As humans, we usually fall victim to our own emotions. We let them control us, manipulate us, and make decisions for us… and the only reason we allow it to happen is because it feels right; it makes us feel good. Hamlet, like us, constantly falls victim to his own emotions (less and less, though, as the play goes on), and lets them be the main driving force behind most of his actions and decisions; only after doing something will he usually think logically and unbiased about it. When you are enraged, everything right feels wrong, and when you are overjoyed, everything wrong feels right; in other words, by instinct, if you are mad, you want to stay mad, and if you are happy, you want to stay happy. Hamlet allows his despair to almost push him to suicide, hoping his “…too too sullied (solid) flesh would melt,” and then allows his anger to convince him to commit murder, despite the fact that it would lead to eternal suffering in hell. But are these thoughts not human-like? A person would be lying if he or she said they had never been so angry, or so sad, that they believed, thought, or even said something that seemed very extreme (be it due to their morals or due to the consequences) simply to satisfy the extreme emotion they were feeling. Hamlet does the same; this justifies how he speaks and thinks at certain times where his emotions are out of control, and also explains why it seems as if he never takes action and constantly procrastinates. He eventually takes into account the possible consequences, and, subsequently, realizes that his thoughts or intentions are way too simple and instinctive. It is at these points where reality hits him and he must put his emotions aside to actually think clearly, like any other logical human being (surprisingly rare) would.
Despite the fact that Hamlet becomes better and better as they play goes on at stopping his emotions from controlling his actions, he always seems to “lose his