What do Shakespeare's plays answer about the human condition? Your answer should be in complete sentences, be well thought out, and thorough. You may wish to make connections and use examples to help explain your answer.

PLEASE HELP

Forgive me for not writing an entire essay, but here are some things that could help:

Ambition is dangerous: theme shown in Macbeth

Shakespeare implicitly believed that humans tend to act on impulse rather than reason.

Bad things lead to worse

Greed is shown heavily in Macbeth and Hamlet.

Death is often a symbol, and Shakespeare trys to explain the repercussions and reactions after someone's death in a lot of plays.

All in all, the human condition is complicated. People mess up, kill each other, avenge each other, are obsessed, fall in love. Stuff happens, and that's life. Shakespeare is wonderful at bending words to reveal new meaning, and a new though process about life. It's messy. But it's a darn good read.

I wish I could write more, but without knowing which plays you've read or that they're referring to, I can't add too much. I really hope this helps you get started!

what do shakespheres plays answer about the human condition?

Explanation:

the obligations of friends to another . Macbeth betrays his friendship with Banquo as he betrays so much else in this play, and surely most people still agree that it is wrong to betray friends.The dangers of ambition a theme relevant both to Macbeth and to his wife, both of whom allow their ambitions to lead them to commit evil deeds. Most people today would still, probably, believe that unrestrained ambition can be a very dangerous and potentially self-destructive trait.The evils of murder  a matter clearly relevant to the ways Macbeth becomes king. Even most moral relativists today would probably concede that murder is wrong, and the kind of murder Macbeth commits when he kills the defenseless, sleeping king seems especially heinous

faulty parallelism is a construction in which two or more parts of a sentence are equivalent in meaning but not grammatically similar in form.

the correct version of this faulty parallelism in the sentence is:

the hikers knew that the hike was six miles, that it usually required the entire day, and it would not be wise to start after 10: 00 a.m.

the problem is the last sentence, the first two have a basic subject+verb+object structure.

so, to give a proper balance to the structure, or better said, to give a parallel structure, we must write a basic s+v+o structure in all three sentences:

the hikers knew that the hike was six miles, that it usually required the entire day, and it would not be wise to start after 10: 00 a.m.