Bridge to

Philosophy

The title of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead suggests a strong link to philosophy, for we know that neither of the two is dead in the physical sense. Therefore, we must examine the nature of the death to which Stoppard refers. Whereas Hamlet must decide "to be or not to be," Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's state is set from the very title of the work. It is up to us to decide what it means "to be." Perhaps the best answer comes from René Descartes and his famous postulate on which all future knowledge is based: "I think therefore I am." Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not seem to think. We see them act ridiculously. If they flip a coin and it always lands on heads, they think nothing of the phenomenon. Any rational person could determine that a coin constantly landing on heads is an anomaly. On the other hand, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not see this fact; they merely observe that the coin always lands on heads. We see that they do not think; they only observe. Since they do not think, according to Descartes, they do not exist. They may as well be movie cameras, explaining the world with no analysis or insight.

We may find another possible answer to the meaning of the play from the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant mostly philosophized on the nature of morality, but there was an important aspect of this moral philosophy that applies to the existence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Kant states that in order for someone to be a moral agent, he or she must act autonomously. In other words, if someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to do something, I am not the one responsible for my actions. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern deny their autonomy. They walk in whatever direction that they may happen to be pointed. While on the ship, they say how much they like it, because on a ship, they have direction. Since they do not decide on their actions, they are not responsible for them. If they do are not responsible for their slightest action, they are not alive any more than a feather blowing in the wind is alive.

Shotoku Taishi provides yet another possible explanation to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's state of being. He is most known for being a social order philosopher, but he also provides insight into the human spirit. Shotoku tells us that the most important idea that we must have to provide social harmony is the fact that we are all related in simply being ordinary people. To come to this conclusion, Shotoku requires us to undergo a self-reflection. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would never fit into this mold. They do not have this connection to mankind; rather, they are in their own sort of dream world. They do not understand their own existence, nor do they have a hope of understanding it, because they exist for the pure purpose of existing. Their self-reflections and profound thoughts are always interrupted by idiocy. According to Shotoku, they cannot relate to the rest of mankind, so they may as well be dead to society.

Finally, Amatai Etzioni's view of human nature is another possible analysis of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He believes that all humans are born as animals, but they possess human potential. It is a healthy interaction with society that Etzioni believes allows people to grow morally as true humans. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not possess this interaction with society. They only interact among themselves. Beyond that, they are confused about what happens. They do not understand the king or Hamlet. Things that seem obvious to society, like the flipping of coins, are completely lost on them. They have not developed as humans, and therefore are dead, in the sense that their potential has sat stagnant for their lives.