The following sums up the central theme of this Pulitzer Prize-winner:
"For now, it is enough to invoke Marcia Lee Anderson's complete scientific formula: `Stripped of subtle complications [i.e., of all the character defenses - repression, denial, misconceptions of reality], who could regard the sun except with fear?'"(p.66)
Hereafter I'll quote extensively, as opposed to paraphrasing, in order to make it as beneficial for the interested individual as I can.
Ernest chose a title that he knew would resonate with the public: The Denial of Death. But the book should have been called `The Denial of Life', because people not only repress their inevitable demise, but even more so their lives. The book is centered on the philosophy that every person starting in childhood creates an imaginary world where, to put it simply, everything is better and the people are nicer, so not to perceive the intricately problematic reality. Ernest aptly summarized prominent thinkers and students of human nature of the past 150 years, including Soren Kierkegaard, Otto Rank, Norman Brown, and Sigmund Freud. One might rightfully say that some of the latter men's conclusions were repudiated by modern thought. However, their fundamental findings - such as Freud's narcissist, Kierkegaard's `introvert', or Rank's artist - on characters of man are timeless. Details, tactics, and strategies of how to approach the very complex study of human nature change, but the nature itself doesn't. As much as I wish to discuss this book at length, I won't do it for lack of space. I'll succinctly outline the work of one philosopher, who is one of the most astute men in history, and briefly summarize two others, Sigmund Freud and Otto Rank.
The 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard analyzed man's inner characters. Even though more than 150 years have elapsed, his ingenuous analysis can readily be applied to our modern society.
The immediate man - the modern inauthentic or insincere man - is someone who blindly follows the trends of society to the dot. Someone who unthinkingly implements what society says is "right." "He recognizes himself only by his dress,...he recognizes that he has a self only by externals." (p.74) He converts frivolous patterns to make them his identity. He often distorts his own personality in order to "fit into the group". His opinion means nothing even to himself, hence he imitates others to superficially look "normal."
The introvert, the one "who tries to cultivate his interiority...he is a little more concerned with what it means to be a person", he who "enjoys solitude and withdraws periodically to reflect." (p.82) He enjoys reading and thinking about the deepness of life, human relations, and the universe in general. But Ernest wrote that introvert "is not an immediate man, but not a real man either, even though he gives the appearance of it." (p.83)
And finally "the one who asserts himself out of defiance of his own weakness, who tries to be a god unto himself, the master of his fate, a self-created man." (p. 84) But "the ugly side of this Promethianism is that it, too, is thoughtless, and empty-headed immersion in the delight of technics with no thought to goals or meaning." (p.85)
The aforementioned personalities are not what Ernest considered "real" men. Ernest, by interpreting Kierkegaard, regarded "the true individual, the self-realized soul, the 'real man,' is the one who has transcended himself." (p.86) (When he talks about self-transcendence throughout the book the text understandably becomes abstract.) He is the one who has admitted that his essential character has been a big lie, created to protect the self from the difficult reality of life. In order to psychologically survive such a realization one has to surrender oneself to the Ultimate Power of Creation, or so Ernest recommends.
The book also talks at length about Freud, "perhaps the greatest psychologist who ever lived." (p.256), the man who was "like a Biblical prophet, who spoke a truth that no one wants to hear...whose pessimism [was] grounded in reality, in scientific truth." (p.94) He was a cynic who did not deceive himself about the man's "basic creatureliness," his inner animal. He was hated by many for unveiling that the fundamental nature of every man is weak and self-deceptive. He was the mentor of Otto Rank, who was a brilliant psychoanalyst. Eventually Freud severed his relationship with Rank due to irreconcilable disagreements.
It seems that Becker worshipped Rank religiously. When Rank was 21, he impressed Freud so much with his intellect and insight that Freud made him a part of his inner-circle of confidants. Rank's most monumental work was his `Art and Artist'. In it Rank contemplated the creative type of man, who is the one whose "experience makes him take in the world as a problem...but when you no longer accept the collective solution to the problem of existence, then you must fashion your own...The work of art is...the ideal answer..."
And now I'll briefly express my disagreement with Becker's ultimate cure for man's despondent predicament of "real" life. I certainly am not as knowledgeable as Becker and my opinion towards life will definitely change during the years, but now let's not be "the modern mechanical men in Russia, the near-billion sheeplike followers in China, and the brutalized and ignorant populations of almost every continent." (p.281) Even though Becker didn't advocate any particular religion, "finding god" unavoidably decays one's mind and leads him to Christianity, Islam, etc. The fact that can't be refuted is that religion in general, Christianity in particular, has been the most efficient and cruel oppressor of intellect for millennia. And, because it has also been the most potent restraint upon progress, one would only shrink and limit his horizons by adhering to it. And what I deem especially interesting about Ernest's prescription for a god is that it was a way to battle one's fear and dejection. Fear, that indelible and prevalent emotion of men in any culture was relied on by religion to compel men to follow man-made Biblical laws. I'm not an advocate of atheism. But I'm a proponent of full and interesting life, something that religion takes away by promising to arrange an eternal afterlife.
Notwithstanding some of the Becker's conclusions that I don't agree with, this book is the best work on human nature that I know of; somewhat superior to `On Human Nature' by Edward Wilson. I must warn though that having read it thoroughly will not only alter your outlook on life and your relationships with your peers, but it will also make you sadder...but wiser.
Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
The Denial of Death has been added to your Cart
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Mass Market Paperback
"Please retry" |
—
| — | $12.98 |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $19.46 | — |
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
I fail to see why the author and other psychoanalysts insist on making terror of death a governing element of life, and who see death as an aberration, rather than a central part of life and evolution.Heroism is not something one seeks out to overcome the terror of death so much as it is the attempt to make one’s way in life and contribute to it.I see heroism every day practiced by crows defending their nests and offspring against marauding bald eagles. They are protecting what they value, not running away from what they fear.Does the terror of death really govern our lives? Aren’t people today more relaxed with death as central to nature, life, and to the majestic processes of evolution?People today no longer see nature as “red in tooth-and-claw.” They see even wild animals enjoying life a great deal and not always living in fear. Other animals like us are more in fear of dying than of the abstract loss of existence. It wasn’t too long ago that we also knew the fear of being captured and eaten alive.What we fear now is the the loss of our world of experience the loss of family and the simple pleasures of life.People today are able to honor and even celebrate death as a culmination of life, not disruption of it.I worry that the author did not give enough attention to how the dualistic belief in the afterlife further alienates us from nature and other animals.We can handle the prospect of our own oblivion. We practice that every night in sleep.Accepting death means accepting the full reality of life with all its benefits and limitations. Accepting death means embracing all of life.
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Mike
Depending on what you want from a book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on March 9, 2019Ciaran O'Regan
Be careful reading Becker because you can't unread him
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on March 5, 2021Nick H
Unreadable
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 5, 2021
Nick H
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 5, 2021
As you can see from the attached photograph, the font is tiny and consists almost entirely of long, fully justified paragraphs (It's actually worse than it looks because the photo is very well lit).
Maybe I could have managed when I was younger and my eyesight was better but this looks like it was created by somebody who hates reading :-(
Recently tried again in good lighting - Still unreadable because it is a bunch of pretensious, unsubstantiated assertions.
Avoid.
Images in this review
Charles
Hard to get along with
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on November 15, 2022
