In Act 4 of Hamlet, Shakespeare reveals the consequences of intense emotions through exploring Claudius and Horatio’s indifference towards human suffering and Laertes’ pervasive anger. The characters grasp control of themselves through logical thinking and emotional un-disturbance, but lose control when emotions such as anger or grief overpowers actions and thinking. These depictions allow Shakespeare to illustrate that emotion can be dangerous and must be tempered with reason and self-control.

Through selective pronouns, diction, and juxtaposition, Shakespeare suggests that lack of emotions strengthens Claudius’ and Horatio's characters, whereas pervasive emotions paralyze Hamlet and Laertes, making them lose control. when Gertrude relays the miserable news about Polonius, commenting that Hamlet whips out "his rapier.. in his brainish apprehension" and in his lawless fit," Claudius responds immediately that the killing "had been so with us, had we been there" He continues repeating the statement that Hamlet poses a treat "to us" and that the killing “will be laid to us" (4.1) Encountering Polonius' death, Gertrude repeatedly uses the pronoun "his", which refers to Hamlet, while Claudius compellingly discusses the danger in relation to “us,'' referring to him and Gertrude. This repetition in pronouns reveals an emphasis of Gertrude's concern for Hamlet and Claudius’ worry for himself. While they both show slight indifference to Polonius, Claudius completely neglects that his loyal follower was killed by his stepson, selfishly averting the concern to himself as he concerns his own safety. The lack of compassion for others enables Claudius to gain strength, as he immediately discerns that Hamlet has begun his revenge plan and has determined Claudius as his target. Not paralyzed by emotions, Claudius was able to make an informed decision to send Hamlet to England. Claudius’ behavior aligns with Machiavellian principle of ruling, where practical considerations outweigh morals. He shows that a complete disregard of emotions and ruling through a selfish lens strengthens people’s control over themselves as they think logically. 

Such logic in politics is further demonstrated by Horatio, who believes that Ophelia's distraught "may strew dangerous conjectures" to the public (4.5). Rather than deeming Ophelia's madness as "dangerous" to her mental state and personal well-being, Horatio distances himself to ner by unsympathetically claiming that her madness disperses "dangerous" rumors to the public. His diction void of emotions therefore characterizes him as an aloof and indifferent person, who is able to lie to people and out on appearance rather than reality. Such detachment to emotions allows him to remain as one of the few people in the play who is completely undisturbed by the situations of others, enabling him to maintain control and composure. The focus of indifference, however, is not present in Laertes, who displays a lack of control over himself due to grief and anger. Claudius effectively uses pathos that Laertes must avenge Hamlet "to show [himself that he’s his] father’s son.” Laertes then consents aggressively, claiming “to cut [Hamlet’s] throats I’ th’ church” (4.6). The situation of killing someone in such a horrible way is paradoxical to the symbol of church—purity and re-birth. By juxtaposing the forgiving nature of church and evil picture of having someone’s throat cut, Laertes purposefully acts absurd, stressing the extent to which his emotion of anger can drive him to disobey the sanctity of church. This suggests he gradually lost reason and control of himself, simply enabling his anger to grow and guide his survival. Such emotional fragility eventually allows Claudius to assert dominance over Laertes and arrest control.