A fool, the audience, a mocker, the mocked, a crowd pleaser, the patron.
A servant before we can be a King.

'Hamlet versus Christ', why must we be against to hold ourselves up?

I feel like both Hamlet and Christ.

Best to feel like both while we still have the oportunity.

I feel like Superman and Lex Luthor, each one knowing they have the bigger right of way, the better story to tell, yet only Lex is trying to prove something. (joke, sort of)

My focus with Hamlet always goes back to the question of whether he was actually mad or just pretending to be mad. Was there method to his madness? As you likely know in the original Danish legend of Amleth, the young prince pretended to be a crazy fool so that he would appear harmless to the usurping fratricidal uncle. Once he was old enough Amleth slaughtered his uncle reclaimed the throne. Shakespeare's Hamlet is different in many ways from Amleth but the general plot points and characters are all there. Elizabethean England would have known the Danish legend and would have gone to the play expecting to see the story of a sane man pretending to be mad in order to exact revenge. So I focus on Hamlet's cleverness at faking madness and does that cleverness slip over into true madness?

When I think of Jesus I often have a similar focus. Was he mad? Did he really believe he was the son of God come to die for the sins of the world? Or was he just trying to change the world? I focus on Jesus' cleverness at playing the messiah and does that cleverness slip over into the truly messianic?

Not that I mind, but why is this in epistemology?

But all this is creative misreading perhaps.

I don't think there is one reading of Hamlet that renders all other readings misreadings. The greatness of a work of art is often directly proportional to the number of readings it has. The author isn't dead (though it was clever for Barthes to say so); nevertheless, the reader is very much alive. Whatever can be said can be understood in many ways, where one cannot speak one must pass over in silence but that second part is tautological and superfluous (or perhaps it is unclear).

What does his homo-eroticism possibly have to do with it all? The inner female and linguistic-social-practice holism.

Here's another quip: I'm pretty sure Wittgenstein was a topper but that didn't make him any less of a fag.

Here's a quip: Hamlet and Jesus were both obsessed with their dead fathers.

Depends if you ask an ancient Greek or a modern Texan?

That's a good one, D. Here's a nice little painting.

At the school, Wittgenstein spoke in an upper-class accent, with a slight stutter, wore very elegant clothes, and was highly sensitive and extremely unsociable. It was one of his idiosyncrasies to use the formal form of address with his classmates and to aggressively demand that they too (with the exception of a single acquaintance) address him formally, with "Sie" and "Herr Ludwig".

Who knows maybe he was a bottom. I think I read in Cosmo that wo/men in positions of power are often submissive in the bedroom. I want to say it doesn't matter but I think that may be PC conditioning. His homosexuality does sort of does cast a shadow on his work. I'm more orientated towards heterosexuality but back "in college" I wasn't so sure so I have an understanding of some of these things. It is willful ignorance to say there isn't a difference between top and bottom or straight and gay for that matter. Yet all of these are human and share a common human language. So perhaps it does not matter and I was exaggerating the shadow that W's orientation cast upon his work? But then again, the mania for clarity, for a common language? Could that have been born of the alienation that comes with being different from the other guys? Was it all an attempt to "only connect" as Forester put it? Newton? Kant? Nietzsche? Turing?

I'm a fan of both Lacan and Foucault though not really a friend of Dorothy; I was always disappointed when she wanted to be "just friends"; I would rather be the wizard than those waiving goodbye as she floated away in the wizard's balloon. Foucault's work is terribly boring to read but I've always liked what I understood of his sexual politics. Foucault is the radical freedom to shape ones self or at the very least to recognize that ones self has been shaped: socially constructed; and once that much is recognized then there is the possibility of changing it; of being power also rather than just knowledge. I think of Lacan as Foucault's opposite somehow. Lacan (as far as my superficial understanding goes) advocated getting down to the core desire as something that is Real and thus (by Lacan's definition) beyond symbolism and the structures of symbolism - even if that core desire turns out to be disappointing (thus courage is required). Lacan/Foucault: a dichotomy? But this is all extremely superficial for whereas Foucault is often too boring to read, Lacan is often too inscrutable to understand - the difference between a mother and a father? But now I will take advantage of a very subjective and thus rather inscrutable synchronicity: it is also the difference between Hamlet and Christ; between the goal of revenge and the goal of crucifixion. What does it mean to be a man and know it?

Hamlet vs Christ.

Well I believe hamlet is probably the real thing and Jesus is made up. Hamlet is far more believable character than the Jesus character. Since both are literary characters that are fictitious, I would have to go with Hamlet.