By Kevin Casey
1. A summary of the key ideas of this section:
A large part of this chapter focused on three important historical figures: Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Hobbes, and St. Ignatius Loyola. Nietzsche, a nihilist, was a positive atheist and therefore deliberately decided that God does not exist, as did Hobbes, while Loyola was a Roman Catholic who believed in God.
Nietzsch believed that life is what the individual makes it, although the "strong" will dominate the weak and influence society towards their views. On the other hand, Loyola believed everyone has a specific purpose, with that specific purpose leading us to the loving God who created us. And then there is Hobbe's view on the meaning of life: there isn't one. This pessimism was pretty much his view on all human beings, as he taught that we are no different than wild animals, always looking to be better then everyone else. Niezsche disagreed, arguing that the human race will eventually evolve into a super-race, dominated by Supermen (Übermensch). The Supermen can be compared to the large coprorations that influence the teen generation, such as Viacom and AOL Time Warner, as The Merchants of Cool demonstrated. But there's a catch this system: in order to achieve this, we must reject God. Loyola, though, taught that we need God to help us achieve our destiny of something great- the Kingdom of God.
In order to bring ourselves closer to God, the "Truth," so to speak, Loyola recognized that we are to use reason- as long was we do not worship it. Hobbes might as well have worshipped reason, though, because he believe it could be used to understand everything. Nietzsche, being a nihilist, didn't believe reason was capable of discover all truths of the world. He and Hobbes did agree on something, though: relative morality , or the belief that what is right for one person isn't necessarily right for the other. Loyola believed in the opposite view of an objective morality, where this is one Law of right and wrong, given to us by God, that all humans are subject to.
The chapter also touched on the challenge of science, and how it can most certainly go hand-in-hand with Catholicism. As Pius IX wrote in
And last (but definitely not least!) the chapter introduced the concept ofthe power of dehumanization, or materialism in today's society. Father John Kavanaugh, S.J., explained this concept, addressing how people are more and more basing their social identity on commercial imagery and acceptance by means of the media. The "ultimate moral imperative" comes down to the act of consuming as a matter of identity.
2. Two major ideas I want to remember and why I want to remember them:
The first idea I want to remember from this chapter is the concept of unreflective unity, reflective disunity, and reflective unity. I do not want to remember this because that is the basic relationship science has had with Faith throughout history; I want to remember it for the example the book uses (page 111) on how it applies to teenagers and their parents. I had never really thought about it, but after reading this example it totally made sense. And the fact that I'm in the stage of reflective disunity (a point of wanting separation from our parents)is something I want to keep in mind as I continue forming relationships with my parents in the next couple of years.
The second idea I want to remember I got from listening to "A History of Doubt" on Speaking of Faith. A major idea I derived from listening to the program (my own summary) is that a person's doubt is NOT simply a rejection of Faith; yet that is what I had always assumed. Just because doubt may disagree with a certain theological standpoint or religion doesn't mean that the doubter's viewpoint is one of pessimism. In fact, many doubters emphasize the need for a positive philosophy to live by. This being said, it is also true that doubters, although they may disagree with religion, usually are not against the idea of it. I am glad that I now know this information because it put to rest a false and negative stereotype of "doubters" (such as certain atheists) that I had held for the longest time.
3. One image that captures the chapter for me:
4. One significant question I have from this chapter, whether intellectual or personal, with a possible answer:
After watching The Merchants of Cool, I wonder how much pop culture has affected my identity as a person?
As my theology teacher said, I really do think I- along with many of my friends- are outside of this monopoly of teenage personalities that many corporations have. I personally do not watch TV stations such as MTV and the many reality shows. I listen to music I want to listen- whether it be what everyone else is listening to or not- because it's what I like. And yes, I do pay attention to the beauty of a girl, but I can honestly say I've never sized one up like some product on the shelf. In fact, I quite honestly think those girls (a.k.a. "The Plastics) that do bleach their hair, go tanning, seem to focus completely one being skinny, etc., tend to be the uglier ones. So if what The Merchants of Cool, along with other sources, say is right, then I'm not the norm teenager, craving to be like the celebs- and that's something to be proud of.
Yet there's still that part of me, I believe its in everyone, that has the fear of being the dork, the freak. There are clothes I buy, styles I wear, that maybe I wouldn't wear except that they are in fact popular. I do own clothes that I avoid wearing to school because I'm afraid it will be "uncool," regardless of what I think. I watch what I say, too, because there are certain things, certain lines, that only a so-called loser would say. And I can't help but think that this fear of being a reject- although somewhat natural and within everyone- is enhanced and fueled by these public "powers of dehumanization." And if that's the case, as much I hate to admit it, even my identity has roots in the popular culture.