Few viewers will then take the time to visit a university library and then read the referenced articles of Phyllis Greenacre.

Even fewer will then investigate the science, first, as cultural anthropology and it lack of actual field work, its inaccurate demographics let alone the problems with this “just so” story.

The index to Denial Of Death as originally published was hopelessly inaccurate. The “facts” presented about various aspects of normal and abnormal child development were wholly anecdotal.

For all the books reliance on Tillich, the book had not so much as a footnote on Jaspers. For all the references to Medard Boss, not a single reference to Ludwig Binswanger.

The chapter on Kiergaard is perhaps the weakest in the book (Dostoievsky is notable for his absence.)

Not a single dissenting view on female psychology (1973 ! ) was presented – nto even in his account of sexual frigidity.

What is a science documentary when the science is human science? What could this book mean with nothing from Max Weber (good friend to Jaspers – they all knew Tillich.)

Unlike most Viennese gents of Freud’s day, one suspects that Becker was never in a brothel and did no field work with homosexuals and certainly none with lesbians, transexuals or bisexuals. His account of depression ( 1973 ) is appalling. While he mentions Searles, his account of schizophrenia is completely sophomoric – devoid of any reference to ongoing work in VA hospitals across the US – pitiful.

His claim to boldly offer a general theory of mental illness, in light of current knowledge of genetics and brain imaging and realization of the total inadequacy of the existing diagnostic nomenclature – well it is a sad anti-science joke reminiscent of Tom Szasz.

Had Becker done any field work with those with a known short life expectancy – and done it cross-culturally – he might have been able to make a small contribution to science.

But Becker felt that science had become overwhelming – in his own words – “clinical closure” was now possible. Wrong.

His own heroic gesture was a refusal to recognize his own limits as a social scientist.

(Report comment)

Thank you.

(Report comment)

If only we were as cooperative and organised as ants we might be able to save the world!:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8127000/8127519.stm

Maybe when we know our universe (if we survive!) as well as ants know our world then we might be as good a species as them…

(Report comment)

I think this is a huge point, and definitely the reason people can behave irrationally when their worldview is attacked. Even trying to reason with someone on these points will only cause them to dig in deeper. It’s only when they come to personally realize that another’s beliefs don’t actually threaten theirs….that they let go.

(Report comment)

I’ve got this theory that anything that threatens someone’s sense of identity will provoke an impassioned, defensive response (and to others, what seems to be an inexplicably emotional response). This is how I understand some people’s intensely emotional antagonism towards immigrants, gay marriage, other religions, etc. These are things which fall in the category of “live and let live,” but continue to provoke an impassioned, defensive response from large numbers of people.

From this interview, I can maybe see that one person’s belief system may threaten someone else’s because that person’s bid for symbolic immortality is basically called into question by the other’s. For example, two men getting married in no way affects the lives of people opposed to gay marriage, but in a symbolic realm, the realm of culture, it is like a blitzkrieg attack.

And to say “live and let live” is to essentially admit that your belief system is not true in the real, concrete world.

As someone who doesn’t have strong beliefs about many things, I can only guess that for believers (in any category: religion, politics, economics, etc.) it would be an impossibly huge kind of mental gymnastics to let a belief truly comfort you and to simultaneously admit that it’s not true because it’s okay for others to not believe it.

(Report comment)

If I remember correctly, a large portion of the film was devoted to the concept of “difference” and how much of human conflict stems from our inability to manage our own diversity.

A movement towards appreciating and respecting “the other” will have to be in our future, if we are to sustain ourselves.

Interestingly, for me, the film was less about death and more about living.

(Report comment)