True or False Question

So . . . I thought that today I would train my keen mind on a most deserving target - a couple of lines from Hamlet.  A couple of lines that find their way into the general consciousness through not only the play but also countless valedictory addresses each spring.  Hey, it's Friday, I don't want to complain about current events or stupid decisions people make (other than possibly mangling the intention of Shakespeare's words in graduation speeches), so I'll just ramble about some iambic pentameter.  Said ramblings after the jump.

"And this above all, to thine own self be true;

and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

As said by Polonius to his son Laertes at the conclusion of a whole set of advice (the rest of the advice may also be suspect, but I'm not getting into it here - too long).  When I first studied the play in high school, I was taught that the advice is meant to be bad, as Polonius is a fool and his advice bad.  It certainly can be viewed that way - on its surface Polonius is assuming that if we are true to ourselves then we can't lie to others.  This is of course ridiculous; I would argue that most of the lying that occurs between people happens because we're being a little too true to ourselves.

What does it mean to be true to ourselves?  Does it mean true as equivalent to faithful and reliable?  If so, in order to be faithful to ourselves we must put our own needs first.  This would then lead to self-interested behaviour, the kind that economists assume and love, and leads to all kinds of nasty interpersonal behaviour.  In many cases being true to ourselves, in this sense, requires that we are false to others.  If we have a desire, and want to remain true to it, we would sometimes have to wrong others (e.g. adultery, theft, you know, the stuff that they want to put in stone in courthouses in the southern states). 

And really, come to think of it, is there any sense in which being true to ourselves prevents us ("canst not then be") from lying to others?  In this sense, it really appears as though this is bad advice, especially if Laertes is going to rely on being true to his (hine?  what is the equivalent "ine" for the third person singular?) own self in order to not be false to others.

But maybe there is a different interpretation of true and false.  Maybe true in this sense just means honest.  After all, we probably lie to ourselves more than anyone else in our lives, so maybe he's saying to be honest and not delude yourself.  So then when we're being "true" to our own selves (in the selfish way) we at least are doing so with our eyes open.  And in that sense, I'm all for this advice.  One of the running themes of this blog is to not necessarily change your behaviour and fight your natural biases, but rather to just be aware of them and incorporate that into decision-making.  Be honest with yourself (rather than the typical interpretation of be true to yourself). 

And from that we can determine a new definition of false.  Maybe it doesn't mean that you can't lie to others, but rather that you can't be anyone but who you are.  You can't wear a mask, and present yourself as someone else.  I covered masks back on Hallowe'en, and this is the same message - if you're honest with yourself that maybe The Partridge Family, Billy Ray Cyrus and Hanson are played so often on your MP3 player because you like them, you won't act like you're all about Metallica and Tupac.  No false front.

Is that what Stratford Willie intended?  Who the hell knows.  And generations of high school graduates may still come away from their graduation with a misinterpretation to go with their diploma and mental scarring from the horrifying experience that is high school (but not me - they were the best years of my life, dammit.  No, not really).