Ni siquiera soy capaz de reseñar tan prolífica obra. Es todo una riqueza filosófica que toma de la psicología analítica. No hay una respuesta en concreto. No sabemos cómo es que le damos el sentido a la vida ¿es por la sexualidad que planteó Freud? ¿es por Dios¿ ¿es por la ciencia? ¿por valores morales? No, quizás es la misma muerte quien le da sentido. O quizás es por nuestro anhelo de eternizarnos. No queremos perecer, aunque sepamos que es inminente, y la única verdad. Queremos seguir viviendo en la memoria de los otros. Queremos ser los héroes de la humanidad y de la historia. Héroes en la bondad y en la maldad, héroes en nuestra comunidad religiosa, héroes de nuestros oficios y profesiones, héroes en nuestros círculos sociales. Queremos demostrar nuestro ser es real en las conciencias de los otros, en el presente y en el futuro.

Man will never be able to overcome the fear of death, even if he achieved immortality it would still be a "this-worldly" immortality. No, we are fated to live, as it were, inside of some Kafka novel playing characters who are themselves part of an evolutionary process which they can't possibly understand in any really meaningful way, outside of a scientific explanation, and because of this hopelessness they, by necessity, must seek illusions in premade categories of denials. Society has them prepackaged for us, even before we are born, in things such as "work", "family", and "love" but these things are only illusions meant to perpetuate the idea that what man does matters. The final line from Edgar Allan Poe's The Masque of the Red Death sums up our situation nicely I think, "and darkness and decay......held illimitable dominion over all."

Quintessentially 1970s, this mish-mash of Freudian analysis and biological determinism starts out by exploring the principles of Sociobiology and making a lot of grandiose statements about human narcissism as an inborn trait resultant from "countless ages of evolution" (2). Blithely dismissing religious tradition and appealing to ideas of childhood imprinting and unconscious suppression as the primary drivers of adult thought and behavior, Becker's main thesis is that if only we could realize our deep-seated need for the heroic, if only we could know with certainty that our actions serve a purpose and will be recalled in time to come, then we wouldn't be so unsure or frightened in the face of death.

This book is mentally stimulating but ultimately, I think, unfounded. A friend likened much of philosophy to "mental masturbation" and that's what I'd classify this one as. I'm really curious as to why this was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1974, but can't find the reasoning or announcement online. Maybe the hullabaloo of Gravity's Rainbow being denied an award that same year stole all the headlines.

3 stars out of 5. While the style is fun—flowery academic flourishes abound!—the notion that people want to be the hero of their own life story is presented more cleanly and positively in Frankl's logotherapy classic Man's Search for Meaning, and the biodeterminism angle is better argued in primatology's staple, The Naked Ape. Read Denial of Death in your college days, mull it over some, have a few good late-night dorm room conversations, but don't base your whole life on it.

Another modernist trashchute who can't help but repeat the word MAN every second line, against the ANIMAL, a seemingly made up concept, utterly detached from the ecological world, which has shown on multiple occasions how much more complex and interesting animals are to (at least this) MAN's banal musings on finitude.

What I can't stand about modernism is its obsession with reifying MAN, as if MAN has ever accomplished anything worthwhile (let's face it, anything worthwhile is recuperated by the bourgeoisie and sold back to us as a dead commodity).

What Becker doesn't seem to see is that he is merely projecting his own conceptualised death into a boring, patriarchal, anthropocentric worldview, that he himself considers absolutely at the core of human existence.

WHY IS THE CHILD NOT MANLY.
WHY IS THE CHILD NOT MANLY.
WHY IS THE CHILD NOT MANLY.

I do not reject the absurdity of the world, only Becker's colonisation of the term to mean merely impotency. In doing this, he makes absurdity itself impotent to anything other than the castrated MAN of Freudian psychoanalysis.

One need only look at the aesthetics of failure or the politics of alienation to see that absurdity can be utilised into a productive, radical project. An affirmation of death and decay (without falling into fascist militarism) that overcomes Becker's petty worries.

It has only taken me a year and a half to finish this book. For various reasons, I suppose. I’ve never understood how people can leave such long reviews for a book (solely based on the time perspective), until now. This book covers so many micro topics on this one subject and they are all fascinating to ponder.
I think Becker hit it on the head when he mentions how Freud was accurate in his assessment of our behaviors, but not about the driving force: Move over Sexual-theory and the Oedipus complex. I also find his discussion of the causa-sui project, man’s existential dilemma, and the lies we tell ourselves in order to cope with the dilemma, and to live our lives (or not live them, based on our fears) incredibly profound. However, I wish he would have gone more in depth on the topic of psychology and religion; specifically, how modern man who has progressed beyond the religious folklore adapts as society “evolves” - as I felt his generalization of religion puts them in a different category and is unaddressed. I also can’t buy into his statement that religion so adeptly covers the “what happens after” question; because, I feel he only narrowly discusses other religions outside of Christianity, and he doesn’t go into new (modern) theories. That said, I realize the book is dated and current topics of interest have altered.
Otherwise, I would recommend this book to anyone looking to expand their repertoire on psychosis and thoughts on death.

Li esse livro porque influenciou muito a Hilda Hilst, mas a verdade é que as teorias psicanalíticas nele contidas estão deveras ultrapassadas, mesmo ele tendo ganho o pulitzer nos anos 70 me parece que já naquela época ele estaria defasado em relação aos seminários já publicados de Lacan. A psicanálise hoje não tem nada a ver com as coisas descritas alí, sobretudo o discurso altamente preconceituoso em relação aos neuróticos que me incomodou deveras.
Um livro que me serviu para o estudo de como pensava Hilda Hilst, mas que me foi totalmente descartável como psicóloga, leia com cuidado, considerando todas as bobagens defasadas nele contidos, assim há como retirar algum proveito de seus escritos.

Overall this is outdated psychobabble, of historical interest as another example of James Thurber's adage that "you can fool too many of the people too much of the time." [It won a Pulitzer!]

The author could have said he was producing philosophical musings or bad literature or random religious thoughts or whatever, but he didn't. Instead he was suffering from the delusion that he was doing science: Analyze that!

Not everything has to be science, but Becker repeats incessantly that this stuff is "scientific." It is not. It is closer to medieval scholasticism, i.e. opinionated commentary on received texts. In science, you state a hypothesis and you test it. Moreover, if you are recommending a method of treatment for human illness, then you provide some evidence for the benefit of your proposed therapy. But there's no experimental or even observational evidence anywhere in this book.


Better books on living a life of meaning in an absurd universe:
The Myth of Sisyphus/The Outsider/The Plague/The Rebel
Tao Te Ching by Stephen Mitchell Summary Study Guide
Warrior of the LightThe Power of Myth
Managing Your Mind: The Mental Fitness Guide
n  nn  nn  n n  nn  n n  n

"The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
—Ernest Becker

The sloppy latticework of gnarled tree branches anchors the foreground while Devlin and Geoffrey puff upon thick, stolen cigars, steathily removed from a father’s humidor, stashed in the closet of a house that was summarily purchased with blood, sweat and finely tuned 'n' directed tears. Their lanky fuzz-lined sillouettes bend and puff and laugh together within the sea of sundown hues that grant them visualization. Geoffrey digs deep into his tanned corduroy pockets and his left hand removes the distant, quiet clink of coins upon coins.

A square-jawed, stiff-limbed snake of iron and steel flows by the two teenagers. The word ‘train’ materializes within the skulls of both boys as their sleeves and trousers are shaken to a fluttering life by its newfound wind.

The pair reacts to the new calm by a continued puffing and swaggering, smirks etched step-by-step upon their faces.

"Let's do some penny dreadfuls," Devlin exhales along with a stacco waft of floating burnt tobacco.

Geoffrey nods affirmatively and re-digs into his corduroy for the fullest answer. He hands Devlin a metallic rustle of currency and steps over the first track in order to hover over the second. Geoffrey clinks his purchase down upon the iron and walks back towards Devlin doing the mirror-same.

They lie in wait for the next bulldozing carrier. A great silence envelopes them as they inhale and exhale, stare and unstare at nothing, anything and everything.

"Don't you ever worry about dying?" Devlin mews with unnerving sincerity.
t
"Of course. But at this millisecond I’m pretty much ready to go."

"Really?"

"Really. I keep thinking about an old friend who—even when he was merely eight years old—once told me—and told me with great certitude and sincerity—that he wouldn't care at all if his father hurled him off a cliff. This was a week before he was going to visit the Grand Canyon on a family vacation."

". . ."

"Death only really frightens me if I have the time to really, really think about it. When it's just an immediate thought, well, I usually just think about it as an either an inevitably or a blessing—which is sad, I know, but that's just how I feel most of the time. I mean, I don't want to die—I really, really don't—but more often than not, I just don't care enough either way. Darkness forever doesn't always seem like 'Darkness Forever.' Sometimes I stupidly think of it as a vacation—a vacation of blank peace—rather than the traditionally, plausibly understood, deep dark destination—the Big Sleep, the eternal dirt nap, etc—you know?"

"Wow. Yeah, I know what you mean. But most the time it mostly scares the living shit out of me and seems like the worst thing in the whole wide world."
t
"Well, it is! Of course! It's the worst! The worst reality there can every possibly be, I guess. But it's so inescapable that eventually I feel beaten into submission by the fact that it's so goddamn certain and ever-present."

". . ."

Devlin passes a pint of bourbon towards his closest friend who accepts it with a smile, a limp grip and then a simultaneously pleased and pained grimace.

"There's no real comfort to be found here, my friend. I’m sorry to say. I wish it was otherwise, but it just isn't. Sure, there's some distant "hope" to be found within the deep, deep, unanswerable mystery of it all, but all that's really real is this. This. Here. Right now. Us standing together, having a deep thought or two, sharing our thoughts—whatever those are, really—ya know?"

"Yeah, I think so, too. It's just so damn depressing—no matter what, ya know? It's so fucking hard for me to think about it all with any real seriousness. Just imagining the death of my mother makes me feel like, like, like...like, I dunno, the whole world is coming to an end. It's just the most awful feeling ever."

"Believe me, I know exactly what you mean. It's really the worst. If there's supposed to be a silver lining that's better than all the ol' cliché silver linings—which fail us left and right—well, I don’t know what that is. We—we human beings stuck in this predicament—we're simply forced to deal with it. It's horrific and unfair. Period. So let's just finish that bottle, smoke these cigars, and keep moving and talking and thinking until we can't."

The train announces its arrival in the distance. Devlin's head hangs low. Geoffrey's eyes well with fluid and his gaze cranes upward to the murky, bloody cloudiness of the slit vein of the sky, booming its melancholy echo around the world exclusively to those who can perceive it. The distance collapses at a brisk pace. The distance disappears and a single penny is ground down into a new shape for an audience of two.

4,5

Bu kitabın təsirli olacağını bilirdim, amma yenə də gözləntilərimi aşdı. Həqiqətən, indiyədək görüb, hətta bəzən fərq edib amma anlamlandıra bilmədiyim, və ya ümumiyyətlə fərq edə bilmədiyim detalları göstərdi kitab mənə. Təkcə bununla qalmadı əlbəttə.

Yazar insanın ölümdən nə üçün qorxduğunu və bu qorxunu aşmaq üçün nələr etdiyini araşdırır və izah edir. Bu zaman da yazar, bir çox lazımlı psixoanalitiklərin fikirlərini də önə sürür və onları şərh edərək məsələni aydınlaşdırmağa, nəticə çıxarmağa çalışırdı. Bunlara misal olaraq, ən başda Sigmund Freud, Otto Rank, Erich From və bir çox başqalarını göstərmək olar.

Kitabda mənə ən çox təsir edən məqamlardan biri "transfer" məsələsi oldu. Belə ki, bu yerdə bizim bir çox insanın təsiri altında qalmağızın səbəb və nəticələri izah olunurdu, hətta münasibətlərə də toxunulurdu. Belə ki, əslində münasibət qurmaqda məqsədimiz heç də düşündüyümüz kimi məhz eşq və ya doğrudan da, o insanda əsrarəngiz bir şeylər olmasından qaynaqlanmır. Bunun başlıca səbəbi; bizim o insanı ideallaşdıraraq, onun timsalında həyatın əsas mənasını görmək, onun timsalında öz davranışlarımıza qiymət vermək, digər tərəfdən isə əslində ölümə məhkum olan fiziki varlığımızın birinin gözündə anlam qazanmasına ehtiyac duymağımızdan qaynaqlanır. Bu yerdə insanı, bir şəxsi ideallaşdırma məsələsinə diqqət edərsiz. Çünki ümumiyyətlə, belə deməklə bu məsələnin dərinliyini izah etmək çətindir. Oxuyub anlamalısınız. Bir iki cümlə ilə izah edilə bilməyəcək qədər dərin məsələrdən danışılır çünki kitabda.

Kitabı oxuduqdan sonra çox şeyə baxış acım dəyişdi. İnsanların anlaşılmaz varlıqlar olmadığını bilirəm artıq. Sadəcə insanlar digər canlılardan fərqlidirlər, çünki onlar sorğulamağa məhkumdular. Məsələn, bir heyvan həyata gələrkən, "görəsən niyə burdayam, mənim missiyam nədən ibarətdir, həyatımın anlamı nədir" deyə soruşmur. O, sadəcə instikləri vasitəsilə hadisələrə reaksiya verir. Amma insanda bu şəkildə instiklər formalaşmayıb. O, mütləq hər şeydə bir səbəb, bir bağlantı axtarmağa məhkumdur. Elə bütün etdiyi, hətta anlamsız kimi görünən davranışları da əslində öz varlığının anlamsızlığından və sonluluğundan, yəni ölümə məhkumluğundan qorxması üzündəndir.

Kitabda tamamilə razılaşmadığım fikir olmadı, sadəcə biraz da açıla biləcəyini düşündüyüm bir-iki məqam oldu. Hətta kitab boyu yazarla birlikdə mən də düşünməyə çalışırdım, öz nöqteyi nəzərimdən müşahidə etdiklərimi və öz yaşadıqlarımı, davranış və reaksiyalarımı analiz edirdim. Bu baxımdan, düşünürəm ki, bu kitab hər birinizə yaşamı, insanları və özünüzü sorğuladacaq və tamamilə olmasa da, nisbətən daha anlaşıqlı olacaq çox şey sizin üçün. Tamamilə demirəm, çünki həyatı və ölümü tamamilə anlamaq mümkün deyil, bilirəm.

Kitabın sonunda yazar psixoanalizmlə din arasında müqayisə aparır və insanların özlərini bu çarəsizlikdən qurtarmaq üçün bu iki mənbəyə necə müraciət etdiklərini, bundan doğa biləcək nəticələri də göstərir. Sonda gəlinən nəticənin özü qorxunc görünsə də, bir o qədər də aydınlaşdırıcı olması baxımından yaxşıdı. Çünki insan çarəsizliyini qəbul etməlidir, ümumiyyətlə məhz varlığını və yaşamı olduğu kimi qəbul etməlidi məncə. Mənim düşüncəmə görə, insan normal yaşamaq istəyirsə ilk növbədə hər şeyi olduğu halı ilə qəbullanaraq, hər şeydə məhz anlam axtarmağa çalışmadan yaşamaq lazımdı.

Şiddətlə hər birinizə, ən azından araşdırmağı, aydınlaşdırmağı sevən kəslərə bu kitabı oxumağınızı tövsiyə edirəm!

This prize winning book from 1973 has immense value today because it captures how very smart people explained the world in those days and it is amazing we ever got out of the self referential tautological cave that was being created to explain who we are. There is nothing more dangerous than using just intuition and strong arguments without empirical data to reach your conclusions. That's what this author does.

He ties existential and psychoanalytical thought and the necessity for beliefs in God in to a worldview. He will tell us that it is our repression and our denial that end up giving us our neurosis. He does not use the psychoanalytical system developed by Freud because he makes our neurosis more than just dependent on sexual repressions, but nevertheless his system ends with 'castration', 'transference', and other such psychoanalytical belief systems. (That's why I feel comfortable characterizing his system as self-referential tautological. He's creating a system, some what like mathematics, by assuming truths within the system and using the system to justify the system. There's no way to refute the system unless one steps out of the system. That is to say, there is no way to show the system is incoherent within the system itself and there are things within the system which can neither be shown true or false).

He's just taking a pseudoscience and working within the system and uses the same techniques to develop his similar system of pseudoscience but he's going to call it post-Freudian. He will conclude things such as the schizophrenic and psychotic are 'neurotic' principally because they see the true reality better, the reality of the absurdity of life, the fact that we live with the certainty of death, and the inadequacy of life, the inability to live with the freedom we our given.

He will go into a whole host of reasons why we are inadequate. He'll even explain how LGBTQ people are perverted because fetishes created while growing up has led to that extreme denial of themselves (probably something to do with their lack of character).

The author emphasizes that character, culture and values determine who we become. Those who lack any of those three end up with 'neurosis', because under his psycho-dynamic system we know everyone is neurotic to some degree because one who denies his own repression must be neurotic and out of touch with reality. (There is a beautiful tautology within his belief system).

Unfortunately, to understand the 1970s one must understand how smart people did embrace the kind of thinking presented in this book. It's amazing that we as a society got out of that psychoanalytical trap. Now days, neurosis is not used as a category in the DSM for a reason.

I can highly recommend this book since it gives such an interesting window that psychoanalysis mistakenly provided to human understanding in 1973. It clearly gives a great peak into how psychiatry got off the rails. I would highly recommend reading "Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry" before attempting this pseudo-scientific book. "Shrinks" documents how psychiatry got so far off the rails and how it found itself by becoming a real science by including the empirical. This book, "Denial of Death", marks the start of the beginning from which a new era for human understanding began to finally find itself and jettison junk like this book contains.

A book for reflection and meditation. It was a joy to read despite the title. The Denial of Death is an easy read. And it is enlightening. The only fault I find with it (there must be one, yea?) is that it focuses too much on psychology/psychoanalysis. Granted, the book does require a strong assertion of these fields, but I feel that at some points, it was giving us more summaries of theories than coming up with something original. Still, it is a must read for anyone who is curious about how one consciously or ( mostly) unconsciously deals with death.

Simply one of the best books I’ve ever read..