I wonder if the west and some of its thought leaders can change almost over night with the right stories. The true story of the ongoing genocide and the support of it by western leaders is pretty compelling.
Yes, Diana! The current circumstances couldn't be much better for more "almost overnight" changes in beliefs: about climate change, about capitalism, and especially about Palestine.
This was well written and I’m open to the idea, however, I’m a huge fan of Harari and have read all but his latest book, and I must defend him by saying he never condones or condemns his points. Ppl accuse him of being a postmodern humanist bent on changing the human biology after his book Homo Deus, but he has always said the claims in there were speculation and not necessarily his. He has also said in interviews that calling something a fiction or myth doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe it or go along with it. He defends borders and money and those are also myths in his eyes. In Sapiens, I think he is making a much larger meta point regarding the French Revolution: that philosophies that are hyper dogmatic can dissolve as fast as they arise. No one should read his books as academic sources for a research project, but as fascinating philosophy probing primers. Carlyle will still be the best French Revolution source academically. Your criticisms are true, but not really necessary because I don’t think Harari is trying to be what you think he is. I might disagree with your comments on WW2 and food shortages haha. Good writing, I enjoyed
Jack, I’m glad to know you enjoyed the article, especially given you’re a big fan of Harari, and I appreciate the comment--thank you.
Frankly, your counterpoints don’t really land: I’m not assessing “Sapiens” as a potential source for an academic research project; I’m not commenting on Homo Deus; I didn’t comment here on his ideological orientation of his motives regarding human biology or what I think “Harari is trying to be.” I’m not sure which of my comments about Harari’s passage on WW2 and food shortages you might be referring to.
I’m primarily criticizing the arguments he makes in the telling of history—his historiography. After all, what is “Sapiens”? Associated with a genre of popular history known as “big history,” Sapiens tells a story of our species from the Big Bang to the present.
I think popular history can play an important role in society. However, I think it should still stand up to scrutiny—don’t you? I think they should be at the very least internally consistent and coherent. I think popular audiences deserve that. Such audiences are relying on the expertise of the author, and Harari has a PhD in History. The book is delivered in a very objective and authoritative tone—there’s absolutely no indication in “Sapiens” that Harari thinks his readers should not take his history seriously or that it’s some kind of philosophy primer.
What I’m challenging in this particular essay about the French Revolution is Harari’s consistency. He claims that society can be reorganized by telling different stories, and he refers to the French Revolution as an example. I’m interested in trying to understand, from a social and historical perspective, how he thinks that works, how the myths changed “almost overnight.” But he doesn’t give a coherent account of how that works in the case of the French Revolution. When he brings up the same topic in other parts of the book, he’s not consistent, as I detail in the essay. I think that’s a problem, especially considering how widely read the book is and that he makes many arguments in the book that have political implications.
I wonder if the west and some of its thought leaders can change almost over night with the right stories. The true story of the ongoing genocide and the support of it by western leaders is pretty compelling.
Yes, Diana! The current circumstances couldn't be much better for more "almost overnight" changes in beliefs: about climate change, about capitalism, and especially about Palestine.
I'm glad you think so too, Kevin.
We should all be having major epiphanies!
This was well written and I’m open to the idea, however, I’m a huge fan of Harari and have read all but his latest book, and I must defend him by saying he never condones or condemns his points. Ppl accuse him of being a postmodern humanist bent on changing the human biology after his book Homo Deus, but he has always said the claims in there were speculation and not necessarily his. He has also said in interviews that calling something a fiction or myth doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe it or go along with it. He defends borders and money and those are also myths in his eyes. In Sapiens, I think he is making a much larger meta point regarding the French Revolution: that philosophies that are hyper dogmatic can dissolve as fast as they arise. No one should read his books as academic sources for a research project, but as fascinating philosophy probing primers. Carlyle will still be the best French Revolution source academically. Your criticisms are true, but not really necessary because I don’t think Harari is trying to be what you think he is. I might disagree with your comments on WW2 and food shortages haha. Good writing, I enjoyed
Jack, I’m glad to know you enjoyed the article, especially given you’re a big fan of Harari, and I appreciate the comment--thank you.
Frankly, your counterpoints don’t really land: I’m not assessing “Sapiens” as a potential source for an academic research project; I’m not commenting on Homo Deus; I didn’t comment here on his ideological orientation of his motives regarding human biology or what I think “Harari is trying to be.” I’m not sure which of my comments about Harari’s passage on WW2 and food shortages you might be referring to.
I’m primarily criticizing the arguments he makes in the telling of history—his historiography. After all, what is “Sapiens”? Associated with a genre of popular history known as “big history,” Sapiens tells a story of our species from the Big Bang to the present.
I think popular history can play an important role in society. However, I think it should still stand up to scrutiny—don’t you? I think they should be at the very least internally consistent and coherent. I think popular audiences deserve that. Such audiences are relying on the expertise of the author, and Harari has a PhD in History. The book is delivered in a very objective and authoritative tone—there’s absolutely no indication in “Sapiens” that Harari thinks his readers should not take his history seriously or that it’s some kind of philosophy primer.
What I’m challenging in this particular essay about the French Revolution is Harari’s consistency. He claims that society can be reorganized by telling different stories, and he refers to the French Revolution as an example. I’m interested in trying to understand, from a social and historical perspective, how he thinks that works, how the myths changed “almost overnight.” But he doesn’t give a coherent account of how that works in the case of the French Revolution. When he brings up the same topic in other parts of the book, he’s not consistent, as I detail in the essay. I think that’s a problem, especially considering how widely read the book is and that he makes many arguments in the book that have political implications.