Rosencrantz and Guildenstern8217s

The response of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to this question would surely be answered with a question. However the prompt is asking how the play answers the question. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, doesn’t answer the questions of an absurd world. In my opinion the play cannot and does not answer any questions; it only evokes more questions among the reader, questions of reality and existence. I believe the true intent of Tom Stoppard in writing this story is to do exactly that, force the reader to question his/her own existence. This is proven in several of the topics the characters discuss; they discuss death, dying, God, existence, faith, and morals. Stoppard’s intentions may have been to make the reader question his/her own feelings towards these events and their beliefs. He presents these questions through two main characters; these characters never seem to answer the questions that arise. They merely ask more questions. Because the story is unable to answer any question the reader may ponder, I must do what is closest to the prompt and present the question to the main characters as though it was asked in the story; thus leading to an answer that would be closest to that of Stoppard’s intentions.
To present the probable response of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern if asked the question,
one must first understand their inspiration and nature. The nature of the two characters is that of no direction nor determination; this nature leads them to unanswerable questions. Their questions are often moral, scientific, and even philosophical. The two would be unable to answer the question “How is man to reconcile himself to that absurd world in which he finds himself trapped.” Through the characters Stoppard forces the reader to ask personal questions; he uses the characters’ questions to inspire the reader\'s "self-discovery." Presenting this question to the characters is causing the reader to consider his own response. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s response would sure not be like that of the reader but it may encourage further questions. “Trapped by what” is a response you can almost be sure to receive from the characters. “Physical or emotional limitations” is sure to follow. This would later be accompanied by the questioning of absurdity. An “absurd world” would be the basis of all questions. The author is asking the readers to examine the world in which they exist. The existentialist side of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would be most puzzled by this phrase, most surely Ros, being considered the “brain” of the two. Stoppard’s intention is to puzzle the reader; I too am quite puzzled by this statement. Since I cannot clearly give the response I must answer the question as though Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were being asked the question. Their response would surely be a question due to their indecisive nature and lack of direction. I will attempt to make their response in a way that might be fitting to them, their philosophical beliefs and hopefully Stoppard’s purpose.
To start one must first understand the brains, or lack of, behind the two indistinguishable characters. To answer the question in a way that would be particular to them, their beliefs must first be understood. Their love or admiration for philosophy is portrayed throughout the play, thus the answer for their questioning nature. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s philosophical views would be categorized as existentialist. Existentialism is a basic philosophy that states existence precedes essence; an even more elementary explination is believing in nothing but one’s own existence. This belief leaves the two questioning not only their existence but the essence of life and its events. Based on this view, their answer to the question would be indisputably a question. If something can not be proved, then it can not be believed, meaning it can not exsist.
How is a man to reconcile himself to that absurd world in which he finds himself trapped? The only fitting response- What makes it an absurd world? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or rather Stoppard would first build the foundation or infact dissolve the foundation of absurdity or an absurd world. To do this they would determine what is absurdity. How can something be absurd; who initially thought it absurd? Or is it infact not absurd but merely common? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would surely define absurd;