The Second Mountain

What are the two American moral ecologies that Brooks outlines in Chapter 1? What is the fundamental difference between them? Brooks thinks there’s a problem with both. What are those problems? How does he think the country should progress?

Brooks believes there is a loneliness crisis in the United States. He thinks this is connected to a crisis of purpose and meaning and a culture of hyper-individualism. Do you agree? Why or why not?

What do you make of Brooks’s characterizations of “the valley” and “the wilderness”? Do you think it is necessary to go through self-transformative periods of suffering to overcome self-centered worldviews? Is Brooks in danger of glorifying suffering? How should we draw meaning from the most difficult aspects of our lives?

Brooks seeks a relational, community-based moral ecology that dissolves the dichotomy between selfish egoism and selfless altruism. Why? Do you think that this is possible? Desirable? What would such a society look like?

Brooks uses four different kinds of commitments to structure his articulation of the nature of a second-mountain life. These commitments are to vocation, marriage, community, and religion or faith. How do these work in conjunction to produce a committed life? Are these all necessary? Are there other important kinds of commitments? Where might Brooks be over-generalizing and what might he be overlooking?

What is the importance of vocation? How does a person choose a vocation, if at all? How does Brooks articulate the importance of mentorship in connection with the development of vocation, especially in contrast with the “big empty box” of advice he criticizes in Chapter 2? Explain.

By a wide margin, the longest chapter in the book is about Brooks’s religious conversion. Why do you think Brooks made this chapter more personal than others? Do you think faith plays a more fundamental role in commitment to the second-mountain life than the other forms of commitment? Why or why not?

How does community-building work as a panacea to the culture of hyper-individualism? Brooks thinks in terms of neighborhood systems and downplays the role of individual problem-solving. Why? How does “systems thinking” on a local level serve as a better antidote to individualistic culture than traditional altruistic forms of philanthropy?