Serious, extensive, criticism can be levied at the scientific treatment of mental illness. For considerations of brevity I raise only the most obvious one: To draw scientific conclusions one needs measurable quantities, and their determination must be anything but scientific since it unfailingly requires a choice, which I maintain, is an ethical one. Cracks can be seen to emerge, if not in the edifice of science itself, atleast then at the junction of science and our human experience, where the question of mental health must unquestionable be located. The answers one gets, and thus the conclusions one draws, depend on the questions asked, and the manner of asking. One is always in the business of putting words to science, engaging thus, as one must, the dimension of the symbolic, which defines us as humans, beings of language. There is value in reading non-scientific literature, not measured with the yardstick of science, but properly misunderstood on its own terms. After Freud, read some Lacan, see the graphs and schemas, and note specifically the conclusion that psychoanalysis is not a science.