My ChatGPT agent yesterday posed this literary theory:
While Hamlet’s skepticism and deliberation reflect Pyrrhonist tendencies, they also lead to his downfall. Montaigne might argue that Hamlet’s failure is not in his doubt but in his inability to achieve the equanimity (ataraxia) that Pyrrhonism aims for. Instead of finding peace in uncertainty, Hamlet is tormented by it, suggesting that he lacks the emotional detachment that a true Pyrrhonist would strive for.
I find that pseudo Montaigne criticism of Hamlet’s actions kind of hilarious. It harkens back to another conversation I had with ChatGPT about the similarities between Montaigne and The Dude in “The Big Lebowski.” While I can see The Dude concluding that Hamlet’s thinking just became too uptight, I doubt Montaigne would look at the situation of the play in total and make that prognosis.
The fate of Denmark hung on the balance of Hamlet’s actions. If he were to “find peace in uncertainty,” it may have helped him achieve some level of happiness, but would have done nothing to right the injustice that had been brought upon the kingdom.
That raises the modern criticism of Pyrrhonism: is it actually possible to free your mind by filling it with doubt?
Leave a Reply