What do you think?
Rate this book
Popular Culture and Philosophy #21
U2 and Philosophy: How to Decipher an Atomic Band
Is it possible to be a committed Christian and a rock superstar? Can political activists make good music? Do hugely successful rock bands really care about AIDS and poverty in Africa, or is it just another image-enhancing schtick? U2 and Philosophy ponders these and other seeming dichotomies in the career of the Irish supergroup. For over two decades, U2 has been one of the biggest acts in rock music. They’ve produced over a dozen platinum and multiplatinum records and won 15 Grammy Awards. Critics everywhere have praised the band’s thoughtful, complex lyrics and the artistry of their music. At the same time, Bono, the group’s lead singer, has dedicated himself to political and social causes, blurring the line between rock star and respected statesman. Offering fresh insight into the band’s music and activism, these thought-provoking essays allows fans to discover philosophy through the eyes of U2, and rediscover U2 through the eyes of philosophers.
288 pages, Paperback
First published November 8, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 2, 2019
If you hope to enjoy this book, the prerequisites are patience, an interest in U2, and a curiosity about philosophical thought and theories.
This review is primarily notes and reactions.
Since it’s already taken me awhile to get to this point in the book, I figure I should take some notes. I’m still working my way through Part 1, “U2 and the Philosophy of Existence,” which consistently considers U2 through an existential lens. I’ve read five essays so far, and the one I just finished, “The Importance of Being Bono,” stands out among the others, though to be fair this is probably because I just read it. Kerry Soper uses his word count to say something worthwhile, concluding that “Bono’s ongoing investment in basic Christian concepts of grace, redemption, universal morality, charity, love, and so on, grounds his postmodern musings. At the same time, his postmodern sensitivities prevent his Christianity from calcifying into the type of fundamentalist dogmatism that would alienate listeners, create cultural barriers, or reinforce prejudices.” This seems accurate to me, though the essays thus far have definitely been hit or miss. One of them, though I don’t remember which, fit the expectation of pretentious academic drivel, repeating itself from beginning to end with fancy vocabulary and phrasing.
In essay number six, which I read with both annoyance and occasional satisfaction, I concluded that Iain Thomson’s style demonstrates the pretentiousness that annoyed me while pursuing a graduate degree in literature, wherein I read a bunch of critics who use ridiculous vocabularies to communicate basic concepts (with some exceptions). Consider this quote: “Following Derrida [parenthetical deleted] many postmodernists call for us to resist extending the demand for unambiguous precision typical of modern mathematical science into the domain of ordinary life.” Tell me, why could he not make his readers’ job easier by writing something like “Many postmodernists resist modern science's goal of offering black and white answers to life’s questions”? Since I assume most consumers of this book are U2 fans rather than holders of advanced degrees in philosophy, I also assume that a simplified translation of his thoughts would be preferable. As a reader who possesses this book because of an interest in the band U2, I’m also annoyed by his use of parentheses for every analytical point he makes about U2; this may represent his progression of thought, but it does not represent an awareness of his audience very well. In another spot, I could substitute five words for his seventeen: “. . . the postmodernists’ neo-romantic refusal of the modern scientific rejection of romanticism, and so discern the pre-modern roots of postmodernism” = “the postmodernists’ connection to romanticism.” Granted, his seventeen words offer a somewhat nuanced qualification, but even if he deems it necessary, is it worth it? I say, No! All it actually accomplishes is consuming the time it takes to get to my five-word interpretation of his verbosely expressed idea. At this point, I'm nigh unto deeming myself guilty of the same sin.
These complaints suspended, Thomson does in fact have a good argument regarding post-modernity, which he states fairly succinctly: “. . . the concept of the ‘postmodern’ has become so saturated with different meanings that it risks collapsing under the weight of their competing pulls and so fracturing into a disordered multiplicity [. . .] Postmodern begins to look like one of those words used so frequently, and in such a bewildering variety of ways, that it has lost all purchase and specificity.” (And it’s only fair for me to mention that his references to U2 are accurate examples of support for his points, subordinated within his parentheses as they are.) I’d like to say, “F- you, Iain Thomson” (and I have), but I might also like to drink whiskey with him.
Finally, thank you, Thomson: your take on “Even Better Than the Real Thing” is considered in genuine depth, and it rings true, unlike the previous essay (which I extolled), which mentioned the song as an aside to support a point, a suggestion which I questioned but didn’t take the time to critique or fully evaluate. (Further explanation: the previous essay, “The Importance of Being Bono,” suggests that “Even Better than the Real Thing” presents a lover who is “even better than the real thing” . . . yet the lover is supposedly the real thing . . . in contrast Thomson observes that the song, if it references a specific lover, “implies that sexual ecstasy is better than the experience of genuine love,” and that this Western idea of the symbolic being superior/better/triumphing over the actual is superseded, proven false by the reality of communal love, an “all of the above” answer that illustrates Thomson’s take on postmodernity.)
“U2 and the Problem of Evil” sucks, being basically repetitious and, as near as I can judge, circular in its reasoning as well.
“U2, Feminism, and the Ethics of Care” is a good one, and one of three essays in the collection written by women.
As I continue reading this book, I’m being reminded of the greater reward that comes from reading in a compacted amount of time. This is one of the reasons I began restricting myself a few years ago to reading two or occasionally three books at a time. My engagement in these essays has notably intensified after setting aside time each of the last three nights to read one or two of them, and I just finished one of the most engaging so far, V.S. Benfell III’s “‘Until the End of the World’: U2, Eschatology, and Heidegger’s ‘Being-toward-death.’” The exciting thing about this essay is that -- in addition to Benfell’s analysis of U2 songs being spot-on based on his particular lens (he addresses “The Playboy Mansion” and “Until the End of the World” in some detail, as well as offering insightful references to “Stay (Faraway, So Close),” “Gone” and “Last Night on Earth”) -- he clearly outlines, in a highly readable form, the core of Heidegger’s philosophical concept “being-toward-death.” Being less than a novice philosopher, I find this ten-page lesson not short of a thrill.
I do need to mention the second-to-last essay in the collection, for it is the only essay that critiques the work of U2 in a calling-to-task manner. Chris Tollefson, in “The Ancient Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry: U2 and Trash,” questions whether U2’s music, lyrics, and performances actually do us good--catalyzing change--or whether they are merely a consumed catharsis. It’s a significant question and one that he explains and defends well.
This book is on my shelf because I am a fan of the band, and as such, I read this with an expectation of being pleased and receiving enjoyment. My expectations were met in this aspect. I do confess, however, that I have been disillusioned to some extent with the band’s exclusion of the concert experience to people with fairly considerable means. The only sure way to acquire tickets to a show is to buy the privilege of pre-sale tickets, which is a $50 investment that still requires the purchase of a fairly expensive ticket. To me, this seems contradictory to the consistent message of their songs, which attempt to lift up those in various types of poverty: financial, emotional, and the poverty of a lack of freedom. It’s true, their messages primarily target the privileged, a good strategy to affect change, but I’d still like to see the preaching be practiced more with a spirit of inclusion (okay, so they did “give away” their last album to those who can afford an iPhone).
This review is primarily notes and reactions.
Since it’s already taken me awhile to get to this point in the book, I figure I should take some notes. I’m still working my way through Part 1, “U2 and the Philosophy of Existence,” which consistently considers U2 through an existential lens. I’ve read five essays so far, and the one I just finished, “The Importance of Being Bono,” stands out among the others, though to be fair this is probably because I just read it. Kerry Soper uses his word count to say something worthwhile, concluding that “Bono’s ongoing investment in basic Christian concepts of grace, redemption, universal morality, charity, love, and so on, grounds his postmodern musings. At the same time, his postmodern sensitivities prevent his Christianity from calcifying into the type of fundamentalist dogmatism that would alienate listeners, create cultural barriers, or reinforce prejudices.” This seems accurate to me, though the essays thus far have definitely been hit or miss. One of them, though I don’t remember which, fit the expectation of pretentious academic drivel, repeating itself from beginning to end with fancy vocabulary and phrasing.
In essay number six, which I read with both annoyance and occasional satisfaction, I concluded that Iain Thomson’s style demonstrates the pretentiousness that annoyed me while pursuing a graduate degree in literature, wherein I read a bunch of critics who use ridiculous vocabularies to communicate basic concepts (with some exceptions). Consider this quote: “Following Derrida [parenthetical deleted] many postmodernists call for us to resist extending the demand for unambiguous precision typical of modern mathematical science into the domain of ordinary life.” Tell me, why could he not make his readers’ job easier by writing something like “Many postmodernists resist modern science's goal of offering black and white answers to life’s questions”? Since I assume most consumers of this book are U2 fans rather than holders of advanced degrees in philosophy, I also assume that a simplified translation of his thoughts would be preferable. As a reader who possesses this book because of an interest in the band U2, I’m also annoyed by his use of parentheses for every analytical point he makes about U2; this may represent his progression of thought, but it does not represent an awareness of his audience very well. In another spot, I could substitute five words for his seventeen: “. . . the postmodernists’ neo-romantic refusal of the modern scientific rejection of romanticism, and so discern the pre-modern roots of postmodernism” = “the postmodernists’ connection to romanticism.” Granted, his seventeen words offer a somewhat nuanced qualification, but even if he deems it necessary, is it worth it? I say, No! All it actually accomplishes is consuming the time it takes to get to my five-word interpretation of his verbosely expressed idea. At this point, I'm nigh unto deeming myself guilty of the same sin.
These complaints suspended, Thomson does in fact have a good argument regarding post-modernity, which he states fairly succinctly: “. . . the concept of the ‘postmodern’ has become so saturated with different meanings that it risks collapsing under the weight of their competing pulls and so fracturing into a disordered multiplicity [. . .] Postmodern begins to look like one of those words used so frequently, and in such a bewildering variety of ways, that it has lost all purchase and specificity.” (And it’s only fair for me to mention that his references to U2 are accurate examples of support for his points, subordinated within his parentheses as they are.) I’d like to say, “F- you, Iain Thomson” (and I have), but I might also like to drink whiskey with him.
Finally, thank you, Thomson: your take on “Even Better Than the Real Thing” is considered in genuine depth, and it rings true, unlike the previous essay (which I extolled), which mentioned the song as an aside to support a point, a suggestion which I questioned but didn’t take the time to critique or fully evaluate. (Further explanation: the previous essay, “The Importance of Being Bono,” suggests that “Even Better than the Real Thing” presents a lover who is “even better than the real thing” . . . yet the lover is supposedly the real thing . . . in contrast Thomson observes that the song, if it references a specific lover, “implies that sexual ecstasy is better than the experience of genuine love,” and that this Western idea of the symbolic being superior/better/triumphing over the actual is superseded, proven false by the reality of communal love, an “all of the above” answer that illustrates Thomson’s take on postmodernity.)
“U2 and the Problem of Evil” sucks, being basically repetitious and, as near as I can judge, circular in its reasoning as well.
“U2, Feminism, and the Ethics of Care” is a good one, and one of three essays in the collection written by women.
As I continue reading this book, I’m being reminded of the greater reward that comes from reading in a compacted amount of time. This is one of the reasons I began restricting myself a few years ago to reading two or occasionally three books at a time. My engagement in these essays has notably intensified after setting aside time each of the last three nights to read one or two of them, and I just finished one of the most engaging so far, V.S. Benfell III’s “‘Until the End of the World’: U2, Eschatology, and Heidegger’s ‘Being-toward-death.’” The exciting thing about this essay is that -- in addition to Benfell’s analysis of U2 songs being spot-on based on his particular lens (he addresses “The Playboy Mansion” and “Until the End of the World” in some detail, as well as offering insightful references to “Stay (Faraway, So Close),” “Gone” and “Last Night on Earth”) -- he clearly outlines, in a highly readable form, the core of Heidegger’s philosophical concept “being-toward-death.” Being less than a novice philosopher, I find this ten-page lesson not short of a thrill.
I do need to mention the second-to-last essay in the collection, for it is the only essay that critiques the work of U2 in a calling-to-task manner. Chris Tollefson, in “The Ancient Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry: U2 and Trash,” questions whether U2’s music, lyrics, and performances actually do us good--catalyzing change--or whether they are merely a consumed catharsis. It’s a significant question and one that he explains and defends well.
This book is on my shelf because I am a fan of the band, and as such, I read this with an expectation of being pleased and receiving enjoyment. My expectations were met in this aspect. I do confess, however, that I have been disillusioned to some extent with the band’s exclusion of the concert experience to people with fairly considerable means. The only sure way to acquire tickets to a show is to buy the privilege of pre-sale tickets, which is a $50 investment that still requires the purchase of a fairly expensive ticket. To me, this seems contradictory to the consistent message of their songs, which attempt to lift up those in various types of poverty: financial, emotional, and the poverty of a lack of freedom. It’s true, their messages primarily target the privileged, a good strategy to affect change, but I’d still like to see the preaching be practiced more with a spirit of inclusion (okay, so they did “give away” their last album to those who can afford an iPhone).
June 29, 2014
Been a huge fan of the band since it's inception and love spiritual philosophy so it would seem like this would be a book made in heaven but it falls a bit short of the mark. Not to say I didn't learn something new about U2 or something new in philosophy but the mixture together wasn't as engaging as I imagined it would be.
"I'm always attracted to subjects you can't really get a grip on, like sex or God." -Bono
And that would be a great way to describe this book, it never really flows from one point to another point. It randomly takes a U2 lyric(s) and spins from there to go into a philosophy of what Bono and U2 meant. Not to say that their assumptions of what the lyrics mean are wrong, because getting into U2's music you find them very spiritual, even more than most "Christian" bands. And reading their lyrics combined with the knowledge of the Bible where Bono is pulling his ideas from leaves the reader and listener with a fairly good direction of what the song means. But, the chapters are individual chapters standing on their own with no progression of thought. In fact, each chapter is essentially an essay by different authors take of a set of lyrics.
And this is the perplexity of the book. Some chapters are fascinating and very engaging warranting a 5 star rating while others are extremely dry and over-thought making a point that could be said in two sentences, 3-4 pages.
My favorite point to make though is as a fan, I have always been focused on their early career through Joshua Tree. This book really explores some albums and songs from their post-modern phase (Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop) and really opened my eyes to how much depth and spirituality were in those albums when I had previously thought they were more playful lyrics rather than the heavier lyrics or their earlier material. Turns out, while playful, Bono made some great points on these albums, reaching into a reflection of the modern culture much more observant than I ever did at the time.
So in summery, certainly because of the band involved, I finished it. But it's not a light read, nor a real focused read. It's spotty. I probably should give it 2 stars for way it is organized, but I give it 3 simply for being a fan of the band and the few things that happened to be pretty good in it's bringing to light. Unfortunately, I wish there were more of those moments.
"I'm always attracted to subjects you can't really get a grip on, like sex or God." -Bono
And that would be a great way to describe this book, it never really flows from one point to another point. It randomly takes a U2 lyric(s) and spins from there to go into a philosophy of what Bono and U2 meant. Not to say that their assumptions of what the lyrics mean are wrong, because getting into U2's music you find them very spiritual, even more than most "Christian" bands. And reading their lyrics combined with the knowledge of the Bible where Bono is pulling his ideas from leaves the reader and listener with a fairly good direction of what the song means. But, the chapters are individual chapters standing on their own with no progression of thought. In fact, each chapter is essentially an essay by different authors take of a set of lyrics.
And this is the perplexity of the book. Some chapters are fascinating and very engaging warranting a 5 star rating while others are extremely dry and over-thought making a point that could be said in two sentences, 3-4 pages.
My favorite point to make though is as a fan, I have always been focused on their early career through Joshua Tree. This book really explores some albums and songs from their post-modern phase (Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop) and really opened my eyes to how much depth and spirituality were in those albums when I had previously thought they were more playful lyrics rather than the heavier lyrics or their earlier material. Turns out, while playful, Bono made some great points on these albums, reaching into a reflection of the modern culture much more observant than I ever did at the time.
So in summery, certainly because of the band involved, I finished it. But it's not a light read, nor a real focused read. It's spotty. I probably should give it 2 stars for way it is organized, but I give it 3 simply for being a fan of the band and the few things that happened to be pretty good in it's bringing to light. Unfortunately, I wish there were more of those moments.
March 3, 2009
This book was hit or miss for me. It is written by a different author each chapter, so some of those resonated with me, others didn't. It definitely gets deep into philosophy, sometimes over my head, but if you're into philosophy, you'll probably really like it. If you're looking for a little bit of a lighter read, try One Step Closer, it's a litte more opinion based, but an easy read.
February 1, 2009
Is Zarathustra "better than the real thing" Was Judas redeemed? Where are the streets with no name? I love the pop culture and philosophy books, even in their goofier moments and I can't imagine a bono-file's library being complete without this gem
August 18, 2010
I did not agree with his ideas about the meaning of U2 songs.
September 20, 2014
Excellent. I hope to read other books in this series soon.
July 29, 2013
This book definitely wouldn't be for everyone.... You have to not only be a huge U2 fan, but also a philosophy geek..... Interesting stuff though.
June 9, 2025
A surprising amount of philosophy is contained within the music of U2, especially poignant for lovers of theological philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews