|
Response to John De Carlo’s “The Nature of the Ghost, Hamlet versus Horatio” MARY GENNUSO New York City Technical College, CUNY Brooklyn, New York magennu@hotmail.com John De Carlo’s paper on Hamlet draws philosophical parallels with many prominent thinkers, such as Aristotle, Nietzsche, Kant, Descartes, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Russell, Goodman, Cornell West, and Piaget, as well as drawing upon Biblical passages, and literary critiques. In order to meaningfully respond, this paper will deal with comments on a few of these thinkers, as well as comments on a few other major issues. In fact, one general suggestion that might assist readability is to cut down the number of historical references to two or three major thinkers and develop those arguments more fully. As it stands, many of the parallels are not sufficiently drawn. Thus, those inexperienced with philosophy will not understand the parallels and those with more experience are too aware of the nuances and controversies and will wonder what particular interpretation De Carlo has in mind. The overall thrust of the paper deals with epistemological issues, particularly those concerning scientific endeavors. This is appropriate to more recent studies of Hamlet that view Hamlet’s dilemma not as a psychological but rather as an epistemological dilemma. De Carlo sums up the traditional views as follows: “whereas the High Romantics have identified Hamlet’s depression, weak will, over-reliance on thought, and his sensitive moral nature as the tragic fault that explains his so-called delays, the Low Modernists have reduced his behavior to unconscious determinant, centered on the infamous Oedipus complex” (2). De Carlo is correct to focus attention on epistemological issues. In consonance with modern science, he draws out the fact that more than one person witnesses the ghost. For instance, both Hamlet and Horatio, the two main characters of De Carlo’s paper, encounter the ghost. Another scientific aspect that De Carlo might address is the repeatability of the ghost. However, the objective evidence of the ghost is somewhat questionable since the experiment cannot be repeated at will. The ghost comes on his own accord. Thus issues of verification come into play. De Carlo might want to consider Popper’s work on verification and falsification, for a more in-depth analogy of the scientific problem. Or, even to embellish some of the science of the time and Baconian experiments, that is briefly mentioned. Before continuing along epistemological lines, another important consideration that would enhance the paper is attention to the basic ontological problem. That is, before even asking how can one verify a ghost, one must ask, of what nature is a ghost? After all, a ghost is not quite human and not totally other-worldly, but somehow between worlds. As De Carlo quotes, the ghost is “Hic et ubique” (I.v.156), ‘here and everywhere’ at once (4). That is, the ghost does not obey our general categories of time and space. Therefore, the question comes up, what categories should be, or can be, applied to it? How can one even know that a ghost has been encountered? Of course this cuts at the heart of the dilemma of the play. The era is one that both believes in ghosts and yet is embarking on a new scientific era. Thus Hamlet can still say to Horatio, as De Carlo points out, that Horatio should give the ghost welcome since “there are more things in heaven and earth…than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (I.v.165-168). The ghost retains the air of mystery while begging for more inquiry. This might be a good lead into Descartes, who maintained both traditional values, especially in religious ideas, along with a new critical method. While De Carlo does mention Descartes, he only briefly mentions his idea of clear and distinct ideas, which needs more embellishment. Another useful analogy, particularly with the direction of De Carlo’s paper, would be to draw upon Descartes’ dream argument and inclusion of the malicious demon into the epistemological problem. Similarly, De Carlo’s opening with regards to the “questionable and terrifying” might be further embellished by references to the sublime and thereby combine the aesthetic with the epistemological, particularly since De Carlo opens the door to Kant’s epistemological dilemma. One of the more interesting aspects of the paper is De Carlo’s view that Horatio is more in line with Goodman’s more contemporary view of epistemology and science than is Hamlet. This comes as part of a long discussion on the epistemological conclusions of the two characters. As far as De Carlo sees it, “Hamlet has allowed his knowledge that the ghost is honest, to be transferred to the belief that the ghost is good, and therefore, is his father’s spirit” (7). This he contrasts with Horatio, who “remains open to at least three different possibilities” (9), that is, Horatio remains open to the idea that the data can fit more than one theory. The three option that De Carlo has in mind are summarized as follows: ghost honest and good and following his directive is good. ghost is honest but evil Following his directive is not the right course. ghost is honest and good but following his directive is still not the right course of action. (9) In looking at the possibilities and De Carlo’s argument, a few comments are in order. Another option that deals with the possibility of a malicious demon could be made. This would make the source of the apparition both not honest and not good and therefore not to be followed. This possibility that the apparition might come from an evil source and be some form of trickery is certainly a possibility that occurs at the beginning of the play, and De Carlo does mention it at the beginning of his paper. More can be made of it in epistemological terms. Having said this, dealing with the options De Carlo proposes still leaves one wondering why option three should result in not following the ghost’s directives. More details and possibilities as to the possible wrongfulness of following the ghost’s directives needs to be expounded to explain the hesitation of action. Finally, more needs to be said regarding Goodman’s basic theory to explain why Horatio has made the better choice. For instance, Horatio is possibly waiting for more data to see what theory will best explain the phenomena. He remains open. However, this then begs the question, when is there enough data? Whereas Horatio may be more like the modern person in seeing more than one possibility, he may also suffer from the modern problem of analysis paralysis. After all, Hamlet, even after all his hesitation, does finally act. Horatio does not. He remains in a state of skeptical doubt or at least of caution. Then again, it is Hamlet that is the hero of the play, and the prince, and the one who has the closest relationship to the ghost, and thereby the one who is called upon to act. Yet, in the end, death is the result of action. Perhaps in addition to the epistemological issues of the play, Shakespeare has presented some existential dilemmas to consider. This emphasis on death would be outside the scope of De Carlo’s paper on science and epistemology. Then again, the impetus of the action is the ghost, and the ghost is dead. Or is he? |