After reading the essay, one thing that stayed in my mind was the way Eagleton describes individuals as being subjects. I guess those who are learning Literature could be seen as subjects. They are representing the rest of society and are involved in the "moral technology." To me though, I feel that this particular wording is too de-humanizing, it seems un-natural. An individual is a simplier and nicer way of putting it. It makes it sound more like a scientific study in a lab. At the same time, it also seems appropriate because subjectivity is a formal category. A group with no specific beliefs. The generalization of naming the individuals was probably not an easy thing.

Eagleton makes several good points about liberal humanists and their desires. They want to transform society into one "marked by peace, justice, and loving kindness." Like Eagleton, I believe, that liberal humanists would indeed struggle with the transformation. A conflict between those who agree and those who don't would certainly cause a delay for the liberal humanists in reaching their goal.

Eagleton also points out that literature is a form of personal growth. I believe Literature shapes our lives. It is through our experience and our imaginations that Literature teaches us morals and creative attitudes about life.

Literature can definitely be viewed as a concrete foundatioin for developing one's moral values. Literature seems to convert individuals into understanding a deeper sense of the meaning of life.