There are universal themes in William Shakespeare’s plays, which can teach us a great deal. A frequent theme in all of Shakespeare’s plays is that violence, whether to oneself, or to others, achieves nothing, and thus that violence has no real power besides the power to destroy.
There are many types of violence, be they mental, physical, and emotional. But whether you speak with violent thoughts, act with violent hands, or walk with violent ambition, all violence has the same intention, to cause pain and suffering. The ability to cause pain is frequently considered a kind of power, you are proactively choosing someone’s fate, and for a moment getting to play God. What greater power is there than deciding someone’s fate for them? Take for example …show more content…
In Haider, the Bollywood version of Hamlet, Haider is emotionally violent to his mother (Ghazala) because she didn’t grieve appropriately, the loss of his father. He torments Ghazala with cruelty and verbal abuse because she found solace with another man after her husband 's disappearance. He inflicts so many verbal wounds that Ghazala, riddled by guilt, commits suicide by blowing herself up. Her death did nothing, but hurt others, either emotionally or physically, and could have been avoided if Haider had acted with some respect and kindness. He was so distraught about his father that he couldn’t see how he was destroying his family, and himself. He only achieved in affecting a chain of perpetuating violence. In Hamlet the story played out much the same way, Hamlet was emotionally and mentally violent to his mother, however, he does not actively cause her death. Instead, the Queen falls victim of a death meant for someone other than herself. Hamlet caused several deaths, including his own, which resolved absolutely nothing. The throne went to an outsider, the Prince of Norway, and all the main characters …show more content…
We engage in social restraints because we generally agree that abiding by those rules creates the best outcome and eudaimonia for the most people possible. When we break those rules, the consequences are supposed to be either equal to the offense or greater. This, though fair, only creates a world that actively engages in the theory of taking an eye for an eye. With the end result being mayhem, and chaos, as one bad turn leads to another infinitely. This was probably what happened in Romeo and Juliet. One of the houses probably did something bad to the other, whether intentionally or not, and this caused the other house to do something back. Over years and years, this need for vindication on both sides caused a feud so bitter it ended up destroying them both.
From a psychological standpoint, violence is an ineffective means of resolution because people are hardwired to respond to positive stimuli. Meaning we would be much more likely to agree, resolve conflict, or solve problems if we presented, or were presented with, positive stimuli. The only outcome of negative stimuli is a defensive demeanor, this is why we see so much hate in lieu of violence. Regardless of the reasons people act violently, violence will never create peace, or
There are many types of violence, be they mental, physical, and emotional. But whether you speak with violent thoughts, act with violent hands, or walk with violent ambition, all violence has the same intention, to cause pain and suffering. The ability to cause pain is frequently considered a kind of power, you are proactively choosing someone’s fate, and for a moment getting to play God. What greater power is there than deciding someone’s fate for them? Take for example …show more content…
In Haider, the Bollywood version of Hamlet, Haider is emotionally violent to his mother (Ghazala) because she didn’t grieve appropriately, the loss of his father. He torments Ghazala with cruelty and verbal abuse because she found solace with another man after her husband 's disappearance. He inflicts so many verbal wounds that Ghazala, riddled by guilt, commits suicide by blowing herself up. Her death did nothing, but hurt others, either emotionally or physically, and could have been avoided if Haider had acted with some respect and kindness. He was so distraught about his father that he couldn’t see how he was destroying his family, and himself. He only achieved in affecting a chain of perpetuating violence. In Hamlet the story played out much the same way, Hamlet was emotionally and mentally violent to his mother, however, he does not actively cause her death. Instead, the Queen falls victim of a death meant for someone other than herself. Hamlet caused several deaths, including his own, which resolved absolutely nothing. The throne went to an outsider, the Prince of Norway, and all the main characters …show more content…
We engage in social restraints because we generally agree that abiding by those rules creates the best outcome and eudaimonia for the most people possible. When we break those rules, the consequences are supposed to be either equal to the offense or greater. This, though fair, only creates a world that actively engages in the theory of taking an eye for an eye. With the end result being mayhem, and chaos, as one bad turn leads to another infinitely. This was probably what happened in Romeo and Juliet. One of the houses probably did something bad to the other, whether intentionally or not, and this caused the other house to do something back. Over years and years, this need for vindication on both sides caused a feud so bitter it ended up destroying them both.
From a psychological standpoint, violence is an ineffective means of resolution because people are hardwired to respond to positive stimuli. Meaning we would be much more likely to agree, resolve conflict, or solve problems if we presented, or were presented with, positive stimuli. The only outcome of negative stimuli is a defensive demeanor, this is why we see so much hate in lieu of violence. Regardless of the reasons people act violently, violence will never create peace, or