control. He reasoned that if our certitude of what happens after death is absolute, then people would willingly bear the grief that life so kindly offers. Hamlet raises the following philosophical question, is it harder

This question is inherently disproportionate with respect to passage in question. God is an eternal being, which would imply that he was never created, nor ceases to exist. For instance, if I were to build a bicycle, I am the one who built it and am therefore its cause. An atheist might then respond by saying, what if you were inspired by an external force, which led to the bicycles creation, wouldn 't the inspiration be the cause? No, most certainly not, for you are affirming that for every cause there must be a cause. For instance, if I give an explanation, then based on your logic, it would therefore require an explanation of the explanation. This demonstrably fallacious contention is the death of its own cause, for it would require an infinite regress of explanations, which would inevitably led to a world in which nothing could be explained. The perplexed atheist might then say, why do you believe that the universe was created by God, for modern science suggests that the universe came from nothing? I believe that your definition of "nothing" is nothing but a misconception, for the literality of "nothing" in quantum mechanics isn 't actually nothing, but rather the fluctuations and transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy

The atheist might also interject that moral codes and values are created by societies to prevent strife and discordance. This argument and question is logically incoherent, for atheists have no basis upon which value judgments can be made. The atheist believes that rape is no worse than stealing a candy bar, for they believe that actions aren 't beholden to any mode of intrinsic objectivity, but are rather different, not good or bad. The next point I would make is as follows, why would an atheist characterize modern society as being morally superior to an ancient Hebrew society? The atheist cannot answer this question, for they have no basis upon which value judgments can be made, which would therefore justify the existence of objective moral