Why does Vygotsky like to unify contradictions?

To Vygotsky, to be or not to be, that is a unified question.

My prior knowledge about Hamlet is very limited to a required reading in high school and a free ticket to the play performed by the best theatre group. I never understand why it's a great-of-all-time work. I own to the fact that I never spend time to try to understand the play and I am poor at literacy... One thing I'm sure is that I never experience emotional awareness from it. This was true until reading Vygotsky's chapter, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.

I guess I am shallow at first when reading something new. I need to see the relevance or need to make sense first at the plot level. Obviously, I failed. I never see a person like Hamlet. To me, Hamlet is neither a character that exaggerates one characteristics of a real person nor a character based on a sophisticated real person. He is not even consistent. His immediate action of killing the person behind the curtain and his procrastination of killing the new king just didn't make sense to me. Thanks to reading Vygotsky's chapter, although I still don't understand Hamlet, I understand my confusion. I was expected to see the psychology of Hamlet (Vygotsky cited Eichenbaum). I try to make sense of the show from relating my experience with the character. I failed because I am a human but Hamlet is not. "Hamlet's tragedy is to be a man, not a machine". Hamlet is like a new creature made through the techniques of Shakespeare. I understand that the technique part is to create the character who, "at any moment, unifies both contradictory planes and is the supreme and ever present embodiment of the contradiction inherent in the tragedy."

Now I see the greatness of Shakespeare from his way of increasing the complexity of contradiction: not to increase the numbers of contradiction but to carry it all the way to the end.