HelloAngel
ONE love, blood, life
[SIMG]http://forum.interference.com/gallery/data//585/11265u2philosophy-sml.jpg[/SIMG]
By Maggie Gerrity
2007.03
Think of a famous philosopher. Does Aristotle come to mind? Friedrich Nietzsche, perhaps? What about Bono?
U2 has established itself as a band with both style and substance. Fans have spent decades debating the meaning of lyrics and watching as the band has crusaded against poverty, AIDS, and other social causes. But does U2 really matter outside the realm of popular music?
“U2 and Philosophy: How to Decipher an Atomic Band” is the first book that aims to show the connections between the band’s music and the work of philosophers such as Plato, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard. Edited by Brigham Young philosophy professor Mark A. Wrathall, the book brings together fifteen essays that link U2 to a deeper discussion of existential Christianity, Platonic love, the existence of evil, postmodernity, and other philosophical concepts. Many of the book’s contributors are U2 fans themselves, as highlighted in the author profiles, which are laced with clever references to U2 songs (one contributor thinks of himself as an “intellectual tortoise,” while another “has the right shoes to get him through the night”).
Unfortunately, “U2 and Philosophy” is a lot more about philosophy than it is about U2. While it’s sure to attract U2 fans, it doesn’t offer the in-depth examination of the band’s lyrics or evolution that many readers might crave. The book was published as part of Open Court’s series Popular Culture and Philosophy, which also includes books linking philosophy with “The Simpsons,” “Star Wars,” and Bob Dylan, among others. Some essays provide a strong overview of key philosophical concepts, while others examine much more complex issues. In many essays, though, U2 seems to slip into the background, going unmentioned for pages at a time.
For instance, Marina Berzins McCoy provides an excellent introduction to Platonic love as discussed in Plato’s “Symposium” in the book’s first essay, “‘We Can Be One’: Love and Platonic Transcendence in U2.” She establishes a potentially compelling view of the lyrics from several songs off of “War,” but the essay never looks closely at the songs she mentions. Had the author used more examples from the lyrics to “New Year’s Day” and “Two Hearts Beat As One,” her message might have come across in a much more convincing way.
Elsewhere in the collection, Iain Thomson’s “‘Even Better Than the Real Thing’? Postmodernity, the Triumph of the Simulacra, and U2” is as dense as its title suggests, and a discussion of “Zooropa” and several other songs gets buried. Jennifer McClinton-Temple and Abigail Myers seem to mislead readers a bit in “U2, Feminism, and Ethics of Care” when they assert that, “U2 do not address women in their songs, nor do they sing about woman in a way that is either objectifying or idealizing” (110). Bono does not settle for the objectified view of women in his lyrics, but saying that U2 does not address women overlooks some of what many would consider its finest songs. Maybe the authors meant to suggest that U2 does not address women in the clichéd ways many pop songs do, but they don’t make that distinction clear.
Craig Delancy’s “Why Listen to U2?” is the most problematic essay in the collection. He attacks the mainstream media and argues that rock musicians’ voices are often more authentic. However, he loses credibility when he states, “I’m confident none of these four men [the members of U2] knows much about political economics, about civil rights history, or labor history, about AIDS vectors or conflict resolution” (127). Though Bono has faced a great deal of criticism regarding his humanitarian work, what’s enabled him time and again to silence his critics is the fact that he knows what he’s talking about. He’s not merely throwing his money into a cause he hasn’t taken the time to truly learn about. Near the end of the essay Delancy suggests that U2 is worth listening to because their ability to craft lyrics enables them to effectively deliver their message, but he doesn’t show enough examples.
Despite its weaknesses, “U2 and Philosophy” does contain several noteworthy essays. Jeff Malpas’s essay “Philosophizing Place in ‘The Joshua Tree’” is the highlight of the collection and a must-read for any fan. Malpas’s writing is clear and well-developed, and he uses examples from “The Joshua Tree” as stepping stones to a larger discussion of how identity is shaped by place, movement, and struggles with faith. He argues, “Since we come to places, as well as lose them, through movement . . . so the restless character of U2’s music and lyrics serves to reinforce the more explicit concern with place, home, belonging and loss” (45). While Malpas discusses Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, and others, his focus remains rooted enough in “The Joshua Tree” to keep readers from getting lost.
Trenton Merricks offers an interesting analysis of U2’s lyrics in opposition to XTC’s well-known song “Dear God” in “U2 and the Problem of Evil.” In “‘Until the End of the World’: U2, Eschatology, and Heidegger’s ‘Being-toward-Death,’” V.S. Benfell III illustrates Heidegger’s idea that human beings are “thrown” into existence by discussing Wim Wenders’s films “Wings of Desire” and “Faraway So Close,” as well as the lyrics to “Stay.” In “To Find a Song that I Can Sing: What Philosophy of Language Can Tell Us about Popular Success,” Theodore Gracyk uses lyrics from “Pop” and “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” to explain why the latter album and tour were more successful. Whereas many of the lyrics on “Pop” focused on the self looking inward, many of the songs on “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” look outward, enabling listeners to connect with them better.
The conflict between body and spirit is a central struggle in philosophy. At times, “U2 and Philosophy” seems to present readers with a similar conflict. The book had an opportunity to dig deeply into U2’s music, using philosophy to help fans reach a new and perhaps better understanding of the songs they love. Instead, it too often relies on clever and often forced references to U2 (“Et tu, Bono?” a subtitle in one essay quips). It contains factual errors (misspellings of song names, for instance, as well as a discography at the back of the book that lists the release date of “The Unforgettable Fire” as 1990). Many of the essays could stand on their own without any discussion of U2; in fact, some might have been better off that way. Fans with an interest in philosophy might find this an enjoyable read, but those hoping to gain deeper insight into U2’s lyrics may find themselves disappointed.
By Maggie Gerrity
2007.03
Think of a famous philosopher. Does Aristotle come to mind? Friedrich Nietzsche, perhaps? What about Bono?
U2 has established itself as a band with both style and substance. Fans have spent decades debating the meaning of lyrics and watching as the band has crusaded against poverty, AIDS, and other social causes. But does U2 really matter outside the realm of popular music?
“U2 and Philosophy: How to Decipher an Atomic Band” is the first book that aims to show the connections between the band’s music and the work of philosophers such as Plato, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard. Edited by Brigham Young philosophy professor Mark A. Wrathall, the book brings together fifteen essays that link U2 to a deeper discussion of existential Christianity, Platonic love, the existence of evil, postmodernity, and other philosophical concepts. Many of the book’s contributors are U2 fans themselves, as highlighted in the author profiles, which are laced with clever references to U2 songs (one contributor thinks of himself as an “intellectual tortoise,” while another “has the right shoes to get him through the night”).
Unfortunately, “U2 and Philosophy” is a lot more about philosophy than it is about U2. While it’s sure to attract U2 fans, it doesn’t offer the in-depth examination of the band’s lyrics or evolution that many readers might crave. The book was published as part of Open Court’s series Popular Culture and Philosophy, which also includes books linking philosophy with “The Simpsons,” “Star Wars,” and Bob Dylan, among others. Some essays provide a strong overview of key philosophical concepts, while others examine much more complex issues. In many essays, though, U2 seems to slip into the background, going unmentioned for pages at a time.
For instance, Marina Berzins McCoy provides an excellent introduction to Platonic love as discussed in Plato’s “Symposium” in the book’s first essay, “‘We Can Be One’: Love and Platonic Transcendence in U2.” She establishes a potentially compelling view of the lyrics from several songs off of “War,” but the essay never looks closely at the songs she mentions. Had the author used more examples from the lyrics to “New Year’s Day” and “Two Hearts Beat As One,” her message might have come across in a much more convincing way.
Elsewhere in the collection, Iain Thomson’s “‘Even Better Than the Real Thing’? Postmodernity, the Triumph of the Simulacra, and U2” is as dense as its title suggests, and a discussion of “Zooropa” and several other songs gets buried. Jennifer McClinton-Temple and Abigail Myers seem to mislead readers a bit in “U2, Feminism, and Ethics of Care” when they assert that, “U2 do not address women in their songs, nor do they sing about woman in a way that is either objectifying or idealizing” (110). Bono does not settle for the objectified view of women in his lyrics, but saying that U2 does not address women overlooks some of what many would consider its finest songs. Maybe the authors meant to suggest that U2 does not address women in the clichéd ways many pop songs do, but they don’t make that distinction clear.
Craig Delancy’s “Why Listen to U2?” is the most problematic essay in the collection. He attacks the mainstream media and argues that rock musicians’ voices are often more authentic. However, he loses credibility when he states, “I’m confident none of these four men [the members of U2] knows much about political economics, about civil rights history, or labor history, about AIDS vectors or conflict resolution” (127). Though Bono has faced a great deal of criticism regarding his humanitarian work, what’s enabled him time and again to silence his critics is the fact that he knows what he’s talking about. He’s not merely throwing his money into a cause he hasn’t taken the time to truly learn about. Near the end of the essay Delancy suggests that U2 is worth listening to because their ability to craft lyrics enables them to effectively deliver their message, but he doesn’t show enough examples.
Despite its weaknesses, “U2 and Philosophy” does contain several noteworthy essays. Jeff Malpas’s essay “Philosophizing Place in ‘The Joshua Tree’” is the highlight of the collection and a must-read for any fan. Malpas’s writing is clear and well-developed, and he uses examples from “The Joshua Tree” as stepping stones to a larger discussion of how identity is shaped by place, movement, and struggles with faith. He argues, “Since we come to places, as well as lose them, through movement . . . so the restless character of U2’s music and lyrics serves to reinforce the more explicit concern with place, home, belonging and loss” (45). While Malpas discusses Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, and others, his focus remains rooted enough in “The Joshua Tree” to keep readers from getting lost.
Trenton Merricks offers an interesting analysis of U2’s lyrics in opposition to XTC’s well-known song “Dear God” in “U2 and the Problem of Evil.” In “‘Until the End of the World’: U2, Eschatology, and Heidegger’s ‘Being-toward-Death,’” V.S. Benfell III illustrates Heidegger’s idea that human beings are “thrown” into existence by discussing Wim Wenders’s films “Wings of Desire” and “Faraway So Close,” as well as the lyrics to “Stay.” In “To Find a Song that I Can Sing: What Philosophy of Language Can Tell Us about Popular Success,” Theodore Gracyk uses lyrics from “Pop” and “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” to explain why the latter album and tour were more successful. Whereas many of the lyrics on “Pop” focused on the self looking inward, many of the songs on “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” look outward, enabling listeners to connect with them better.
The conflict between body and spirit is a central struggle in philosophy. At times, “U2 and Philosophy” seems to present readers with a similar conflict. The book had an opportunity to dig deeply into U2’s music, using philosophy to help fans reach a new and perhaps better understanding of the songs they love. Instead, it too often relies on clever and often forced references to U2 (“Et tu, Bono?” a subtitle in one essay quips). It contains factual errors (misspellings of song names, for instance, as well as a discography at the back of the book that lists the release date of “The Unforgettable Fire” as 1990). Many of the essays could stand on their own without any discussion of U2; in fact, some might have been better off that way. Fans with an interest in philosophy might find this an enjoyable read, but those hoping to gain deeper insight into U2’s lyrics may find themselves disappointed.
) is that it never seemed to have a clear grasp on its audience. Was it for people who know nothing about philosophy? Was it for people already somewhat familiar with philosophy? Was it for U2 fans? Was it for people who know who U2 is but don't know much about the band? At different points in the book, I found myself answering each of these questions "yes," which made me feel pulled around while I was reading. 
