Your thoughts?

[Anonymous No.15145692]

[Anonymous No.15145706]

ive never read it and im tired of people irl recommending me to read it "because u like books lol". people think of me as "the book guy" and this leads to them thinking ill just read any old tripe they suggest like harari or whatever

[Anonymous No.15145734]

>>15145706
It’s a popular book and has been publicly recommended by many of the world’s elites, which is why normal people who don’t read can name it. That being said, I did read it and found the pre-Neolithic history portion fascinating. Everything else smacks too much of Harari pushing his own views.

[Anonymous No.15145866]

I’ve read about half of it. I’ve been reading about early society stuff a lot the past two years and a lot of this is introductory review for me, with occasional interesting bits I havent read elsewhere. Put it down cause I wanted something with more info that was new to me.

If you have an interest in anthropology or early societies in general then I’d say this book is a good introduction.

[Anonymous No.15145896]

If /lit/ wasn't so contrarian and Harari was a lesser known writer to normies, then they'd love it. Perfect level of dumbed-down explanations and hackneyed insights on par with writers like Ted, Guenon, and Dugin. Just enough to get through the thick skull of the average poster here and make him feel real smug about himself.

[Anonymous No.15145898]

>>15145692
all our institutions are built on collective hallucinations, without which we could never work together

[Anonymous No.15146002]

Book written by a fag for fags

[Anonymous No.15146345]

>>15145692
My mum wanted to have this book for some reason so I had to buy this for birthday present

[Anonymous No.15146491]

>>15145692
written by an israeli
all i need to know

[Anonymous No.15146657]

>>15145898
This is honestly a decent summary.

I think we have an evolutionary desire/need to work together though, and without these hallucinations we’d just make different ones in their place.

I used the word ‘though’, but I guess this doesnt really contradict anything in the book.

[Anonymous No.15146672]

>>15145706
You probably dress like a book guy faggot

[Anonymous No.15146673]

>>15145734
>pushing his own views
Thats why people write books, genius.

[Anonymous No.15146680]

>>15145692
This is a political treatise, acting under the guise of SCIENCE! After it tells you that you''re merely a product a mixture of mud and that you're a wandering, slab of meat on a rock, it says accept liberalism and globalism goyim because that's all there is.

[Anonymous No.15146831]

A hack; worse than Pinker.

[Anonymous No.15147969]

>>15146491
Mind boggingly based

[Anonymous No.15148017]

>>15145692
The author said we should avoid genetic improvement because that would make Hitler right. He is evil.

[Anonymous No.15148080]

It became unreadable after about a hundred pages for me. It has been a long time since I read it, but in the way I remember it he just kind of “summarized” entire fields of research by picking the view that fitted neatly with his quite narrow, twitter-able worldview. I found the whole of it paradoxically anti-intellectual, as if Harari was just skimming trough all kinds of research (far and far outside of his expertise) to find just about anything that would support his pre-determined worldview, ignoring the rest and then calling it “science”. I can forgive popular science books for being dumbed-down, I do not mind it actually, it is kind of the point, but when the author (who makes a living of talking about hurr durr science in the media) seems to know about two hours of ‘research’ more than the reader, who he has lured in with the promise of being able to pretend to be smart on “everything”, I find it hard to continue reading.

Then again, thousands of those smarter than me claim to like this book so make up your own mind.

[Anonymous No.15148103]

>>15146831
Based. How does Ol Jolly Nick manage to be so right all the time?

[Anonymous No.15148109]

>>15145692
It's okay. He uses the idea of intersubjective realities (basically the concept that humans are able to construct things that are neither objectively real nor merely subjective, like religion, money, nations, blablabla) to its full explanatory potential. And it works pretty well while he's still talking about prehistoric and very early historic times, but once he reaches areas of history where more detail is known it starts to seem facile and reductionist, because it is.

[Anonymous No.15148119]

>>15145898
wow, so 18th century pre-romantic fatalism with a le science bent? there truly is nothing new under the sun

[Anonymous No.15148121]

>>15145692
>>15145706
>>15145734
>>15145866
>>15145896
>>15145898
>>15146002
>>15146345
>>15146491
>>15146657
>>15146672
>>15146673
>>15146680
>>15146831
>>15147969
>>15148017
>>15148080
>>15148103
>>15148109
>>15148119

Any book claiming to provide a history of anything is carrying an agenda.

[Anonymous No.15148138]

It's got NY Times bestseller on the front cover though. How can it be bad?

[Anonymous No.15148145]

>>15148121
What about if I wrote a book on about the history of faggots with just a picture of (you) on every page?

[Anonymous No.15148185]

>>15148138
Very broad definition of "best".

[Anonymous No.15148359]

>>15148121
That's it, we must kill all historians an burn all history books. I always knew classists were up to no good

[Anonymous No.15148361]

>>15148185
Wouldn't it be very strict definition of best? The subset of all books that are a NYT best seller is very small, after all

[Anonymous No.15149379]

>>15145692
It is "pseud the book". Most of what he writes in that book is either wrong or just gibberish. There was a good response by a professor on the book who more or less ripped the book apart. https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari%27s_%27Sapiens%3A_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind%27/

[Anonymous No.15149438]

>>15148361
Best is typically a singular category and extremely rarefied.