Hamlet and Gertrude: https://chicagocritic.com/hamlet-at-writers-theatre/
Beyond Promoting a Worldview
A good friend of mine is a Shakespeare scholar, and she has encouraged me to read Shakespeare's plays and watch them on YouTube. As I've immersed myself in his works, with all their diversity, it has gradually dawned on me, as a philosopher and theologian, that Shakespeare is not arguing for a particular worldview or presenting a "moral lesson." Instead, he is holding up a mirror to the world in all its complexity. True, his characters have their worldviews, their conflicts, their intricacies. But if we ask what Shakespeare himself believes, we are left without a clear answer. His overall aim—in his comedies, tragedies, and history plays—is to describe, not prescribe: to help us see life as it is, not as we wish it would be.
There is something refreshing about this because so much philosophy and theology is focused on advocating for a specific worldview, often in a proclamatory, "authorial" tone, with generalities aimed at conveying "truth," whether moral or ontological. The moralism here is that, if we thought rightly, we "should" think this way and do these things. This approach often presumes that there is a correct or superior way of thinking and acting, which can lead to a rigid and prescriptive mindset. It contrasts with the more open-ended and exploratory nature of process philosophy and the nuanced reflections found in Shakespeare's works, where multiple perspectives are presented without the insistence that one is the absolute truth. Instead of dictating how one ought to think or act, these approaches invite individuals to engage with complexity, ambiguity, and the richness of lived experience.
Shakespeare, trained in a Latin style of rhetorical education that emphasized disputation—arguing both sides—was encouraged to explore multiple perspectives. This allowed him to present the rich tapestry of human life with all its nuance and contradiction, rather than pushing a single moral or philosophical agenda. If he is a philosopher at all, he is a philosopher of multiplicity.
Theatre as a Mirror
It seems to me that one function of theatre—though not the only function—is to hold up this mirror. A process philosophy of theatre will recognize that holding up a mirror, without further commentary and without a "lesson" or a "message," can, in some contexts, be a very good thing. Here’s why:
In short, recognizing the value of simply holding up a mirror, as Shakespeare did, can serve as a way of practicing the presence of process philosophy—engaging with the complexities of life in a way that is deeply aware of and sensitive to its nuances, raising questions rather than providing definitive answers.
Moreover, I can well imagine a process theology that presents the plausibility of non-process and even anti-process perspectives, including non-process understandings of God. This kind of theology would not only acknowledge but also engage with different worldviews and theological approaches, recognizing their validity and the reasons they resonate with others. By doing so, process theology could foster a richer, more inclusive dialogue, one that respects and explores the diversity of human thought and experience, rather than simply advocating for a singular process perspective. This approach would be in the spirit of theater itself, where multiple voices and viewpoints coexist, each contributing to a deeper understanding of the human condition.
In some ways, Shakespeare transcends the moralistic, authorial tone of much philosophy and theology. By embracing multiplicity, ambiguity, and the power of questioning, they can deepen their approach to understanding and engaging with the world. Indeed, theologians might come to see that holding up a mirror—without pressing for a single interpretation or adopting an authorial tone—is a way of practicing the presence of God.
None of this is to suggest that process philosophy and theology need abandon their promotion of the process worldview and process values. But it is to suggest that, complementing this promotion, there needs to be a less authorial style of process philosophy and theology: a style that is close to lived experience and that says, in effect, "look and see."
There is something refreshing about this because so much philosophy and theology is focused on advocating for a specific worldview, often in a proclamatory, "authorial" tone, with generalities aimed at conveying "truth," whether moral or ontological. The moralism here is that, if we thought rightly, we "should" think this way and do these things. This approach often presumes that there is a correct or superior way of thinking and acting, which can lead to a rigid and prescriptive mindset. It contrasts with the more open-ended and exploratory nature of process philosophy and the nuanced reflections found in Shakespeare's works, where multiple perspectives are presented without the insistence that one is the absolute truth. Instead of dictating how one ought to think or act, these approaches invite individuals to engage with complexity, ambiguity, and the richness of lived experience.
Shakespeare, trained in a Latin style of rhetorical education that emphasized disputation—arguing both sides—was encouraged to explore multiple perspectives. This allowed him to present the rich tapestry of human life with all its nuance and contradiction, rather than pushing a single moral or philosophical agenda. If he is a philosopher at all, he is a philosopher of multiplicity.
Theatre as a Mirror
It seems to me that one function of theatre—though not the only function—is to hold up this mirror. A process philosophy of theatre will recognize that holding up a mirror, without further commentary and without a "lesson" or a "message," can, in some contexts, be a very good thing. Here’s why:
- Revealing Complexity: By simply reflecting life as it is, process philosophy, like theatre, can reveal the complexity and nuance of human experience, allowing audiences to see the world in its full richness, without reducing it to a single moral or ideological perspective.
- Encouraging Reflection: When theatre refrains from prescribing a specific lesson, it invites viewers to engage in their own process of reflection and interpretation, fostering personal insight and understanding. Process philosophy can do the same.
- Fostering Empathy: By presenting diverse characters and situations without judgment, process philosophy, like theatre, can cultivate empathy in the audience, helping them to appreciate different perspectives and experiences.
- Respecting the Audience's Intelligence: A theatre that holds up a mirror without dictating a message trusts the audience's ability to think critically and draw their own conclusions, which can be more empowering and meaningful than being told what to think. Process philosophy can do the same.
- Celebrating Ambiguity: Life is often ambiguous and unresolved, and theatre that reflects this ambiguity can be more honest and authentic, resonating more deeply with the complexities of real life. And so too with process philosophy.
- Inviting Participation: When theatre does not impose a clear message, it invites the audience to become active participants in the creation of meaning, engaging them in a dynamic process of interpretation that continues long after the performance has ended.
In short, recognizing the value of simply holding up a mirror, as Shakespeare did, can serve as a way of practicing the presence of process philosophy—engaging with the complexities of life in a way that is deeply aware of and sensitive to its nuances, raising questions rather than providing definitive answers.
Moreover, I can well imagine a process theology that presents the plausibility of non-process and even anti-process perspectives, including non-process understandings of God. This kind of theology would not only acknowledge but also engage with different worldviews and theological approaches, recognizing their validity and the reasons they resonate with others. By doing so, process theology could foster a richer, more inclusive dialogue, one that respects and explores the diversity of human thought and experience, rather than simply advocating for a singular process perspective. This approach would be in the spirit of theater itself, where multiple voices and viewpoints coexist, each contributing to a deeper understanding of the human condition.
In some ways, Shakespeare transcends the moralistic, authorial tone of much philosophy and theology. By embracing multiplicity, ambiguity, and the power of questioning, they can deepen their approach to understanding and engaging with the world. Indeed, theologians might come to see that holding up a mirror—without pressing for a single interpretation or adopting an authorial tone—is a way of practicing the presence of God.
None of this is to suggest that process philosophy and theology need abandon their promotion of the process worldview and process values. But it is to suggest that, complementing this promotion, there needs to be a less authorial style of process philosophy and theology: a style that is close to lived experience and that says, in effect, "look and see."
Some Shakespearian Characters
1. Hamlet (from Hamlet)
- Description: Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most famous and complex characters, known for his introspective nature and existential dilemmas. He struggles with grief, indecision, and the moral implications of revenge after his father’s murder. Hamlet’s contemplations on life, death, and the nature of reality make him a character of profound depth, constantly torn between action and inaction.
- Description: Lady Macbeth is ambitious, manipulative, and deeply conflicted. While she initially appears cold and ruthless, driving her husband to commit regicide, her psychological unraveling reveals a conscience plagued by guilt and madness. Her descent into insanity exposes the complexities of her character, as she grapples with the consequences of her actions.
- Description: Iago is one of Shakespeare’s most enigmatic villains. Though he appears calculating and malevolent, his motivations are complex and multifaceted, including jealousy, resentment, and a desire for power. His manipulative schemes drive the tragedy of the play, but his true nature remains elusive, making him a character of dark complexity.
- Description: King Lear is a tragic figure whose journey from power to madness is marked by deep personal suffering and insight. Initially, he is proud and blind to the loyalty of those around him, but as he loses everything, he gains a profound understanding of human nature and the folly of his earlier actions. His complexity lies in his vulnerability, pride, and the ultimate wisdom he attains through suffering.
- Description: Cleopatra is a character of extraordinary complexity, embodying both political shrewdness and passionate intensity. She is a queen, a lover, and a strategist, capable of both grandeur and vulnerability. Her relationship with Antony is marked by a blend of love, power, and manipulation, making her a character who defies simple categorization.
- Description: Macbeth is a tragic hero whose ambition leads him down a path of moral corruption and psychological torment. Initially a brave and noble warrior, he becomes increasingly consumed by his desire for power, leading to murder, paranoia, and madness. His internal conflict between ambition and guilt reveals the profound complexity of his character.
- Description: Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, is a character of deep complexity, often seen as both a villain and a victim. His vengeful pursuit of a pound of flesh from Antonio is driven by personal and cultural grievances, but his portrayal also raises questions about justice, mercy, and the treatment of marginalized individuals. Shylock’s humanity and bitterness make him more than just a simple antagonist.
- Description: Richard III is a charismatic and manipulative character, driven by a relentless pursuit of power. Though he is often seen as a villain, his complexity lies in his charm, intelligence, and the psychological insight he provides into the nature of ambition and evil. Richard’s self-awareness and his use of wit and deception add layers to his villainy, making him a compelling and multifaceted figure.
- Description: Sir John Falstaff is a larger-than-life character known for his wit, humor, and love of excess. Though often portrayed as a comic figure, Falstaff also embodies deeper themes of friendship, honor, and mortality. His complex relationship with Prince Hal, his blend of cowardice and wisdom, and his reflections on life and death make him a richly textured character.
- Description: Portia is a character of intelligence, resourcefulness, and grace. Though bound by the constraints of her society, she skillfully navigates the challenges she faces, using her wit and legal acumen to save Antonio and outmaneuver Shylock. Her complexity arises from her ability to balance loyalty, justice, and mercy while also asserting her own agency within a patriarchal context.
- Description: Othello is a noble and dignified Moorish general who is ultimately undone by jealousy and manipulation. His complexity lies in his vulnerability to Iago’s deceit, his deep love for Desdemona, and the tragic conflict between his honor and his insecurities. Othello’s journey from a respected leader to a man consumed by irrational jealousy and rage reveals the depth of his character.
- Description: Juliet is often remembered as a romantic heroine, but her character is deeply complex. She is intelligent, determined, and willing to defy her family and societal expectations for love. Her youthful passion is balanced by a mature understanding of the consequences of her actions, and her tragic fate highlights her strength and resolve as well as her vulnerability
Hamlet
In Act 3, Scene 2, of Hamlet, Hamlet advises the actors on how to perform a play, saying:
"...hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."
Shakespeare is saying that theatre should reflect real life, like holding up a mirror to show people their true selves. It should reveal both the good and the bad in human nature and capture the spirit and issues of the times.
"...hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."
Shakespeare is saying that theatre should reflect real life, like holding up a mirror to show people their true selves. It should reveal both the good and the bad in human nature and capture the spirit and issues of the times.