"Seeming" over "is-ing"?

In Hamlet, we continue to discuss the major theme of Perception versus Reality, or “seeming versus is-ing”. Subconsciously, we placed more importance on the “is-ing” side, feeling that it’s better to always have things as truly how they are, not just how they appear. After all, something that “is” implies that it is legitimate, and authenticity is an important value that we treasure.

I’d like to take a moment to justify the other side of the argument.

Without appearances, there would be no truth to compare falsehoods to. What we deem as “genuine” or “real” only comes to exist after we have established what isn't.

Take for example the human form. We all like to think that what makes and identifies us human is what’s on the inside—the emotions, the mindsets, the personalities, the soul. But since none of these things are visible or tangible, we rely on what we can actually see from a person—their physical appearance—and use that to identify people. Therefore, the outside body becomes the foundation for the identity.

Surely then, in the opening scenes, if Hamlet had worn cheery reds and golds like the rest of the kingdom and plastered a smile on his face, his genuine inner sadness would have been overlooked by Claudius and Gertrude. But it is because Hamlet reflected his internal feelings in his visible appearance, with his “inky cloak” and “suit of solemn black”, that it became of notice.

What happens, then, when the outward appearance of something loses its significance? Say I chose to express happiness by frowning instead of smiling? It would be hard for others to register that I was actually happy by looking at my face. Thus, the guise of something has a lot more influence and importance than we’d care to admit.

I’m looking forward to when we cover later on that legendary line of Hamlet’s: “To be or not to be”. It has much more meaning to it now. Could it be literally asking to be, to “is”, or not? To seem or not? That is the question. Whether we personally place more importance on seeming or “is-ing”, both are critical in the identification of something or someone. One could not “is” without seeming, and vice versa.

Since both are essential, I guess it comes back down to how we personally and individually view things. Like in Grendel, the importance lies in how Grendel feels, “I create the universe, blink by blink”. In the end, I guess what’s not important is if the other person “seems” or actually “is”, but how it is observed by you alone.

“To thine own self be true”?