“What is the point of it all if we are just going to die anyway?”: Exploring Heideggerian concepts of ‘developing-towards-death’ with children using arts-based existential therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heidegger’s analysis of death in Being and Time (1927) is profoundly impactful, and yet, a neglected aspect of it pertains to child development.Aims The central research question guiding this qualitative study was: when provided with opportunities for creative expression and philosophical inquiry, do children’s attitudes towards death align with Heidegger’s (1927) theories of death and existence?Method Using an arts-based existential therapy approach, we conducted two 60-minute workshops over 2 weeks with elementary school children aged 11-12 providing them with an opportunity to openly reflect on death.Results Participants were transparent in expressing their thoughts and feelings about death and expressed thinking of death often, emphasizing it was almost every day. Children’s perceptions of death were also consistent with Heidegger’s (1927) analysis of Being-towards-death, existential anxiety, and anticipatory resoluteness.Discussion Following an analysis, arts-based existential interventions show promise for the potentiality of adapting Heidegger’s phenomenology for children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".