To be, or not to be a bee.
 

Yes, this could be a philosophical thread. I could confuse and dazzle you by long explanations of "To be, or not to be a bee. That is the question. For if you are a human, are you a bee? And would the bee be a bee or a human?" and so on, but I will not.
Now that I have your attention, let's cut to the chase.
What are your values of being? Why are you? What makes you? And why does it make you so that you are?
Are you, or are you in fact not? And if not, why? And why wouldn't you want to be? And if you are not, aren't you yet?
I am, because I am not. I am not, because I am.
I am one with the flow, yet I stand out. I stand out because I am one.
For in reality, I am and I am not. So, "To be, or not to be. That is the question."

Gee, we are all complex creatures of dichotomy at a minimum. Save that many are cardboard cut outs of overtried affectation

But why are we? What makes you? I am not asking for a broad general being, I am asking why the individual is.

Then why are you asking another individual?

I like philosophy. Jung said that whether or not a person is, they are at least in the most sense to them self.

http://www.printnpost.com/articles/8...phy/Page1.html

For all the ill fated Hamlet's deep questions in the end he was not to be, as is all our fate.

Well the answer can be whatever an individual wants to be. Like the question "who am I?" has many different answers if you were talking about this in terms of philosophy. It is an interesting topic because when you do think about it, you do begin to wonder. I, on the other hand, am happy of just being here and prefer not to dwell on these questions for the sake of my sanity :P. lol.

There is soo much to say about my opinion on existence and all this so I suppose I should keep quiet in order to stop babbling on and on and on. lol.

~ snapping fingers ~ That was deep man.

In the context of Hamlet, it was not so much being, as much as being and accepting the suffering that comes with being, or not being and thus being free of suffering. To wimp or not to wimp.

Hamlet's speech had very existentialist elements to it. He goes on to talk about the repetitiveness of human existence and questions it all. Like what happens in the play, Waiting For Godot. On another note, Shakespeare is damn brilliant since he was able to come up with this and it means that he was much ahead of his time. :P

Agreed. Shakespeare was brilliant to write human drama that would still grip audiences centuries in the future with its relevance. Amazing, spell binding scenes: Hamlet speaking to poor Yorick's bones for example. I think he is more goth than Anne Rice! :)

I'd rather study some Shakespeare than read Anne Rice any day.

I think I was the only person at school who ever enjoyed studying the books we were made to.

To be honest with you guys, I never read a single one of Shakespeare's plays.. *crawls in a hole out of shame*

If you like ghost stories, murders, foul deeds and plots, evil sages and suicidal nymphs then Hamlet is your story! :)

That sounds kinda interresting :P
Perhaps I should give it a try :P

René Descartes
The exact wording was, "I think therefore I am"
in Latin it is: "Cogito, ergo sum"

Im not a fucking bee you asshole!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C6YRshEn8K0&feature=related

"Half a bee
philosophically
must ipso-facto
half not be!"

Monty Python

Saw John Cleese in Marks and Spencer yesterday. Was rather unexpected to say the least.

Hamlet may have a ghost, murderous schemes and general gloom and doom, but it's just so effing hard to grasp the language that I always get a headache.

Well, it's Shakespeare after all (=

Regardless of language and the difficulty that it can present, he is still really good. For example, I found myself to be really interested in Macbeth, King Lear, etc. Hamlet is really good too. I have to agree with HumanePain in that he can be more goth than Anne Rice. lol. I'm sorry but she can be a bit repetitive.