The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow is a great example of a book that tries to tell "the great story of human (pre)history" based on the recent scientific findings. They also heavily critisize Harari at several points and it is definitely worth a read!
Glad someone mentioned the dawn of everything here! I have been meaning to read it since hearing David Wengrow interviewed on seriously wrong podcast about it. Didn't know they'd criticised Harari in it too!
Highly recommend! The Dawn of Everything deals with the attempt of retracing human history with the humility it deserves and makes a powerful argument about who get to feel like they can tell the history of all of humanity in the first place
@@paulmitchell2916 Brian Cox or Michio Kaku are also public intellect. But they are only limited to dumbing down science, while Hariri is downright dishonest to the degree of being a propagandist.
He's kind of just a tech bro doing a PR campaign for future tech, transhumanism, and ai, but much like most tech bros his vision of the future is already obsolete b/c of the essentially 19th century basis of his historical views, that have been outdated for a long time now but whose carcass continues to decay and stink up humanity's attempts to achieve genuine progress.
there is only one thing worse than religious luddites is leftist humanities intellectual luddites, at least the first can claim some kind of spine and logic within its own context, the latter is just pure npc repeating crap like a broken record
Besides, he comes from an Israeli background which is in no way representative of a universal mind. Recent events have demonstrated the supremacist, ethnocentric, mindset that prevails in his society.
I think Harari's reductionism is not only false, but insidious. On a biochemical level, taking a hit of cocaine and receiving a love letter from my crush may be equivalent, but that doesn't mean the subjective experiences, their implications, etc. are the same and interchangeable in some way. Even on a fully materialistic view of the world, the latter event is much deeper and more significant, as it opens up my life to a new relationship, a future family and so on. The other is just sniffing a white powder, fleeting and self-destructive. These two "happinesses" are not the same except for some narrow measurement and this goes for the whole spectrum of human experience. That's why most people don't want to jump into a simulation or be "uploaded", no matter how pleasant, they don't want to be constrained to a cloud server and some corporate light show, when the Universe is so much bigger and richer.
@@バルガ are you aware of the rat cocaine experiments? Rats given regular water and coke water in a shitty cage drank the coke water until they died. Rats of a similar temperament, weight, background etc were given the same but they were also given a really cool space to live in full of social opportunities and enrichment. They partook of the coke water occasionally but mostly left it alone and enjoyed their enriching environment. Your love letter and a hit if coke are only comparative on a purely chemical level. The nuance, context and interaction with other contexts that the letter gives you raises it far far far above a simple chemical reaction. Even rats know this
This is because there's no scientific way to talk about subjective experiences (and he knows nothing about philosophy of science to grasp its limitations) and phenomenology is super fucking hard for any biological reductionist.
Onde I Saw he says " humans never fight for resources of Lands, but for narratives"... They fight for their version of things become the main narratives. Man... Modern Israel State literally steal Lands and resources from palestines since day one of its formation. And steal Lands and resources its exaclty the whole point of colonialism and imperialism of Europen Nations for centuries... And then US now
I picked that up from only one interview of him, I have watched. Since then, I have ignored every time youtube suggests a video that has yuval harari in it.
@@theburningarchive Yanis Varoufakis uses the word "Techno-Feudalism" a lot, for example in his recent book. However he argues that it "killed capitalism", while I would argue that it is the result of capitalism leading to monopolies and a concentration of power as a new stage of it. What I mean by it is that the Silicon Valley techbros and their companies could and can continue to accumulate so much wealth and power (see S. Zuboff: "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" ) that they turn into neo-feudal lords with enormous agency. That doesn't end with them just being super rich but they have the ability to shape entire societies' perception on what is true and false, important and unimportant (via social media, information filtering) that goes beyond classical media. They also have a passive but major impact on people's daily routines and approaches towards life and existence through the cybernetical control they are subjected to (people following by what their smartphone/app/device tells them and not by what they perceive by themselves) And finally they aim towards altering the planet and the biology of every living being, most likely motivated not only by the desire to make even more profits but to actually fulfill some divine mission for what they believe is a greater good. So basically attempting to do what Harari is trying to propagate and normalise with his reductionist theories. Barbrook and Cameron have analysed this kind of thinking in their 1995 essay "The Californian Ideology" though. And while one could reject the use of the term "feudalism" in "neo-feudalism" or "techno-feudalism" by pointing out different interpretations of historical/medieval feudalism, I still believe it's good enough to make the point that there are now just very few people with an enormous concentration of wealth and power that try their hardest to influence and shape the world with their "religion" (that is being preached through social media while opinions will be filtered, altered and censored in case they become too heretical/impactful), who believe they have some kind of divine right to do so and who treat the rest of the world like replaceable pawns. Edit: Fixed some typos and replaced some terms.
To be precise by " their religion" I mean that technological determinism, tech-solutionism and really weird ideas such as longtermism that are quite populare among techbros like Musk.
@@fionadyer8503 Not at all. Neither Harari nor the WEF he works for want communism. Unlike communism, they do not want people to own the means of production, instead they want that common people don't own anything and have to rent everything from corporations who are the only ones who profit from that. While communism aims for a society that abolishes authority, what Harari and WEF are working for insted is an updated kind of capitalism with even narrower hierarchies and larger class divides where a minority of rich people decide how to use new technologies in order to exploit people even better and to "optimise" behaviours and life itself by how they want it for their profits and "cost efficiency".
I find the bizarre reductionist passage at 23:30 breathtaking in its stupidity. The lottery player’s joy at hitting the winning number is not a reaction to the pleasurable hormones / neurotransmitters coursing through her body. Those physioneurochemical fireworks, rather, ARE the reaction, i.e. they are what the joy is physiologically made of. But the joy is most definitely a reaction TO learning that she holds the prizewinning ticket, filtered through the nearly instantaneous cognition of certain real-life consequences she expects will flow from winning the prize (ability to quit her accounting job and take up ceramics, spend more time with family, move to a bigger house, pay off debts, take vacations, etc.). Falling in love is apples and oranges with winning the lottery as the latter is a single discrete event, and the former a complex process. But Harari’s confusion is reminiscent of that insight so many of us had at 14 or 15: “Love is a chemical reaction.” Or the insights so popular on TH-cam these days, that the self, or consciousness, are illusions. These are egregious category errors that ignore the crucial concept of emergent properties of systems. It’s a bit like saying that Pavlova dancing is just a bunch of atoms in motion, or Shakespeare’s plays are just an array of words-banally correct, but explains nothing.
It's also the kind of thinking that postulates that depression is merely a "chemical imbalance in the brain", so feeding people "happiness pills" will solve it.
It sounds like you're grasping at straws in a way to verify the belief in free will, as well as something "greater" about humans. We're just sophisticated animals, man. Harari was saying that we are observers of our brain. Yes, the neurochemicals are a reaction to the event, but the joy comes as a reaction to the chemicals. His argument reflects much of what modern neuroscience points to.
No, that isn't what the person above is saying. It has nothing to do with free will. They are saying that you cannot banalize things to atomized elements without seeing how they interact and form a coherent whole. This is especially true of consciousness. Look at it this way: yes, the chemicals are what produces feelings. There are no chemicals without feelings. However, equally, it doesn't make sense for the chemicals to exist in the way that they do, to react in the way that they do, if they weren't responding to something intelligible event. The lottery-winner *needed* the understanding that she had indeed won for the chemicals to activate. It was a necessary trigger. Otherwise, why did they activate at that time and not some other one? The point is, you cannot reduce consciousness to a banalized chemical process, for then it would be like a projection, which doesn't really make sense when you see that the influence is two-way. It can be a chemical process and most philosophers and neuroscientists agree that it is (that is, it isn't immaterial), but its materiality is a much more complex, interdepemdent and contextual one and not a purely mechanistic cause-and-effect relation.
Harrari gives off the vibe that he thinks most people are losers. Read some od "Sapiens". He takes a swip at Buddhism, saying "99 percent" of Buddhists never achieve happiness. Has anyone actually taken an opinion poll? It sounds like he relies on a lot of assumptions
@@DutchWestFilms I wonder what gave him away… maybe calling some people a useless class”? 🤪 I see him as a grifter, maybe a smart one, but a grifter nevertheless.
Thank you for saying this. My analysis of him is much worse than what you have said. Also, I wouldn't credit his fame to 'charisma', but to just good PR. The man is a sham.
@@theburningarchive his book became a best seller in pakistan too (where i am from). I think part of his success is in the fact that the global imperial order (usa and europe dominated) needs people like him to make their policies palpable, hence they convert him (and other such figures-jordan peterson comes to mind) into a public intellectual and then disseminate him and his views on the rest of the world through social media and think tanks etc. This helps in normalising the new world order, or normalising cultural imperialism as edward said put it so eloquently. Will watch the other video u recommended too. Best wishes and prayers for your wonderful effort, Warm regards, Saba muhammad.
A great critique that hits the nail on the head. As a scientist I tried reading Sapiens but gave up because it was obvious he has no scientific training or real understanding and simply distorted science to fit his story and philosophy.
What he should be is a novelist. Then it's fine, you can do whatever you want. If you have some vision of reality and humanity, and it's pretty compelling as such worldviews often are, but not necessarily scientifically accurate at all, then just somehow fictionalize it. Figure out a way to turn it into fiction, some innovative new genre or offshoot of sci-fi, and then you don't have to answer to anyone. And no critic can touch you. Other than you make up shitty sentences. And your prose just isn't sweet enough....
@JabberwockyGB I am not a scientist, but I have studied anthropology and biological science at university and I read widely. I agree. Based on my limited knowledge, his book on Sapiens misses the mark. Given his high level of intelligence, it's a disappointment.
I read Sapiens many years ago. I'm an average person and it was easy even for me to detect a lot of ideological bias in his so called 'history' - ie it contains a lot of cultural propaganda.
Interesting. I'd love to hear where exactly his bias shines through. I'd perhaps detect a dating of his work because of our noisy culture war shenanigans. I still find much value in his work though. When compared to other historians like kotkin, Tim snyder, mershimer, Neil ferguson etc. I don't detect an overabundance of ideology in fact he often goes further than those to distance himself from it. He does get a little speculative, in his recent works especially.
@@Thomas...191 I like his work. But I did find some ideology in his writing on his book Homo Deus. He claims that, since most large mammal species are matriarchal, why is the human species male dominated?! And compares humans to the likes of elephants and hyaenas (seems he forgot how lions and chimps work). He claimed that since women ain't very into violence, why weren't there many female homo sapiens leaders in history. I think it's a bias of his because there are actual studies showing that males and females have different brains. And due to this difference there may be predispositions that favour male instead of female leaders, that he did not talk about (maybe outright omitted to)
@@Thomas...191 To me, his bias "shines through" every time he unironically makes a sweeping generalization, or discusses an element of history without humility, without acknowledgement of the limitations of certainty of knowledge of the subject, and he does those things constantly. His strength and his weakness as a "historian" are one and the same: he tells a simple story. People love his work bc they love simple, easy-to-understand stories. But the nature of our world is that the closer you are to simplicity, the further you are from reality.
I'll give you one rock solid prediction about the future. No futurists will predict more than 10% correctly more than 20 years out. The tendency to grift in the futurist industry is strong, they are telling stories which should really be consigned to scifi novels, where it becomes non grifty and your sales depend upon an actually good (fantastical) story rather than bloviating nonsense.
Harari himself says multiple times that nobody can predict anything and that he himself is probably wrong. He literally says it right at the beginning of Homo Deus. I wonder if anyone in this comment section and actually bothered to read his stuff..
Absolutely. The books are nothing special. But if you promote them heavily, you soon reach the point where everyone is under the impression that everyone else is reading the book, so it becomes a success.
You've obviously a great understanding of his academic thesis. Which work of his do you dislike the most? The dishonestly edited clip that has been proliferated in the conspiracy orgy of the internet?
@Thomas...191 I dont like the fact the WEF has alot of control and does not answer to voters They want to shape the world to their beliefs. They have to much influence and money. If he takes over as head of WEF I know he is no good without having to know anything about him or his work
@@theburningarchivepeople think it’s the illuminati….everyone that goes brings their own opinions and nobody tells them how to think. Look at all the different tribes that attend and the rotation of the rich that pass through. Blamed Catholics, then it’s the Jews, then it’s the masons, then it’s the banking cartels, then it’s the World Health Organization, then it’s Skull n Bones…. IF JUST ONE ☝️ OF THESE PEOPLE COULD NOT FIGHT INTERNALLY AND BE ON THE SAME PAGE THEY WOULD BE THE ONES BUT ITS IMPOSSIBLE. It’s fraternity’s on smaller scales that control us like judges and Directors that can be bought from different fraternities or agencies. Money in the hands of those people is where control is. These guys just think out loud and come up with ideas to see if they can make thing move and shake. SAGES RUN THIS WORLD AND WE WILL NEVER SEE THEM U CANT BUY THEM MONEY DOESNT SWAY THEM JUST THEIR OBJECTIVES. NEITHER GOOD BAD OR EVIL BUT ALL OF THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME… Historical in fact and facts don’t change in history. They are real.
@@Thomas...191 well, the title of the book is ‘Sapiens’ or all of humanity, yet it deals almost exclusively with one specific group of humans and social, cultural, political and economic ideas and arrangements, not humanity at large. Second, by his own admission it is a ‘Spy satellite view’… which is to say it doesn’t care about the pesky details of actual history and how/why this particular group came to dominate. His worldview is decidedly Eurocentric and therefore biased. The contributions of the Indian sub-continent, China, Islam and almost all other human civilizations are almost completely missing or given short shrift… footnotes. Mostly there is very little actual history in it. It assigns the entire 60-70 thousands years of hunter gatherer societies to ‘insignificance’. Modern archeology shows that many complex societies existed pre-writing, yet again this isn’t considered significant. It’s the Coles Notes of western ‘civilization’ if anything. Pop history for those that believe in the preordained superiority of modern western civilization. His following books then summarize the future as a reflection of this supposed historical past, but now the supposedly superior civilization and its belief in its Godlike status is the cause of the collapse of human ‘civilization’. He does not explain this dichotomy. In short, if you want to understand human history, read Arnold Toynbee’On History’. Unless the naturally superior western humans utterly destroy the world with civilized nuclear weapons, AI or other techno-wizardry, human civilization will continue long after the western version collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy just like it did after Rome fell. There are many scholarly reviews of his books which essentially say the same thing. It is a polemical treatise justifying western domination. History for ideologues and those not bothered with history.
@@BryanPersaud-p2e he spoke about a cognitive revolution. There’s not really anyway to prove that is true but it’s likely. He spoke about the origins of capitalism the Gilgamesh project, and how legal fictions came into existence by analysing the history of Peugeot. These are believed to be true, especially if you search it on the internet.
@@zaniwoob I don't think so. There is a sense of universality in Europe, but it's all Christian. When you look beyond Europe and I don' think Harari did, he actually has a very limited view, and I think it's poisonous. It's the kind of mentality that justified colonialism.
I'm surprised that Jeff Rich thinks Hariri has "charisma." I would be hard pressed to think of a less charismatic individual. I think the word "creepy" captures the essence much better.
@@atidfelixcastillo-najerala6891No, truth exists, and words have meanings, and even if it can be difficult to parse out some of the details, all opinions are not equally worthwhile and equally accurate. If "apartheid" means anything, then Israel is an apartheid state. It is also a democracy (though perhaps more in the ancient Athenian sense than the modern idealistic sense).
Yuval "WEF Ghoul" Harari. It's funny when people hype up his "totally organic" success story because he's such an obvious plant. He hangs out with the most wealthy and powerful people in the world then "coincidentally" writes sales pitches for their agendas
As someone who enjoyed reading Sapiens and Deus, I found this video helpful in contextualizing the flawed reasoning behind some of Harrari's more controversial ideas and arguments. However, it was disheartening to scroll down to the comment section and see so much latent anti-semitism and homophobia baked into valid critiques of his work. I would expect the people calling themselves historians and scientists writing such comments to have a little more self-respect, but they clearly have no interest in hiding their personal feelings towards someone whose total impact, all in all, has been the publishing of a few books.
The quote at 23:30 or so shows "homunculism". He's only reducing half of the experience to "electric signals" because suddently the subject shows up as homunculus who "experiences" those signals (instead of having pleasant sensations). That's an incoherent mess and a sophomoric error everyone who has ever taught/tutored philosophy has encountered many times among students. It's also typical of people from other fields who think they can do philosophy in popular books without bothering to learn the basics.
@@arturhashmi6281 Either you take the perspective of subjective experience that is non-materialist and a subject does not experience electric signals in the brain but e.g. emotions or sensations. Or one takes the "3rd person" perspective" of photons hitting the retina etc. and electric signals going through the brain. in this perspective there is no subject experiencing anything, just signal processing by neural networks etc. Sure, one can claim that both are vaild descriptions of the SAME process. But the quote mixes them so it sounds as if a "little man" (homunculus) is sitting in the brain having (subjective!) experiences of electric signals that's incoherent nonsense.
@@bartolo498 Thank you so much for clarification, my English is not very good, but I understand what you meant now and I agree with you. I really recommend you works of prof. Iain Mcgilchrist - psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher who defends this immaterial perspective and elegantly criticize moderdnist reductionism in sceintific way. I espescially recommend his profound book "Master and his Emissary", but before that You can check his lectures on youtube. I did not read his latest book "Matter of things" yet, but I will definitely. Thank you again and wish you the best day.
@@bartolo498 It's similar to Sam Harris attempting to tackle the philosophy of free will while demonstrating that he hasn't even read the history of the subject & isn't familiar with common arguments & counter arguments.
@@dropbearjd8986 please explain to me why. I keep seeing so much hate on this author, I’ve read all of his books and seen a lot of his interviews and see no evil. Please enlighten me
@@Harrymie I could say the same about Adolf Hitler and "Mein Kampf" - if I was a Eugenicist. Moreover Hitler was named Time Magazines "Man of the Year" twice!
Yuval Noah Harari is easily one of the most annoying airheads in academia (if we can even say that he's a part of academia). He does absolutely nothing to question the western narrative of world history, and he flattens the human experience by placing individual psychology above all other forms of cultural, sociological, and interpersonal reaction. He's a capitalist's dream--He ignores actual facts while creating a narrative of biological essentialism that relegates humans to a realm of subjugation. I remember reading Homo Deus back in 2017 when everyone and their mom wouldn't stop talking about him. I was severely underwhelmed, and I was extremely surprised by his lack of imagination. He's also a very milquetoast liberal concerning the Gaza/Palestine situation, which comes as a shock to no one. He refuses to understand how apartheid and colonialism led to Israel's current situation, and he's similarly ignorant about the history of the world in general.
As a pro capitalist person, no. He is not one of us. Blaming this on capitalism is wrong, when his whole ideology is a elitist Hegelian ideology. A man who hated the free market and loved people like Napoleon. He is popular with the champaign socialists, who think we can shape human nature and we are all blank slates.
Hilarious stuff. I love these pompous self-important, historically ignorant ideologically driven posts that insult their intellectual betters. Pure entertainment.
@@rishabhprasad5417 according to Wikipedia, "Psychopathy is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited and egocentric traits, masked by superficial charm and the outward appearance of apparent normalcy". So, the remark of Evakerstinl. does not seem to be inappropriate here.
C'mon, please stop throwing around accusations of psychopathy and narcissism when they have no basis in reality at all. Harari seems to have no problem with publishing shoddy history and questionable claims when it earns him good money and fame. So what. Lots of people would if given the chance. To be clear, it's a serious problem and to ascribe it to the psychopathy of individuals like Harari is to miss the point.
Actually, genetic studies show that the current Austarlian Aboriginal population only arrived 42,000 years ago at the earliest. All earlier populations went extinct.
@@catherinegilbert8740 Genetic studies on Aborigines flawed by the dating presumptions used. Correct dating based on chimp-human divergence of at least 10 million years, not the 4 million preferred by Alan Wilson at Berkeley University.
When a person is lionized to the degree Harari is (in the media, WEF/corporate world, academia, etc.), it is almost impossible for hubris not to ensue.
@@adamesd3699 Harari provides the context. This is a man who said "Frankly we really don't need the vast majority of you." Who's haughtiness and arrogance has him aspiring to godhood by means of technology but only for his clan of global elites. He posits an analysis of history to spin his narrative based on something 70,000 years ago, far enough back in the murky past that nothing be proven about it and long before the invention of writing and no one can verify it and marches on with his narrative of transhumanist perfection of humans as some kind of cyborgs. Any time someone claims they can create the perfect human you should run away fast! Such mean are always environmental determinists, who require absolute power over our lives to make us perfect, and it always ends in failure, and often mass death.
@@adamesd3699i suggest you to hear the perspective of the Global South, he is the voice of neocolonization. Western people was led to believe people in other áreas of the world are poor bacause of their leaders corruption and cultural barbarism. His point of view of the western civilization is taken as profoundly r4c1st.
This is a misreading of his more speculative work, as a prescription, rather than a description. He is not saying transhumanism is great, he is neutral if not negative about its consequences, but he is quite accurately describing the potential conditions of when our tech makes us something other than human. Its Sci-fi stuff, but he did mention many things that appeared in black mirror, before black mirror was made. His influence is undeniable. And your criticism of him is like someone bemoaning a George Orwells 1986 for being a disgusting way to want the world... don't be so stupid.
What I find so disturbing in his rhetoric is the idea that because we are facing the loss of abt half the jobs that remain that those people will automatically be _useless._ He cannot imagine an actual post scarcity society. Yet he supposed to be a _prophet_ like futurist over that the WEF (a nickname he was given by Schwab). Of course, he also cannot imagine moving beyond capitalism. That most people could lives of leisure (or dedicated to whatever discipline they choose) if the wealth the robot society produces is shared just a bit equitably.
"Of course, he also cannot imagine moving beyond capitalism. " - actually what WEF stands for is a move beyond capitalism, from shareholders to "stakeholders", and from free market to central planning on a global scale; besides the abolition of all traditional morality and its replacement by the vision of a utopian technocratic futuristic society; "That most people could lives of leisure (or dedicated to whatever discipline they choose) if the wealth the robot society produces is shared just a bit equitably." - that's exactly how they imagine the society of the future to look like, or at least how they try to sell it to us plebs, so that they can stay on top; post scarcity society? what the heck is this supposed to mean? compared to 1000 ago we live in a post scarcity society, but what people want constantly readjusts to whatever is available, so just by human nature we can never get to a post scarcity society; besides just preserving civilization as it is requires a lot of work, and the most valuable resource has always been the time; I don't see how we could ever get to a post scarcity society with respect to time, that is a society where we will all live for ever... "because we are facing the loss of abt half the jobs that remain " - that's a load of crap; society has lost half of the existing jobs several times in the last 200 years, in a continuous manner; and new jobs have always been created and took the place of the lost ones; no reason to believe from now on it will be any different
@@bogdanpopescu1401 Maybe I am just a pessimist, but I suspect that once robotics, 3D printing, and GAI reach a certain level of sophistication, the WEF type elites will eliminate all those "useless eaters"...(90% of the current population). 😟
@@bogdanpopescu1401 1 - Nothing about what you said is "beyond capitalism", since it doesn't abandon the capitalist society, which the multiplication of capital is it's primary goal. You can be an "utopian tchnocratic futuristic society" and still be capitalist. 2 - We don't leave in a "post scarcity society", since our economic politics are still based on "scarcity economy". Liberal economy is all about managing scarcity and if we don't part with it, we won't part with scarcity management. We can gent in a "post scarcity society" with respect to time if we could choose how we want to spend our time. Most people in the capitalist society can't do shit beside work. Capitalists, since they have enough resources to live how they want without worrying, can enjoy their time how they want. Except that if they want to keep increasing their capital, they can't stop working neither. But they could if they decided to. 3 - Yes, it's happening since the first industrial revolution. But people are indeed losing their jobs and since AI is becoming increasily capable of doing specialized and difficult works, it'll get worse. Educated and non educated people will be relegated to even worse jobs or keep unenployed. Of course, the capital can only be reproduced by surplus value, so people need to work, right? That's where we ecounter another of the innate capitalist's crisis.
If you knew anything about narcissism, you wouldn't be so sure about that. Baldness is human and mundane, not worth it, too low for someone who needs to inflate and maintain his godlike fantasy. Not affirming this is the case, but it could be.
So depressing that people like Hariri get attention and praise when there are more important/interesting thinkers in the world. Its really just another example of the sad time we live in.
Jared Diamond's Guns Germs & Steel was as disastrously presumptuous and agenda driven as Hariri's work. No wonder Hariri thought he could make a living at it.
Such a disappointing book. I couldn’t finish it. It was so poorly written. It seemed as if he had gathered his lectures together and jammed them into a book.
I called the trash about 8-10 years ago when I read a review of his first book. They had him in every European media outlet and tv-show...out of nowhere 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
@@10.6.12. So True - and now that Dr. Phil and Jordan B. Peterson has revealed themselves as Zionists disregarding the International Court of Justice I am throwing them in the (waste-)basket as well ...😮💨
Excellent analysis. We barely hear the word "haughtiness" these days, but I was instantly taken by how aptly it applies here. It captures the feeling of discomfort we experience in the way he lays claim to many ideas we already share and debate simply by fiercely positioning them into his "big intellectual framework" as a discovery. Then, devoid of any humility, he presents his views as though they are both incontrovertible and critically important.
@@theburningarchiveolder youtuber... that will come back 😂 Anyway, enjoyed your analysis very much. Well done. Refreshing gem amongst the click bait.
That was a spot on analysis. I used to love Harari and his books like 4/5 years ago (I also used to think that Elon Musk is some kind of a messiah for this world so obviously), but it was his talks which put me off off him. He never really talks about history and soon I realised that his "history" book was not actually a history book but just a big prelude to his actual agenda, which is that all of you are losers and only some of us who are elite are going to be gods. He sees everything as part of a grand narrative and thinks that everything is just going in a certain direction, which led me to believe tht he doesn't understand what he's talking about. I now firmly believe that he doesn't have any empathy for humans or any other being and he only sees everyone as just a piece of meat which behave in a certain way due to certain chemicals and that it was never about history.
" which is that all of you are losers and only some of us who are elite are going to be gods" That's literally the opposite of what he's saying. He's very obviously WARNING us about the possibility of massive inequality and that we should find ways to stop it. I can't believe everyone in this comment section misread him so badly.
@@larkstonguesinaspic4814 Yes exactly ! He never claimed to be a Brilliant Scientist , but a historian weaving together different aspects of our history as a species .
Harari's Sapiens was one of the MOST frustrating books I have ever read in my life. The amount of bullshitting especially on anthropological issues was insane.
Harari is a hack. And for the life of me, I don't know why they assume he has anything relevant to contribute in fields vastly outside his expertise. You want to see his pure hypocrisy: Ask him about the history of the Hebrew people and the history of Israel.
I think Harrari may have had troubles in childhood. He strikes me as someone looking revenge on a large scale. It is what puts me off him. I am however basing this observation on gut instinct.
His fame is actually much more PR & colabs with a certain type of politicians (ahem ahem funded by rich people), also the media that promoted him, are also controlled by the same rich people.
I thought Sapiens was well written, not very original and not much referencing of the people who had actually carried out the research, overly in love with the Enlightenment / Scientific Revolution, which as you say is debatable in many ways. I skipped Homo Deus, but read 21 Lessons, and thought it was garbage. He totally lost my respect when he started supporting the NATO-Ukraine proxy war narrative and especially when he refused to take a unambiguous moral position on the Gaza genocide. What I always felt was most ironic, was that he writes about myth making or narratives, yet he personally seems to be in the business of Post-Post Modernist Grand Narration.
I agree with the last bit, it's infact ironic. Altough his opinion about world conflicts are completely different issue, Im not saying that I agre with him, You and me can also disagree about them, but if Nato wants to be the defender of the free world, then we should help Ukraine against totalitarian regime which is Russia. Israeli-palestinian conflict is much more complex, because both nations are victims of their leaders, both sides (I mean the leaders) in that sense are evil - fascist totalitarian state vs racist terrorist group. I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I believe that anybody who thinks that there is a simple solution to that conflict is wrong, world is not black and white as Harri and other modernists would like to believe.
@@monolith94 LOL! I know you're just a Troll , but okay I'll play = Ukraine is MUCH more Democratic than Russia .Putin declared it ILLEGAL to say 'WAR in Ukraine' . Russians HAD TO SAY ' SPECIAL OPERATION ' or they got up to 10 years in prison , which many of them did . Ukraine DOESN'T POISON people who disagree with the Russian Oligarchy etc etc etc I hope the Russian People pay a heavy price ( oh wait they already do since MOST RUSSIANS are POOR
The animal that made itself into an inferior machine. No sign of becoming a god. The man must be mad. Or is there something else going on? Frankenstein is a powerful story too.
Dear sir, as a PHD in ancient history and a reader of Harrari's work, I fully concur with you and your opinion! I didnt read the Sapiens as a history book at all, cannot be read as such at all! In my view its more a book of anthropology. Per instance Harrari completely ignores the political development, the great political edificies of the past are almost ignored as a great phenomenon. Even if you are a completely Annales person, you cannot ignore the polities. ... anyhow, thank you! All best!
@@path2source yes, i supposed they would, yet i cannot classify Hararis work otherwise. Its definitely not history. Perhaps "that other" "science" fiction, from there where Deniken, Hancock and the likes dwell.
He’s a warmonger just like the rest. Advocating for using Nukes for those he doesn’t agree or like , he lost me there. How he is considered an “intellectual” is beyond me. I don’t think his rise was “organic”.
Wow, didn't realise he argued for the use of nikes. That is shocking. I share your questions about his rise, but will not spend more time researching him. Thanks for the comment.
@@theburningarchive th-cam.com/video/ljtql4EsGHU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=YSSc1PjU4go7hWsi That statement he says right there, echoed before in other sources that seems to have been taken down in TH-cam / the inter webs, arguing for nuclear first strike, breaking decades / half a century’s worth of precedence, further causing escalation, is the height of insanity. If a “public intellectual” wants T2 Judgement Day, I’m sorry. We shouldn’t take that guy seriously. I love my family. I don’t want no nuclear Holocaust for them. I hope government policy is not swayed or influenced by someone who is a suicidal psychopath.
This is simply not true. He never said that and I assume you personally know all the "rest" to determine your stupid racist assertion that only testifies to yourself
th-cam.com/users/shortsljtql4EsGHU?si=ebR-gOxalDLKdt0H Here he is advocating nuclear first strike use. Saying Israel could. And even if deep inside he didn’t mean it, or saying “Israel can” but that’s not his personal position; heck why even introduce that idea publicly?! That’s dangerous and a slippery slope. Mind you not nuke on nuke, but to use a nuke if they get fired at with thousands of rockets. Which they already do. Upending decades/more than half a century’s worth of established nuclear use doctrine. The longer form is easily seen online. But I’m sure you know that. You are just not intellectually honest enough to admit it. I’m done here. You don’t argue from a place of good faith. Or reality even. You do you.
As a meditation teacher, I appreciate how Harari's work is informed by the distinction between stories and myths on the one hand, and basic physical truths on the other. For Harari, a Vipassana practitioner who meditates two hours daily and goes on extended silent retreats every year, separating "suchness" from the egoic dramas we inhabit and identify with as both individuals and societies is a lifelong enterprise. There may be excellent scholarly objections to some of his interpretations of history, and I don't have any problem with that. But on the whole he brings a very clear and healed perspective to human affairs that is widely appreciated and, I believe, adds value to our collective conversation.
His political perspectives are not rooted or informed by an application of core sattipattana principles as he does not make an effort to understand mental fabrications and cognition in of it itself is a limited-perspective conditional force, which is largely biased in any and all of Harari’s argumentations; there are in fact just as deep and intellectually capable practitioners who advocate anarchist philosophies who would be better to heed their advice with regards to political perspectives eg: Glenn Wallis; Harari is just a loudmouth too self-confident empire-supported apologist who thinks he has superior ethics because of how he lives his life and frames his cognition only from his self-limited perspective. Just because one might be enlightened does not necessarily make one politically savvy or wise :) .
This would not be true even if: 1: Harari was not a cheap pamphleteer for the most despicable elites. 2 - If he knew what a "myth" is. 3 - If he even remotely knew what truth and "physical facts" are. Harari understands absolutely nothing about Physics.
His books are excellent. The majority of people don't like to listen about reality and he is right about that. You prefer fairy tales about humans as ''superior'' species, which u r not Humans are cancer, and Harari is just too polite.
Humans are not a superior species, except for the ones who aren't "losers"? I was about to say a stopped clock is right twice a day in that he said humans are not superior to other animals, but he clearly thinks he is superior to others if he's saying most humans are "losers". What an incoherent mess. Don't need Harari for this.
Also, he forgot to point out in his books, the stage in human history where God declared some of us 'the chosen ones', and 'special'. Him being one of them.
The Hebrew words in the Hebrew Bible have been misunderstood. The word means literally ‘chosen’, ‘selected’, ‘picked’, and has no sense whatsoever of elitism, privileged, better, etc. The entire narrative of the Lord finding a people among the peoples of the earth who would freely consent to live in accordance with the huge number of constraints outlined in the Hebrew Bible is detailed in the important Oral narrative that accompanies the written text (Midrash, etc.). In these Oral narratives, equally divinely inspired, all peoples in the world were approached and offered the Torah and none wanted to commit to those restraints. The attitude therein is not critical or negative, but a very realistic, “Why should they?”. The Hebrews consented, seeing the considerable moral, ethical, and positive practical value of living in a certain way. Some of us live in this way to this day. These Oral narratives present the Torah literally as a “burden” and a “yoke”. Certainly no hint of superiority. Perhaps more like committing to a marriage or a demanding but rewarding profession? Sorry so long.
Mr. Harari is not at all proclaiming any such chosen people status, on the contrary. He calls such thinking narratives that people have made, a kind of made up stories. So you seem to have misunderstood a very central point in his books and lectures.
Not a single specific retort of any of Yuval's claims or philosophies. Just generally saying "other historians do it better". Can you please give more detail? any detail? This comment section is absurd. No one specifically points out any statements or things he gets wrong and rebuts them.
there are soooooooo many factual and logical mistakes in Harari's work, as well as terrible moral positions, you must be able to see some of themself?? For example in Brief history of hS. Did you read that one??? Some I mention some huge mistakes in that one??
@@pauldiffenderfer I’ve read/listened to his main 3 books. I’m not denying that there’s probably things in there he’s got wrong or I might disagree with. But please please please just name something specific?? What moral things, what historical errors?
@@noahschutz8404 What is your background? We could discuss in a Zoom meeting. I am a professor at the Rheinische Hochschule in Köln Germany. I am always looking for good people who are interested in research. I am currently trying to build a group for an alternative media startup which focuses on building a truly democratic media. It has been several years since I read Harari. I can only mention quickly two or three points to watch out for in his 'Brief History..." 1. His main claim is that the strength of a civ comes the standardiztion of its common narrative...this is both central to his book and an important claim almost unquestioned in modern culture. Any scientific approach, as Harari himself points out, invovles self-critique. But in Harari's book he avoids any self-critique and even goes so far as to lie or hide an obvious counter-example to his claim of "strength through mono-culturalism." He touches the history of ancient Rome but fails to mention to the reader that Rome is an obvious counter-example...the Rome was established by and through its self-conscious embrace of multi-culturalism, and it fell as soon as it tried to force the entire Empire to be of one religion (under Christianity.) Harari explicitly either lies or is ignorant on this at one point saying, "We couldn't know why Constantine wanted to establish a single religion in the Roman world. It is not as if he would tell us." etc. This is either a lie or a mistake because the letters of Constantine to his bishops are easily accessible and in the public domain, and in these letters Constantine, Constantine tries to explain to his bishops why he chose to promote Christianity...and what he says is something like this, "The civil wars only ended because the remained only one ruler of the whole Roman world, me. And just as having only one ruler helped establish peace, enforcing one religion should also decrease the possibility of civil war." Harari must certainly know of these letters if he is a professional historian. He is never once self-critical about his central point precisely because he knows that history is just as likely to show that he is wrong as that he is right. To put the case even more easily to Harari, I quote one of the greatest civilization builders of all time, Cyrus the great, "Strength through diversity." Any professional historian focusing in the general trend of empire knows this...and especially Harari being that it was Cyprus who paid for and protected the Jews to rebuild their second temple in Jerusalem...in fact, had it not been for the "Strength through diversity" policy of Cyrus, Judiasm probably wouldn't even exist today. 2. Genocide of the Aztecs. Harari dismisses the genocide of the Aztecs as a clash of civilizations - but, it was rather crimes of Spanish on Aztecs, crimes which Spain would never allow commited within their own borders, which lead to the genoide of the Aztecs. The practices of those Spanish criminals were not sustainable within Spanish society and therefore don't represent Spanish civilization. One cannot say the following, "Those who don't prevent crimes done on them are culturally to blame for the crimes done on them." That is an evil point of view, one which reminds me of H#tler's response to a journalist asking how he had the right to murder his political opposition in their beds, "It must have been right because I was able to do it." No civilization could be sustained on such an outlook. It would be like saying that a person stabbed in the back was to blame for his own death because he allowed someone to walk behind him. Trust and divsersity cannot be ignored in a history of humanity, but Harari has managed to do this in his history. Harari also fails to mention the extent of the genocide of the Aztecs - around 20 million dead has been estimated. Nothing more to say here - shocking that Harari doesn't care about this. One last point, He ignores the existence of Islamic civilization. He has thousand-year-holes everywhere in his historical narrative. When Plato and Aristotle were first read in Europe again, 700 years after the Christians had burned every public access work of philosophy, the Europeans read them in Arabic, why? Because it was the Muslims who preserved civilization after the Christians destroyed it in the 400s. I wrote too much. Good luck in your own research. Always believe in the basic goodness of human nature...that is the key to understanding everything correctly and being able to always see through propaganda - for the essential function of propaganda is to make us mistrust, and even hate, human nature.
@@theburningarchive thank you sir. Please let me know if I can support your work in any way. I hope within the next year to publish again, this time a book on business leadership. Best luck! Your style and message is great, that's what makes up for the noise of mass media, voices of humanity like yours what is so needed
HE'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE ( TED) ORGANIZATION OUT OF CALIFORNIA WITH THE CRISPER CASE-9 TECHNOLOGY. WHO CLAIM THAT IT'S WILL ELEMENATE MUTILATIONS THAT CAUSES RARE DISEASES, ETC, ETC IN THE FUTURE. IF THEY TELL YOU THIS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. YOU CAN REAT ASSRURED THEY HAVE ALREADY PERFECTED THIS TECHNOLOGY, BUT FOR SOME VERY, VERY, EVIL NAFRARIOS PURPOSES!!! OTHER SCIENTISTS HAVE ALREADY DISCOVERED THAT THE HEBREW NAME OF ( GOD) IS INCODED IN OUR HUMAN ( DNA). EACH LETTER IN THE HEBREW NAME IS ASSOCIATED WITH A NUMBER THAT SPELLS OUT ( GOD'S) NAME IN OUR ( DNA)!!! 10-Y, 5-H, 6-W, 5-H... CRISPER CASE-9 TECHNOLOGY ARE ABOUT TO ATTEMPT TO REMOVE GOD'S NAME FROM OUR INPRINTED NAME ON EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET AND REPLACE IT WITH ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT. YUVAL NOAH HARAI IS ON RECORD THAT FREE WILL IS OVER, THE SOUL IS OVER, ETC,ETC,. BE YOU YUVAL NOAH HARARI, BILL GATES, CHARLES SCHWAB AND THE WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE BILLIONAIRES AND ALL ALPHABET ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS UN,WHO,CIA, NATIO, ETC,ETC. HAVE BO INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER TO GIVE UP THEIR FREE-WILL. THEY PLAN TO RULE EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING WHO FALLS FOR THIS MARXIST FACSIST NEW WORLD ORDER FACSIST REGIME!!!!
It takes extreme hubris and narcissism to hazard covering 70,000 years of history! Where is the expertise in anthropology, archeology and linguistics! Highly speculative and emotional, rather than scientific. People like him and Jordan Peterson should stay in their lane, whatever that is.
I agree about speculative and also think it is OK to reach beyond your lane to ask big questions. But if you do, do so with humility and empathy, which Harari fails to do.
I fail to understand the hostility towards Harari's speculative books. Are people saying that it's illegitimate for historians to speculate? Is it illegitimate to try to write big-picture history as opposed to writing about particular, specialized issues?
Read Sapiens. I thought it was well written. I didn't notice any bias, and then again, I read with an open mind, so I was looking for any. I dont think he is forcing anyone to believe anything. In any case, I make my own mind up and am responsible for all of my own actions. I would like to know his views on the genocide in Gaza, though. Then, I would be in a much better position to make a judgement.
It’s out there and that’s the rub. I have long enjoyed his writing and his interviews. Someone asked him a question that he didn’t know the answer. He actually said I don’t know. After prodding he still said he didn’t know.
So glad this video came into my feed. I read his first three books, but have also read Will and Ariel Durant's and AJP Taylor's books. Yuval Noah Harrari's success by comparision made no sense to me, as I was finding so many holes and what I perceived to be biases. I've seen so many people on the tube reading his books. He's the most popular historian of our time, and that speaks volumes about the time we live in. It's not the most intellectually honest by any measure.
22 minutes to get to specific critiques of Harari, and it's all pretty vague and general. No specific points of error from Harari. I agree that he's just rewording old stories, and is more a futurist than a historian, but I don't think this video contributed much to articulating SPECIFICALLY where he's erred. Id suggest everyone read the Work of Graeber and Wengrow for specifics.
Thanks for the suggestions. I think books and articles are the best place to do the detailed points of error. Feel free to give the titles of the worls you mentioned.
@@theburningarchive Graeber and Wengrow articulate significant errors in Harari's assumptions in their book "The Dawn of Everything". For context, they are an anthropologist and an archaeologist (Wengrow is British, and the UK differentiates between anthropology and archaeology for some reason, whereas in the US archaeology is a subset of anthropology).
The Dawn Of Everything really does sound like a worthwhile read from all I've heard and read about it!
3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3
Harari = pure propaganda. it has a very engaging text and some interesting insights, but it is a work without any scientific rigor, it is sad to see the huge stage it has in the world today.
Suppose it is true that the last 2 revolutions (agricultural and scientific) are a function of the first (cognition), then what is the first revolution a function of, IF, as he says, we are simply a series of hormones and biological processes which are the only things that make us happy (via sugar, sex, adrenalin rushes etc). The problem is that all mammals have the same kinds of hormones and biological processes, as do hordes of other species in the animal kingdom, so why would evolution have driven towards greater cognition if A) we were already being fully satiated, and B) those subsequent things didn't and don't bring us increased happiness over and above the previous level of happiness? Doesn't make sense. I know this is not your purpose Jeff to answer this, so the question is rhetorical, and anyway, I have my own hypothesis on it! 😂 I have found Yuval's work to be very "pop" and mostly regurgitation. A single episode of your podcast is as enlightening as 50 of his! 😅
Greater cognition is extremely disruptive since it tends to transcend a species beyond its function within the biosphere. Just imagine the sheer chaos if every competing species in the biosphere had greater cognition.
Harari’s books are a tale of intellectual hubris. When you write about so many things that are outside of your academic wheelhouse and all the specialists in those topics pan your shoddy misrepresentation of their field, that should make you think…
A book I recently read and enjoyed on a much better circumscribed aspect of “deep history” was James C. Scott’s “Against the Grain” on the foundations of the earliest states
In my opinion, people like thinkers of everything. In this sense, Harari was attempt to replace old Žižek, but without sense of humour which on the other hand has gave to Žižek sort of intellectual humbleness and therefore trust by readers, which lucks to Harari. There’s something sleazy in his structure of arguments (as you have put it - he uses history to justify his wishful ideology, namely, materialistic hedonism without strings attached). I’ve used to buy Annual Forecast edition of the magazine Economist, predicting geopolitical and economic future. I’d read it one year letter. I did it for more than 10 years. Non single time the Economist’s think tank didn’t predict the first quarter, nonetheless the whole year ahead.
"People are never happy by finding true love, people are really happy by pleasant sensations in their body". 'nuff said for me.I've seen enough of this killing of love values, just look at the last Olympics opening celebration in France... or just about everywhere in this terrible world. Also, I think the author on the video doesn't put enough enphasis on Harari's transhumanism.
I catered an event for the DNC's National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016. It was actually a birthday party for Bill Clinton and maybe 1,000 of his 'closest friends', held at the National Museum for American Jewish History. Clinton is a captivating speaker. He went onstage and extemporized a tale of the history of mankind- for 40 minutes!- leading up into the importance of the present moment. This was in 2016. I didn't realize at the time that Yuval's 2014 publication was the source material.
Claiming that Hararis view is reductionist is not a weekness I was waiting for some substance or evidence or just an explanation of the 'critique' but nothing !
22:50 as Neurobiologist , I don’t see other way to understand nature, animals including humans… reduction is necessary for understanding, otherwise is just interpretation , guesses beliefs…
I understand that viewpoint. The historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto i think does a brilliant job integrating biology and culture in understanding history. Great point, thank you. You might want to check my interview with him th-cam.com/video/8zkd0Bax9Xo/w-d-xo.html
Harari is a good read and a pricipator of ideas. He is no polymath though. He abounds the psychology of the mind and the great psychoanalysts. He is not strong on philosophy including the history and philosophy of science. To me he is messianic and prone to narcissism. But he does precipitate debate.
A good summary. I didn't find him a good read, though: very shallow, repetitive and reductionist. Anyone who has any proficiency in any of the areas he covers will, I believe, find him insufferable.
Drawing attention to problematic ideas in such a measured & respectable manner is very admirable & a serious breath of fresh air compared to the usual youtube dunking & destroying
A very thorough and balanced assessment of Harari's work! Thank you for summarizing and presenting it so clearly. I wasn't sure why people were so hot and cold about his work, but I understand why now: he's a great storyteller, but not a very original or deep thinker. What's really remarkable is that his premises are quite antique reductionist tropes from the turn of the 20th century, and yet they're celebrated as stunning, revolutionary ideas.
I am sensing that people are having trouble with the concept of "What is the role of a historian?" here. There is no point in merely talking about the past unless one understands that history is a river of time that flows into the future carrying momentum of past events. I'm also rather tired of people who confuse the art of history, which is about subjective storytelling, with anything whatsoever to do with science or objectivity. Stop. It's an art. It's inherently about spinning narrative. What is interesting about YNH is his particular takes and you are free to agree or not as you see fit. There is no "correct answer" when dealing with history. Now, having read these three books some years ago and thus being somewhat faded in memory, I recall only the first two to be truly worthwhile. There was a lot of food for thought there. 21 Lessons seemed to be more for people who hadn't watched his talks.
this video seems a pat conclusion in a desperate search of a premise. While I'm not a fan of Harari, you seem to take for granted the issue at point, which to me at least poisons your conclusions.
@theburningarchive shouldn't you know ? Harari doesn't really introduce novelty, he does recycle some ideas, but particularly the notion of cognitive revolution appears supported by the rapid step change in social complexity and material culture development between homo sapiens robustus, and our more gracile form. As to agriculture as a major lever in transition from small family groups to larger populations, no one seriously debates it. The scientific and industrial revolutions happened in europe, and nowhere else, and it is only controversial to people who wish to be outraged by the facts of history, as opposed to vicarious zero sum egalitarianism . I'm not saying you're necessarily one of those, but I do note a dismissiveness about Harari's materialism, which - frankly - is the only position someone interested in evidence can hold. Your critique of his supposed "tone of haughtiness" shows that this is not about the argument. Particularly, your need to insert empathy as a criterion, which you say he is missing, seems spurious, especially since this is wholly relativizing your judgement.
In one of the interviews of Harari I had heard him saying no one read his books until he was only writing about complex and critical history ; as soon as he started writing about future he earned his fame . The educated people who holds the money in our society mostly studied STEM . They are a generation who only looked into the future with a speculative mind - in terms of new ventures , asset prices . Selling speculation would be an easy task to these community - Harari is the genius to recognise this . He is a super genius there is no doubts.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow is a great example of a book that tries to tell "the great story of human (pre)history" based on the recent scientific findings. They also heavily critisize Harari at several points and it is definitely worth a read!
@@TheAS016 Thanks for the recommendation! On my list.
Glad someone mentioned the dawn of everything here! I have been meaning to read it since hearing David Wengrow interviewed on seriously wrong podcast about it. Didn't know they'd criticised Harari in it too!
And they criticize Guns Germs and Steel too, the book that greatly influenced Harari.
Brilliant book, Graeber and Wengrow are head and shoulders above Diamond and Harari
Highly recommend! The Dawn of Everything deals with the attempt of retracing human history with the humility it deserves and makes a powerful argument about who get to feel like they can tell the history of all of humanity in the first place
The fact that Harari is taken seriously as an intellectual really shows us how bad things are in our world currently!
It was ever thus. As Aristotle would have it, Logos is the distant also-ran to Pathos and Ethos.
Lobby hard and everythng is possible. AIPAC everywhere aye?
Elaborate your argument.
Wow, you've got some high standards.. Who do you take seriously as a public intellectual?
@@paulmitchell2916 Brian Cox or Michio Kaku are also public intellect. But they are only limited to dumbing down science, while Hariri is downright dishonest to the degree of being a propagandist.
He's kind of just a tech bro doing a PR campaign for future tech, transhumanism, and ai, but much like most tech bros his vision of the future is already obsolete b/c of the essentially 19th century basis of his historical views, that have been outdated for a long time now but whose carcass continues to decay and stink up humanity's attempts to achieve genuine progress.
Whats the 19th century basis for history? and what would be the more correct view? Looking for a deep dive XD
@@blackoutgo2597not op but Marx, Weber, and Polanyi come to mind
there is only one thing worse than religious luddites is leftist humanities intellectual luddites, at least the first can claim some kind of spine and logic within its own context, the latter is just pure npc repeating crap like a broken record
Besides, he comes from an Israeli background which is in no way representative of a universal mind. Recent events have demonstrated the supremacist, ethnocentric, mindset that prevails in his society.
have you read Harari? I remember him basically only criticizing future tech like AI because it would make our lives meaningless according to him
I think Harari's reductionism is not only false, but insidious. On a biochemical level, taking a hit of cocaine and receiving a love letter from my crush may be equivalent, but that doesn't mean the subjective experiences, their implications, etc. are the same and interchangeable in some way. Even on a fully materialistic view of the world, the latter event is much deeper and more significant, as it opens up my life to a new relationship, a future family and so on. The other is just sniffing a white powder, fleeting and self-destructive. These two "happinesses" are not the same except for some narrow measurement and this goes for the whole spectrum of human experience. That's why most people don't want to jump into a simulation or be "uploaded", no matter how pleasant, they don't want to be constrained to a cloud server and some corporate light show, when the Universe is so much bigger and richer.
Yuval rationalizes like a typical gay top when faced with a moral dilemma.
@@バルガ are you aware of the rat cocaine experiments?
Rats given regular water and coke water in a shitty cage drank the coke water until they died.
Rats of a similar temperament, weight, background etc were given the same but they were also given a really cool space to live in full of social opportunities and enrichment. They partook of the coke water occasionally but mostly left it alone and enjoyed their enriching environment.
Your love letter and a hit if coke are only comparative on a purely chemical level. The nuance, context and interaction with other contexts that the letter gives you raises it far far far above a simple chemical reaction. Even rats know this
@@バルガ Well said! Most of us dont need soma.
@@NorthernObserver I am dead. Such a specific reference and yet those who know know lmao
This is because there's no scientific way to talk about subjective experiences (and he knows nothing about philosophy of science to grasp its limitations) and phenomenology is super fucking hard for any biological reductionist.
His ‘facts’ and analysis on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians are worse than awful exposing the true nature of this individual.
What did he say?
Onde I Saw he says " humans never fight for resources of Lands, but for narratives"... They fight for their version of things become the main narratives.
Man... Modern Israel State literally steal Lands and resources from palestines since day one of its formation.
And steal Lands and resources its exaclty the whole point of colonialism and imperialism of Europen Nations for centuries... And then US now
👀
@@nk-gp1ml the Palestinian narrative is even more false than most people realize
I picked that up from only one interview of him, I have watched. Since then, I have ignored every time youtube suggests a video that has yuval harari in it.
Harari's works aren't history but commercials for techno-feudalist capitalism.
I am not quite sure what techno-feudalist capitalism is, but let me know of any books (other than Harari) that explain it. thanks
@@theburningarchive Yanis Varoufakis uses the word "Techno-Feudalism" a lot, for example in his recent book. However he argues that it "killed capitalism", while I would argue that it is the result of capitalism leading to monopolies and a concentration of power as a new stage of it. What I mean by it is that the Silicon Valley techbros and their companies could and can continue to accumulate so much wealth and power (see S. Zuboff: "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" ) that they turn into neo-feudal lords with enormous agency.
That doesn't end with them just being super rich but they have the ability to shape entire societies' perception on what is true and false, important and unimportant (via social media, information filtering) that goes beyond classical media.
They also have a passive but major impact on people's daily routines and approaches towards life and existence through the cybernetical control they are subjected to (people following by what their smartphone/app/device tells them and not by what they perceive by themselves)
And finally they aim towards altering the planet and the biology of every living being, most likely motivated not only by the desire to make even more profits but to actually fulfill some divine mission for what they believe is a greater good. So basically attempting to do what Harari is trying to propagate and normalise with his reductionist theories. Barbrook and Cameron have analysed this kind of thinking in their 1995 essay "The Californian Ideology" though.
And while one could reject the use of the term "feudalism" in "neo-feudalism" or "techno-feudalism" by pointing out different interpretations of historical/medieval feudalism, I still believe it's good enough to make the point that there are now just very few people with an enormous concentration of wealth and power that try their hardest to influence and shape the world with their "religion" (that is being preached through social media while opinions will be filtered, altered and censored in case they become too heretical/impactful), who believe they have some kind of divine right to do so and who treat the rest of the world like replaceable pawns.
Edit: Fixed some typos and replaced some terms.
To be precise by " their religion" I mean that technological determinism, tech-solutionism and really weird ideas such as longtermism that are quite populare among techbros like Musk.
Not Capitalism, he wants Communism.
@@fionadyer8503 Not at all. Neither Harari nor the WEF he works for want communism. Unlike communism, they do not want people to own the means of production, instead they want that common people don't own anything and have to rent everything from corporations who are the only ones who profit from that. While communism aims for a society that abolishes authority, what Harari and WEF are working for insted is an updated kind of capitalism with even narrower hierarchies and larger class divides where a minority of rich people decide how to use new technologies in order to exploit people even better and to "optimise" behaviours and life itself by how they want it for their profits and "cost efficiency".
I find the bizarre reductionist passage at 23:30 breathtaking in its stupidity. The lottery player’s joy at hitting the winning number is not a reaction to the pleasurable hormones / neurotransmitters coursing through her body. Those physioneurochemical fireworks, rather, ARE the reaction, i.e. they are what the joy is physiologically made of. But the joy is most definitely a reaction TO learning that she holds the prizewinning ticket, filtered through the nearly instantaneous cognition of certain real-life consequences she expects will flow from winning the prize (ability to quit her accounting job and take up ceramics, spend more time with family, move to a bigger house, pay off debts, take vacations, etc.). Falling in love is apples and oranges with winning the lottery as the latter is a single discrete event, and the former a complex process. But Harari’s confusion is reminiscent of that insight so many of us had at 14 or 15: “Love is a chemical reaction.” Or the insights so popular on TH-cam these days, that the self, or consciousness, are illusions. These are egregious category errors that ignore the crucial concept of emergent properties of systems. It’s a bit like saying that Pavlova dancing is just a bunch of atoms in motion, or Shakespeare’s plays are just an array of words-banally correct, but explains nothing.
Yes. It is astonishing. Glad you agree.
It's also the kind of thinking that postulates that depression is merely a "chemical imbalance in the brain", so feeding people "happiness pills" will solve it.
How is the self not an illusion? It doesn’t exist if you look for it.
It sounds like you're grasping at straws in a way to verify the belief in free will, as well as something "greater" about humans. We're just sophisticated animals, man. Harari was saying that we are observers of our brain. Yes, the neurochemicals are a reaction to the event, but the joy comes as a reaction to the chemicals. His argument reflects much of what modern neuroscience points to.
No, that isn't what the person above is saying. It has nothing to do with free will. They are saying that you cannot banalize things to atomized elements without seeing how they interact and form a coherent whole. This is especially true of consciousness.
Look at it this way: yes, the chemicals are what produces feelings. There are no chemicals without feelings. However, equally, it doesn't make sense for the chemicals to exist in the way that they do, to react in the way that they do, if they weren't responding to something intelligible event. The lottery-winner *needed* the understanding that she had indeed won for the chemicals to activate. It was a necessary trigger. Otherwise, why did they activate at that time and not some other one?
The point is, you cannot reduce consciousness to a banalized chemical process, for then it would be like a projection, which doesn't really make sense when you see that the influence is two-way.
It can be a chemical process and most philosophers and neuroscientists agree that it is (that is, it isn't immaterial), but its materiality is a much more complex, interdepemdent and contextual one and not a purely mechanistic cause-and-effect relation.
when tech/finance bros try to do philosophy
@@buglepong Bingo!
When they hire fraudsters as spokesmen to get you to follow all their narratives of current and future control.
@@buglepong This dude and his buddies are full of horrible ideas to force upon on us
He's a historian.
@@stevem815 when techbros do history and philosophy
Harrari gives off the vibe that he thinks most people are losers. Read some od "Sapiens". He takes a swip at Buddhism, saying "99 percent" of Buddhists never achieve happiness. Has anyone actually taken an opinion poll? It sounds like he relies on a lot of assumptions
if you don't agree with him you are antisemite 😂
Sounds like a narcissist to me.
I'd love to have Harari give a citation for that stat. And so many other things in sapiens require citations!
@@DutchWestFilms I wonder what gave him away… maybe calling some people a useless class”? 🤪
I see him as a grifter, maybe a smart one, but a grifter nevertheless.
most little hats tend to think of everyone else who doesn't wear a little hat as a loser (and thats putting it nicely).
Thank you for saying this. My analysis of him is much worse than what you have said. Also, I wouldn't credit his fame to 'charisma', but to just good PR. The man is a sham.
Yes. I like to be polite, and offer the 'best case'. But in my grupier moments, I agree totally with you.
@@theburningarchive his book became a best seller in pakistan too (where i am from). I think part of his success is in the fact that the global imperial order (usa and europe dominated) needs people like him to make their policies palpable, hence they convert him (and other such figures-jordan peterson comes to mind) into a public intellectual and then disseminate him and his views on the rest of the world through social media and think tanks etc.
This helps in normalising the new world order, or normalising cultural imperialism as edward said put it so eloquently.
Will watch the other video u recommended too.
Best wishes and prayers for your wonderful effort,
Warm regards,
Saba muhammad.
Yep. PR for Israhell as usual. He was boosted out of nowhere by Obama then the world took the bait unfortunately (as usual)
A great critique that hits the nail on the head. As a scientist I tried reading Sapiens but gave up because it was obvious he has no scientific training or real understanding and simply distorted science to fit his story and philosophy.
What he should be is a novelist. Then it's fine, you can do whatever you want. If you have some vision of reality and humanity, and it's pretty compelling as such worldviews often are, but not necessarily scientifically accurate at all, then just somehow fictionalize it. Figure out a way to turn it into fiction, some innovative new genre or offshoot of sci-fi, and then you don't have to answer to anyone. And no critic can touch you. Other than you make up shitty sentences. And your prose just isn't sweet enough....
You're using the term "philosophy" loosely, I assume.
@JabberwockyGB I am not a scientist, but I have studied anthropology and biological science at university and I read widely. I agree. Based on my limited knowledge, his book on Sapiens misses the mark. Given his high level of intelligence, it's a disappointment.
@@JabberwockyGB interesting good to get a view from a scientist
Outch, others also said he is backed by World Economical forum, im rested to see others reading through
I read Sapiens many years ago. I'm an average person and it was easy even for me to detect a lot of ideological bias in his so called 'history' - ie it contains a lot of cultural propaganda.
Interesting. I'd love to hear where exactly his bias shines through. I'd perhaps detect a dating of his work because of our noisy culture war shenanigans. I still find much value in his work though.
When compared to other historians like kotkin, Tim snyder, mershimer, Neil ferguson etc. I don't detect an overabundance of ideology in fact he often goes further than those to distance himself from it.
He does get a little speculative, in his recent works especially.
@@Thomas...191 I like his work. But I did find some ideology in his writing on his book Homo Deus. He claims that, since most large mammal species are matriarchal, why is the human species male dominated?! And compares humans to the likes of elephants and hyaenas (seems he forgot how lions and chimps work).
He claimed that since women ain't very into violence, why weren't there many female homo sapiens leaders in history. I think it's a bias of his because there are actual studies showing that males and females have different brains. And due to this difference there may be predispositions that favour male instead of female leaders, that he did not talk about (maybe outright omitted to)
@@Thomas...191 To me, his bias "shines through" every time he unironically makes a sweeping generalization, or discusses an element of history without humility, without acknowledgement of the limitations of certainty of knowledge of the subject, and he does those things constantly. His strength and his weakness as a "historian" are one and the same: he tells a simple story. People love his work bc they love simple, easy-to-understand stories. But the nature of our world is that the closer you are to simplicity, the further you are from reality.
@@User0resU-1 me too.
@@JLittleBass Very well expressed!!
Strange? I find him to be precisely anti-charismatic.
I agree 100%. But I think that this commentator is bending over backwards to be polite to Harari (more polite than Harari deserves).
he is personification of hubris
Nail Ferguson is another one
I'll give you one rock solid prediction about the future. No futurists will predict more than 10% correctly more than 20 years out. The tendency to grift in the futurist industry is strong, they are telling stories which should really be consigned to scifi novels, where it becomes non grifty and your sales depend upon an actually good (fantastical) story rather than bloviating nonsense.
Science fiction writers seem to have a better track record than academic futurists. 😊
Harari himself says multiple times that nobody can predict anything and that he himself is probably wrong. He literally says it right at the beginning of Homo Deus. I wonder if anyone in this comment section and actually bothered to read his stuff..
Harari acknowledges this from the first page of Homo Deus.
As in the comment section, we need the citation for the "10%" number you mentioned ...
I dont think his rise to fame was "organic", hehe...
@@BoqPrecision It was exactly the message the itching ears of western elites wanted... ‘The west is a beautiful garden, while the rest is a jungle.’
Absolutely. The books are nothing special.
But if you promote them heavily, you soon reach the point where everyone is under the impression that everyone else is reading the book, so it becomes a success.
Oy vey! ;-)
He is promoting the religion of his sponsors .
@@Theodorus5 I think you're on to something.
He’s not successful ! He’s backed to the balls with WEF money
what is WEF?
World Economic Forum. The "You'll own nothing and be happy" guys.
You've obviously a great understanding of his academic thesis. Which work of his do you dislike the most? The dishonestly edited clip that has been proliferated in the conspiracy orgy of the internet?
Progeny of Milton Friedman
@Thomas...191
I dont like the fact the WEF has alot of control and does not answer to voters
They want to shape the world to their beliefs. They have to much influence and money. If he takes over as head of WEF I know he is no good without having to know anything about him or his work
Was happy to hear it’s not just me that thought mmmmmm about harari’s talking headness
When a historical book excites you more than informs you, it is BS. Harrari is a typical BSer giving TED talks who happens to write.
@@mvs9122 True.
Isn’t he Klaus Schwab’s right-hand-boy in the WEF? I wrote him off completely based on that alone.
So many say, but I tend to see WEF as just a very expensive conference circuit, with a passing parade of "talent".
Yes. I would say he's actually the one in charge. Not Scwab
@@theburningarchivepeople think it’s the illuminati….everyone that goes brings their own opinions and nobody tells them how to think. Look at all the different tribes that attend and the rotation of the rich that pass through.
Blamed Catholics, then it’s the Jews, then it’s the masons, then it’s the banking cartels, then it’s the World Health Organization, then it’s Skull n Bones….
IF JUST ONE ☝️ OF THESE PEOPLE COULD NOT FIGHT INTERNALLY AND BE ON THE SAME PAGE THEY WOULD BE THE ONES BUT ITS IMPOSSIBLE.
It’s fraternity’s on smaller scales that control us like judges and Directors that can be bought from different fraternities or agencies. Money in the hands of those people is where control is. These guys just think out loud and come up with ideas to see if they can make thing move and shake.
SAGES RUN THIS WORLD AND WE WILL NEVER SEE THEM U CANT BUY THEM MONEY DOESNT SWAY THEM JUST THEIR OBJECTIVES. NEITHER GOOD BAD OR EVIL BUT ALL OF THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME…
Historical in fact and facts don’t change in history. They are real.
@@UserQuinnMethod harrari is a vile man
Wow, I thought you were a serious commentator for a moment. You are just another clueless talking head.
I read his books. They are total ahistorical rubbish.
Please: what exactly was ahistorical about them?
Exactly I’ve only read sapiens and that book seems pretty accurate not that I’m the most educated on history
@@Thomas...191 well, the title of the book is ‘Sapiens’ or all of humanity, yet it deals almost exclusively with one specific group of humans and social, cultural, political and economic ideas and arrangements, not humanity at large. Second, by his own admission it is a ‘Spy satellite view’… which is to say it doesn’t care about the pesky details of actual history and how/why this particular group came to dominate. His worldview is decidedly Eurocentric and therefore biased. The contributions of the Indian sub-continent, China, Islam and almost all other human civilizations are almost completely missing or given short shrift… footnotes. Mostly there is very little actual history in it. It assigns the entire 60-70 thousands years of hunter gatherer societies to ‘insignificance’. Modern archeology shows that many complex societies existed pre-writing, yet again this isn’t considered significant. It’s the Coles Notes of western ‘civilization’ if anything. Pop history for those that believe in the preordained superiority of modern western civilization. His following books then summarize the future as a reflection of this supposed historical past, but now the supposedly superior civilization and its belief in its Godlike status is the cause of the collapse of human ‘civilization’. He does not explain this dichotomy. In short, if you want to understand human history, read Arnold Toynbee’On History’. Unless the naturally superior western humans utterly destroy the world with civilized nuclear weapons, AI or other techno-wizardry, human civilization will continue long after the western version collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy just like it did after Rome fell. There are many scholarly reviews of his books which essentially say the same thing. It is a polemical treatise justifying western domination. History for ideologues and those not bothered with history.
@@blackairforceenergy2127 What specifically did you find ‘accurate’ about it? Did it confirm your existing beliefs?
@@BryanPersaud-p2e he spoke about a cognitive revolution. There’s not really anyway to prove that is true but it’s likely. He spoke about the origins of capitalism the Gilgamesh project, and how legal fictions came into existence by analysing the history of Peugeot. These are believed to be true, especially if you search it on the internet.
Hilarious that Harari doesn't put himself in the useless class. Seems oblivious to his own lack of productive contribution of benefit to society.
Like all visions of a master class.... they are formed in the mirror
🎯
Notice all those tents around the neighbourhood? The "Useless Class" is already here, Bubba.
@@ceeemm1901Diogenes lived in a barrel. Zhuangzi taught that being "useful" led to being "used", so being ungainly and ugly was safer.
No one who characterizes such things as historical laws ever does.
He’s very cordially explaining that Yarari is an elite plant with rubbish history.
I do like to be polite, but yes.
@@theburningarchivea true gentleman you are. And scholar!
And he wrong. Harari is a visionary, way deeper than this phony host.
Harari is obviously a lightweight. The West does not define the world. He seems oblivious to that.
Universalism does transcend the local. And being an ancient mix of cultures and ethnicities, Europe championed Universalism.
@@zaniwoob I don't think so. There is a sense of universality in Europe, but it's all Christian. When you look beyond Europe and I don' think Harari did, he actually has a very limited view, and I think it's poisonous. It's the kind of mentality that justified colonialism.
@@sharoncurran6622 you misunderstand the character of Europe's universalism.
@@sharoncurran6622 Colonialism was a net positive, the data is clear on this.
@@sharoncurran6622 I think you are talking about western perennialism not real universalism
I'm surprised that Jeff Rich thinks Hariri has "charisma." I would be hard pressed to think of a less charismatic individual. I think the word "creepy" captures the essence much better.
Agreed. Charismatic no. Heavily promoted - yes.
He looks like the ADL guy. thin, bold, evil, and and full of BS
Cweepy
You are spot on
I was arguing with him on Twitter a few years ago. He was trying to convince himself that Israel wasn't apartheid, that it was a democracy.
he was raised by ahistorical military propaganda, you expect him to have independent thought?
oh dear. Send him some of John Mearsheimer's pieces or the International Court of Justice ruling when it comes down.
@@001sander2 He has an opinion different than yours, about a country he lives in and y don't. Learn to listen
@@atidfelixcastillo-najerala6891No, truth exists, and words have meanings, and even if it can be difficult to parse out some of the details, all opinions are not equally worthwhile and equally accurate. If "apartheid" means anything, then Israel is an apartheid state. It is also a democracy (though perhaps more in the ancient Athenian sense than the modern idealistic sense).
And you consider it so ridiculous that its not even worth listening to right? What an example of intellectual curiosity and open minded you are
He is awful to say the least
@@vivianoosthuizen8990 ?
@@vivianoosthuizen8990 this
Yuval "WEF Ghoul" Harari. It's funny when people hype up his "totally organic" success story because he's such an obvious plant. He hangs out with the most wealthy and powerful people in the world then "coincidentally" writes sales pitches for their agendas
@@vivianoosthuizen8990 that's not saying much, but what does that say about you?
It’s says I am a person that perceive people like him to be extremely bad for humanity.
As someone who enjoyed reading Sapiens and Deus, I found this video helpful in contextualizing the flawed reasoning behind some of Harrari's more controversial ideas and arguments. However, it was disheartening to scroll down to the comment section and see so much latent anti-semitism and homophobia baked into valid critiques of his work. I would expect the people calling themselves historians and scientists writing such comments to have a little more self-respect, but they clearly have no interest in hiding their personal feelings towards someone whose total impact, all in all, has been the publishing of a few books.
The quote at 23:30 or so shows "homunculism". He's only reducing half of the experience to "electric signals" because suddently the subject shows up as homunculus who "experiences" those signals (instead of having pleasant sensations). That's an incoherent mess and a sophomoric error everyone who has ever taught/tutored philosophy has encountered many times among students. It's also typical of people from other fields who think they can do philosophy in popular books without bothering to learn the basics.
Can you please elaborate on that, I do not understand what do you mean exactly.
@@arturhashmi6281 Either you take the perspective of subjective experience that is non-materialist and a subject does not experience electric signals in the brain but e.g. emotions or sensations. Or one takes the "3rd person" perspective" of photons hitting the retina etc. and electric signals going through the brain. in this perspective there is no subject experiencing anything, just signal processing by neural networks etc. Sure, one can claim that both are vaild descriptions of the SAME process. But the quote mixes them so it sounds as if a "little man" (homunculus) is sitting in the brain having (subjective!) experiences of electric signals that's incoherent nonsense.
@@bartolo498 Thank you so much for clarification, my English is not very good, but I understand what you meant now and I agree with you. I really recommend you works of prof. Iain Mcgilchrist - psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher who defends this immaterial perspective and elegantly criticize moderdnist reductionism in sceintific way. I espescially recommend his profound book "Master and his Emissary", but before that You can check his lectures on youtube. I did not read his latest book "Matter of things" yet, but I will definitely. Thank you again and wish you the best day.
@@bartolo498 It's similar to Sam Harris attempting to tackle the philosophy of free will while demonstrating that he hasn't even read the history of the subject & isn't familiar with common arguments & counter arguments.
@@bartolo498Exactly so.
Anti-human nihilistic techno-fascist 🪳 💯
👌💯‼️
AHNTFa
Landianism
@@dropbearjd8986 please explain to me why. I keep seeing so much hate on this author, I’ve read all of his books and seen a lot of his interviews and see no evil. Please enlighten me
@@Harrymie I could say the same about Adolf Hitler and "Mein Kampf" - if I was a Eugenicist. Moreover Hitler was named Time Magazines "Man of the Year" twice!
Useful critique Jeff and for once not an indulgent takedown which is the usual style on TH-cam. Christ we need more of this on the internet
Stop taking the Lord's name in vain.
So true. So true.
Yuval Noah Harari is easily one of the most annoying airheads in academia (if we can even say that he's a part of academia). He does absolutely nothing to question the western narrative of world history, and he flattens the human experience by placing individual psychology above all other forms of cultural, sociological, and interpersonal reaction. He's a capitalist's dream--He ignores actual facts while creating a narrative of biological essentialism that relegates humans to a realm of subjugation.
I remember reading Homo Deus back in 2017 when everyone and their mom wouldn't stop talking about him. I was severely underwhelmed, and I was extremely surprised by his lack of imagination. He's also a very milquetoast liberal concerning the Gaza/Palestine situation, which comes as a shock to no one. He refuses to understand how apartheid and colonialism led to Israel's current situation, and he's similarly ignorant about the history of the world in general.
@@TheForeignersNetwork deliberately ignorance in order to spin his own narrative??
As a pro capitalist person, no. He is not one of us.
Blaming this on capitalism is wrong, when his whole ideology is a elitist Hegelian ideology.
A man who hated the free market and loved people like Napoleon.
He is popular with the champaign socialists, who think we can shape human nature and we are all blank slates.
Hilarious stuff. I love these pompous self-important, historically ignorant ideologically driven posts that insult their intellectual betters. Pure entertainment.
He's a psychopath
There is certainly no shortage of psychopath in the US political circle
@@EvakerstinL There's stuff to criticize him about....but psychopath seriously!!
@@rishabhprasad5417 What else can you call someone who say people are useless and thinks killing of millions is good. A humanitarian?
@@rishabhprasad5417 according to Wikipedia, "Psychopathy is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited and egocentric traits, masked by superficial charm and the outward appearance of apparent normalcy".
So, the remark of Evakerstinl. does not seem to be inappropriate here.
C'mon, please stop throwing around accusations of psychopathy and narcissism when they have no basis in reality at all.
Harari seems to have no problem with publishing shoddy history and questionable claims when it earns him good money and fame. So what. Lots of people would if given the chance. To be clear, it's a serious problem and to ascribe it to the psychopathy of individuals like Harari is to miss the point.
New Guinea and Australia inhabited by 65,000 yrs ago. Harari's cognitive revolution is inherently racist.
It is certainly an old school retelling of the "Western civilization" story arc
Actually, genetic studies show that the current Austarlian Aboriginal population only arrived 42,000 years ago at the earliest. All earlier populations went extinct.
@@catherinegilbert8740 Genetic studies on Aborigines flawed by the dating presumptions used. Correct dating based on chimp-human divergence of at least 10 million years, not the 4 million preferred by Alan Wilson at Berkeley University.
@@catherinegilbert8740 False. This claim part of the cultural revolution agenda to claim that modern humans are intellectually superior.
Israeli educational system
When a person is lionized to the degree Harari is (in the media, WEF/corporate world, academia, etc.), it is almost impossible for hubris not to ensue.
good point. I did not mention the comic book version of Sapiens - did I. Please don't give to children!
From where I sit that guy is just plain evil.Deeply evil.
Can you please explain? I am seeing a lot of similar comments but not the context.
@@adamesd3699 Harari provides the context. This is a man who said "Frankly we really don't need the vast majority of you." Who's haughtiness and arrogance has him aspiring to godhood by means of technology but only for his clan of global elites. He posits an analysis of history to spin his narrative based on something 70,000 years ago, far enough back in the murky past that nothing be proven about it and long before the invention of writing and no one can verify it and marches on with his narrative of transhumanist perfection of humans as some kind of cyborgs. Any time someone claims they can create the perfect human you should run away fast! Such mean are always environmental determinists, who require absolute power over our lives to make us perfect, and it always ends in failure, and often mass death.
@@martinavaslovik3433 Well said, thanks.
@@adamesd3699i suggest you to hear the perspective of the Global South, he is the voice of neocolonization.
Western people was led to believe people in other áreas of the world are poor bacause of their leaders corruption and cultural barbarism.
His point of view of the western civilization is taken as profoundly r4c1st.
This is a misreading of his more speculative work, as a prescription, rather than a description. He is not saying transhumanism is great, he is neutral if not negative about its consequences, but he is quite accurately describing the potential conditions of when our tech makes us something other than human. Its Sci-fi stuff, but he did mention many things that appeared in black mirror, before black mirror was made. His influence is undeniable. And your criticism of him is like someone bemoaning a George Orwells 1986 for being a disgusting way to want the world... don't be so stupid.
Quasi-religious progressive historiography.
Indeed.
What I find so disturbing in his rhetoric is the idea that because we are facing the loss of abt half the jobs that remain that those people will automatically be _useless._ He cannot imagine an actual post scarcity society. Yet he supposed to be a _prophet_ like futurist over that the WEF (a nickname he was given by Schwab). Of course, he also cannot imagine moving beyond capitalism. That most people could lives of leisure (or dedicated to whatever discipline they choose) if the wealth the robot society produces is shared just a bit equitably.
"Of course, he also cannot imagine moving beyond capitalism. " - actually what WEF stands for is a move beyond capitalism, from shareholders to "stakeholders", and from free market to central planning on a global scale; besides the abolition of all traditional morality and its replacement by the vision of a utopian technocratic futuristic society;
"That most people could lives of leisure (or dedicated to whatever discipline they choose) if the wealth the robot society produces is shared just a bit equitably." - that's exactly how they imagine the society of the future to look like, or at least how they try to sell it to us plebs, so that they can stay on top;
post scarcity society? what the heck is this supposed to mean? compared to 1000 ago we live in a post scarcity society, but what people want constantly readjusts to whatever is available, so just by human nature we can never get to a post scarcity society;
besides just preserving civilization as it is requires a lot of work, and the most valuable resource has always been the time; I don't see how we could ever get to a post scarcity society with respect to time, that is a society where we will all live for ever...
"because we are facing the loss of abt half the jobs that remain " - that's a load of crap; society has lost half of the existing jobs several times in the last 200 years, in a continuous manner; and new jobs have always been created and took the place of the lost ones; no reason to believe from now on it will be any different
@@bogdanpopescu1401 Maybe I am just a pessimist, but I suspect that once robotics, 3D printing, and GAI reach a certain level of sophistication, the WEF type elites will eliminate all those "useless eaters"...(90% of the current population). 😟
He doesn't seem to realize just how useless mediocre intellectuals like himself are. Give me a good plumber and electrician any day.
@@a_lucientes Harari and WEF are not only useless but counterproductive.
@@bogdanpopescu1401 1 - Nothing about what you said is "beyond capitalism", since it doesn't abandon the capitalist society, which the multiplication of capital is it's primary goal. You can be an "utopian tchnocratic futuristic society" and still be capitalist.
2 - We don't leave in a "post scarcity society", since our economic politics are still based on "scarcity economy". Liberal economy is all about managing scarcity and if we don't part with it, we won't part with scarcity management.
We can gent in a "post scarcity society" with respect to time if we could choose how we want to spend our time. Most people in the capitalist society can't do shit beside work. Capitalists, since they have enough resources to live how they want without worrying, can enjoy their time how they want. Except that if they want to keep increasing their capital, they can't stop working neither. But they could if they decided to.
3 - Yes, it's happening since the first industrial revolution. But people are indeed losing their jobs and since AI is becoming increasily capable of doing specialized and difficult works, it'll get worse. Educated and non educated people will be relegated to even worse jobs or keep unenployed. Of course, the capital can only be reproduced by surplus value, so people need to work, right? That's where we ecounter another of the innate capitalist's crisis.
My skin crawls just looking at Harari. He believes he will be like a God, yet gave up trying to prevent his own baldness. Total Narcissist
absolutely agree with you
@@davidturoff8017 you sound ridiculous. Why would hair matter?
How do you know he ever tried to prevent his baldness?
huh
its the other way around, tying to prevent baldness is narcissistic
If you knew anything about narcissism, you wouldn't be so sure about that. Baldness is human and mundane, not worth it, too low for someone who needs to inflate and maintain his godlike fantasy. Not affirming this is the case, but it could be.
New age prophet, chanting the WEF gospel
or performing on their conference circuit
@@theburningarchive This is just cheap mud-slinging.
when the oligarchy needs a new mythmaker they simply buy one
So depressing that people like Hariri get attention and praise when there are more important/interesting thinkers in the world.
Its really just another example of the sad time we live in.
true, but thankfully I learn through this channel that so many people like you are on the search for something better. thanks for the comment
@@quietlabour491 any examples I should check out?
My god the navel gazing on this channel is weird.
@quietlabour491 Hello, who would you consider the more important/interesting thinkers? Asking out of curiosity, thank you
The destruction of humanity is the opposite of a beautiful idea.
true
you should actually engage with his true ideas,
which are very critical of bigTech & AI.
Jared Diamond's Guns Germs & Steel was as disastrously presumptuous and agenda driven as Hariri's work. No wonder Hariri thought he could make a living at it.
@frankscott1708 What do you feel is the agenda promoted in Guns, Germs, and Steel?
Such a disappointing book. I couldn’t finish it. It was so poorly written. It seemed as if he had gathered his lectures together and jammed them into a book.
Who trumps them then? Graham Hancock? Hahahaha.
@@ceeemm1901At least Hancock could be read as interesting fictional alternative history 😅
@@ceeemm1901 😂💀🏆
I called the trash about 8-10 years ago when I read a review of his first book. They had him in every European media outlet and tv-show...out of nowhere 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Yes, there are many cases of individuals being pushed to media-fame in order to shape aspects of collective thought.
YNH is a total Sam Harras type character and you know the colors he has shown in the last few years.
@@10.6.12. So True - and now that Dr. Phil and Jordan B. Peterson has revealed themselves as Zionists disregarding the International Court of Justice I am throwing them in the (waste-)basket as well ...😮💨
Yeah I got that vibe from Yuval. Smug intellectual A-hole with condescending and often moral wrong judgement.
posturing as an intellectual while pushing vomit worthy levels of cultural chauvinism? Those colours run true.
"A Sam Harris type" 🤣 one can't dream up such bullshit comments.
@@CARambolagen YNH & Harris so similar: Hollow, below average, widely promoted - easy to refute
Excellent analysis. We barely hear the word "haughtiness" these days, but I was instantly taken by how aptly it applies here. It captures the feeling of discomfort we experience in the way he lays claim to many ideas we already share and debate simply by fiercely positioning them into his "big intellectual framework" as a discovery. Then, devoid of any humility, he presents his views as though they are both incontrovertible and critically important.
thanks - one of the benefits of listening to an older TH-camr. You explained what provokes that feeling perfectly.
@@theburningarchiveolder youtuber... that will come back 😂
Anyway, enjoyed your analysis very much. Well done. Refreshing gem amongst the click bait.
That was a spot on analysis. I used to love Harari and his books like 4/5 years ago (I also used to think that Elon Musk is some kind of a messiah for this world so obviously), but it was his talks which put me off off him. He never really talks about history and soon I realised that his "history" book was not actually a history book but just a big prelude to his actual agenda, which is that all of you are losers and only some of us who are elite are going to be gods. He sees everything as part of a grand narrative and thinks that everything is just going in a certain direction, which led me to believe tht he doesn't understand what he's talking about. I now firmly believe that he doesn't have any empathy for humans or any other being and he only sees everyone as just a piece of meat which behave in a certain way due to certain chemicals and that it was never about history.
"doesn't have empathy for humans..."
Except for jews, or even not for them?
" which is that all of you are losers and only some of us who are elite are going to be gods" That's literally the opposite of what he's saying. He's very obviously WARNING us about the possibility of massive inequality and that we should find ways to stop it. I can't believe everyone in this comment section misread him so badly.
@@larkstonguesinaspic4814 Yes exactly ! He never claimed to be a Brilliant Scientist , but a historian weaving together different aspects of our history as a species .
Harari's Sapiens was one of the MOST frustrating books I have ever read in my life. The amount of bullshitting especially on anthropological issues was insane.
Harari is a hack.
And for the life of me, I don't know why they assume he has anything relevant to contribute in fields vastly outside his expertise.
You want to see his pure hypocrisy: Ask him about the history of the Hebrew people and the history of Israel.
Suddenly, he becomes very ethnocentric, I don't understand how this blood and soil of his has any place in his tech utopia 😂
I want someone to ask him what happened to the Khazarians
ah yes, the guy who wrote a book about history from memory based on vibes without actual research
neat summary
Only old white historians would feel threatened by Harari
@@joanferguson4169 what a weird comment
Yuval Noah Harari walked so whatifalthist could run.
I think Harrari may have had troubles in childhood. He strikes me as someone looking revenge on a large scale. It is what puts me off him. I am however basing this observation on gut instinct.
Revenge for the historian Romans destroying his temple, driving away his people.
Nice bit of fiction there. Very imaginative
He is g@y, most of whom were abused in childhood.
@@thomasbentele2468 don't forget about the other 150+ countries that also drove away his people (but ofc it's not their fault).
He was mocked for his frail body at the gym by an Italian Body builder from Roma.
His fame is actually much more PR & colabs with a certain type of politicians (ahem ahem funded by rich people),
also the media that promoted him, are also controlled by the same rich people.
A very diplomatic takedown. Merci.
I thought Sapiens was well written, not very original and not much referencing of the people who had actually carried out the research, overly in love with the Enlightenment / Scientific Revolution, which as you say is debatable in many ways. I skipped Homo Deus, but read 21 Lessons, and thought it was garbage. He totally lost my respect when he started supporting the NATO-Ukraine proxy war narrative and especially when he refused to take a unambiguous moral position on the Gaza genocide. What I always felt was most ironic, was that he writes about myth making or narratives, yet he personally seems to be in the business of Post-Post Modernist Grand Narration.
I agree with the last bit, it's infact ironic. Altough his opinion about world conflicts are completely different issue, Im not saying that I agre with him, You and me can also disagree about them, but if Nato wants to be the defender of the free world, then we should help Ukraine against totalitarian regime which is Russia. Israeli-palestinian conflict is much more complex, because both nations are victims of their leaders, both sides (I mean the leaders) in that sense are evil - fascist totalitarian state vs racist terrorist group. I would be glad to discuss it with you, but I believe that anybody who thinks that there is a simple solution to that conflict is wrong, world is not black and white as Harri and other modernists would like to believe.
In what way is Ukraine a democracy when their leaders are chosen by the us department of state?
@@monolith94 and they forcefully shut down other political parties, churches, media channels, postponed elections... to protect democracy
@@monolith94 LOL! I know you're just a Troll , but okay I'll play = Ukraine is MUCH more Democratic than Russia .Putin declared it ILLEGAL to say 'WAR in Ukraine' . Russians HAD TO SAY ' SPECIAL OPERATION ' or they got up to 10 years in prison , which many of them did . Ukraine DOESN'T POISON people who disagree with the Russian Oligarchy etc etc etc I hope the Russian People pay a heavy price ( oh wait they already do since MOST RUSSIANS are POOR
I say "slava ukraina"!
He's clearly a piece. Sold his integrity. He's good with words but clearly a puppet for some of the worst people the world has seen.
LOL!!!! poor sad Troll
That such a book would be the basis for his transformation suggests he was motivated by fame much more than the quest for truth.
I cannot believe you said he has charisma. What charisma??? He literally has the charisma of a traffic light
@@edmundtory6931 I can’t 😂!
@@edmundtory6931 Primarily green .🤢
Under construction , out of order
I don't find him charismatic tbh. I find him creepy as hell.
He is zionists psychopath
The animal that made itself into an inferior machine. No sign of becoming a god. The man must be mad. Or is there something else going on? Frankenstein is a powerful story too.
Frankenstein is such a good comparison to make!
Dear sir, as a PHD in ancient history and a reader of Harrari's work, I fully concur with you and your opinion! I didnt read the Sapiens as a history book at all, cannot be read as such at all! In my view its more a book of anthropology. Per instance Harrari completely ignores the political development, the great political edificies of the past are almost ignored as a great phenomenon. Even if you are a completely Annales person, you cannot ignore the polities. ... anyhow, thank you! All best!
thank you. Good to have that corroboration.
Anthropologists would strongly object to your categorization. Harari is just a pure hack. His "work" does not belong to any academic discipline.
@@path2source yes, i supposed they would, yet i cannot classify Hararis work otherwise. Its definitely not history. Perhaps "that other" "science" fiction, from there where Deniken, Hancock and the likes dwell.
Where will he live when Israel collapses in on its fascist tendencies ?
One of the many super non-fascistic countries in the Middle East or North Africa.
@@MClaudiusMarcellus you ‘ve never been to the mid east or North Africa?
@@jacobjorgenson9285 That's the point I'm making.
he could try Palestine, I hear they're treated well by their neighbours
@@christofthedead But the Jews were expelled from all Arab countries. I'm sure you were aware of that historical fact.
“He reduces everything to a biological reaction”
As opposed to what? A homunculus? A soul?
He’s a warmonger just like the rest. Advocating for using Nukes for those he doesn’t agree or like , he lost me there.
How he is considered an
“intellectual” is beyond me.
I don’t think his rise was “organic”.
Wow, didn't realise he argued for the use of nikes. That is shocking. I share your questions about his rise, but will not spend more time researching him. Thanks for the comment.
@@theburningarchive th-cam.com/video/ljtql4EsGHU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=YSSc1PjU4go7hWsi
That statement he says right there, echoed before in other sources that seems to have been taken down in TH-cam / the inter webs, arguing for nuclear first strike, breaking decades / half a century’s worth of precedence, further causing escalation, is the height of insanity.
If a “public intellectual” wants T2 Judgement Day, I’m sorry. We shouldn’t take that guy seriously. I love my family. I don’t want no nuclear Holocaust for them. I hope government policy is not swayed or influenced by someone who is a suicidal psychopath.
@@theburningarchive
you accepted a youtube comment as truth immediately? 😂😂😂
This is simply not true. He never said that and I assume you personally know all the "rest" to determine your stupid racist assertion that only testifies to yourself
th-cam.com/users/shortsljtql4EsGHU?si=ebR-gOxalDLKdt0H
Here he is advocating nuclear first strike use. Saying Israel could. And even if deep inside he didn’t mean it, or saying “Israel can” but that’s not his personal position; heck why even introduce that idea publicly?! That’s dangerous and a slippery slope. Mind you not nuke on nuke, but to use a nuke if they get fired at with thousands of rockets. Which they already do. Upending decades/more than half a century’s worth of established nuclear use doctrine.
The longer form is easily seen online. But I’m sure you know that. You are just not intellectually honest enough to admit it.
I’m done here. You don’t argue from a place of good faith. Or reality even. You do you.
As a meditation teacher, I appreciate how Harari's work is informed by the distinction between stories and myths on the one hand, and basic physical truths on the other. For Harari, a Vipassana practitioner who meditates two hours daily and goes on extended silent retreats every year, separating "suchness" from the egoic dramas we inhabit and identify with as both individuals and societies is a lifelong enterprise. There may be excellent scholarly objections to some of his interpretations of history, and I don't have any problem with that. But on the whole he brings a very clear and healed perspective to human affairs that is widely appreciated and, I believe, adds value to our collective conversation.
I appreciate that perspective. Thanks for sharing
His political perspectives are not rooted or informed by an application of core sattipattana principles as he does not make an effort to understand mental fabrications and cognition in of it itself is a limited-perspective conditional force, which is largely biased in any and all of Harari’s argumentations; there are in fact just as deep and intellectually capable practitioners who advocate anarchist philosophies who would be better to heed their advice with regards to political perspectives eg: Glenn Wallis; Harari is just a loudmouth too self-confident empire-supported apologist who thinks he has superior ethics because of how he lives his life and frames his cognition only from his self-limited perspective. Just because one might be enlightened does not necessarily make one politically savvy or wise :) .
This would not be true even if: 1: Harari was not a cheap pamphleteer for the most despicable elites.
2 - If he knew what a "myth" is.
3 - If he even remotely knew what truth and "physical facts" are. Harari understands absolutely nothing about Physics.
Did Hariri perhaps write the Ashkenazi European Jews into the Hebrew history of the middle east while he was at it? Asking for a friend.
מה בדיוק אתה רוצה?
His books are excellent. The majority of people don't like to listen about reality and he is right about that. You prefer fairy tales about humans as ''superior'' species, which u r not Humans are cancer, and Harari is just too polite.
You can be Cancer if you like, but I am a Child of God. He chose me before I was born, he knew me. Called me by my name.
Average Harari fan
Humans are not a superior species, except for the ones who aren't "losers"? I was about to say a stopped clock is right twice a day in that he said humans are not superior to other animals, but he clearly thinks he is superior to others if he's saying most humans are "losers". What an incoherent mess. Don't need Harari for this.
Also, he forgot to point out in his books, the stage in human history where God declared some of us 'the chosen ones', and 'special'. Him being one of them.
Yes, that old trope runs through it
the Israeli education system strikes again
The Hebrew words in the Hebrew Bible have been misunderstood. The word means literally ‘chosen’, ‘selected’, ‘picked’, and has no sense whatsoever of elitism, privileged, better, etc. The entire narrative of the Lord finding a people among the peoples of the earth who would freely consent to live in accordance with the huge number of constraints outlined in the Hebrew Bible is detailed in the important Oral narrative that accompanies the written text (Midrash, etc.). In these Oral narratives, equally divinely inspired, all peoples in the world were approached and offered the Torah and none wanted to commit to those restraints. The attitude therein is not critical or negative, but a very realistic, “Why should they?”. The Hebrews consented, seeing the considerable moral, ethical, and positive practical value of living in a certain way. Some of us live in this way to this day. These Oral narratives present the Torah literally as a “burden” and a “yoke”. Certainly no hint of superiority. Perhaps more like committing to a marriage or a demanding but rewarding profession? Sorry so long.
Mr. Harari is not at all proclaiming any such chosen people status, on the contrary. He calls such thinking narratives that people have made, a kind of made up stories. So you seem to have misunderstood a very central point in his books and lectures.
Not a single specific retort of any of Yuval's claims or philosophies. Just generally saying "other historians do it better". Can you please give more detail? any detail?
This comment section is absurd. No one specifically points out any statements or things he gets wrong and rebuts them.
there are soooooooo many factual and logical mistakes in Harari's work, as well as terrible moral positions, you must be able to see some of themself?? For example in Brief history of hS. Did you read that one??? Some I mention some huge mistakes in that one??
@@pauldiffenderfer I’ve read/listened to his main 3 books. I’m not denying that there’s probably things in there he’s got wrong or I might disagree with. But please please please just name something specific?? What moral things, what historical errors?
@@noahschutz8404
What is your background? We could discuss in a Zoom meeting. I am a professor at the Rheinische Hochschule in Köln Germany.
I am always looking for good people who are interested in research.
I am currently trying to build a group for an alternative media startup which focuses on building a truly democratic media.
It has been several years since I read Harari. I can only mention quickly two or three points to watch out for in his 'Brief History..."
1. His main claim is that the strength of a civ comes the standardiztion of its common narrative...this is both central to his book and an important claim almost unquestioned in modern culture. Any scientific approach, as Harari himself points out, invovles self-critique. But in Harari's book he avoids any self-critique and even goes so far as to lie or hide an obvious counter-example to his claim of "strength through mono-culturalism."
He touches the history of ancient Rome but fails to mention to the reader that Rome is an obvious counter-example...the Rome was established by and through its self-conscious embrace of multi-culturalism, and it fell as soon as it tried to force the entire Empire to be of one religion (under Christianity.)
Harari explicitly either lies or is ignorant on this at one point saying, "We couldn't know why Constantine wanted to establish a single religion in the Roman world. It is not as if he would tell us." etc. This is either a lie or a mistake because the letters of Constantine to his bishops are easily accessible and in the public domain, and in these letters Constantine, Constantine tries to explain to his bishops why he chose to promote Christianity...and what he says is something like this, "The civil wars only ended because the remained only one ruler of the whole Roman world, me. And just as having only one ruler helped establish peace, enforcing one religion should also decrease the possibility of civil war."
Harari must certainly know of these letters if he is a professional historian. He is never once self-critical about his central point precisely because he knows that history is just as likely to show that he is wrong as that he is right.
To put the case even more easily to Harari, I quote one of the greatest civilization builders of all time, Cyrus the great, "Strength through diversity." Any professional historian focusing in the general trend of empire knows this...and especially Harari being that it was Cyprus who paid for and protected the Jews to rebuild their second temple in Jerusalem...in fact, had it not been for the "Strength through diversity" policy of Cyrus, Judiasm probably wouldn't even exist today.
2. Genocide of the Aztecs. Harari dismisses the genocide of the Aztecs as a clash of civilizations - but, it was rather crimes of Spanish on Aztecs, crimes which Spain would never allow commited within their own borders, which lead to the genoide of the Aztecs. The practices of those Spanish criminals were not sustainable within Spanish society and therefore don't represent Spanish civilization.
One cannot say the following, "Those who don't prevent crimes done on them are culturally to blame for the crimes done on them." That is an evil point of view, one which reminds me of H#tler's response to a journalist asking how he had the right to murder his political opposition in their beds, "It must have been right because I was able to do it."
No civilization could be sustained on such an outlook. It would be like saying that a person stabbed in the back was to blame for his own death because he allowed someone to walk behind him.
Trust and divsersity cannot be ignored in a history of humanity, but Harari has managed to do this in his history.
Harari also fails to mention the extent of the genocide of the Aztecs - around 20 million dead has been estimated. Nothing more to say here - shocking that Harari doesn't care about this.
One last point, He ignores the existence of Islamic civilization. He has thousand-year-holes everywhere in his historical narrative.
When Plato and Aristotle were first read in Europe again, 700 years after the Christians had burned every public access work of philosophy, the Europeans read them in Arabic, why? Because it was the Muslims who preserved civilization after the Christians destroyed it in the 400s.
I wrote too much. Good luck in your own research. Always believe in the basic goodness of human nature...that is the key to understanding everything correctly and being able to always see through propaganda - for the essential function of propaganda is to make us mistrust, and even hate, human nature.
@pauldiffenderfer provides an excellent response below. Thanks Paul
@@theburningarchive thank you sir. Please let me know if I can support your work in any way.
I hope within the next year to publish again, this time a book on business leadership.
Best luck! Your style and message is great, that's what makes up for the noise of mass media, voices of humanity like yours what is so needed
Harari is on camera saying that free will is over .He can go to hell.
A good example of his "haughtiness"
@@georgeroberts6490 Free will is imagined, just like Hell.
@@SimonDrewstahEverything is imagined, so free will is not an exception from that reality.
@@DrivingMaskina Yes, free will is imagined
HE'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE ( TED) ORGANIZATION OUT OF CALIFORNIA WITH THE CRISPER CASE-9 TECHNOLOGY. WHO CLAIM THAT IT'S WILL ELEMENATE MUTILATIONS THAT CAUSES RARE DISEASES, ETC, ETC IN THE FUTURE. IF THEY TELL YOU THIS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. YOU CAN REAT ASSRURED THEY HAVE ALREADY PERFECTED THIS TECHNOLOGY, BUT FOR SOME VERY, VERY, EVIL NAFRARIOS PURPOSES!!! OTHER SCIENTISTS HAVE ALREADY DISCOVERED THAT THE HEBREW NAME OF ( GOD) IS INCODED IN OUR HUMAN ( DNA). EACH LETTER IN THE HEBREW NAME IS ASSOCIATED WITH A NUMBER THAT SPELLS OUT ( GOD'S) NAME IN OUR ( DNA)!!! 10-Y, 5-H, 6-W, 5-H... CRISPER CASE-9 TECHNOLOGY ARE ABOUT TO ATTEMPT TO REMOVE GOD'S NAME FROM OUR INPRINTED NAME ON EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET AND REPLACE IT WITH ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT. YUVAL NOAH HARAI IS ON RECORD THAT FREE WILL IS OVER, THE SOUL IS OVER, ETC,ETC,. BE YOU YUVAL NOAH HARARI, BILL GATES, CHARLES SCHWAB AND THE WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE BILLIONAIRES AND ALL ALPHABET ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS UN,WHO,CIA, NATIO, ETC,ETC. HAVE BO INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER TO GIVE UP THEIR FREE-WILL. THEY PLAN TO RULE EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING WHO FALLS FOR THIS MARXIST FACSIST NEW WORLD ORDER FACSIST REGIME!!!!
It takes extreme hubris and narcissism to hazard covering 70,000 years of history!
Where is the expertise in anthropology, archeology and linguistics! Highly speculative and emotional, rather than scientific.
People like him and Jordan Peterson should stay in their lane, whatever that is.
I agree about speculative and also think it is OK to reach beyond your lane to ask big questions. But if you do, do so with humility and empathy, which Harari fails to do.
I fail to understand the hostility towards Harari's speculative books. Are people saying that it's illegitimate for historians to speculate? Is it illegitimate to try to write big-picture history as opposed to writing about particular, specialized issues?
Read Sapiens. I thought it was well written. I didn't notice any bias, and then again, I read with an open mind, so I was looking for any. I dont think he is forcing anyone to believe anything. In any case, I make my own mind up and am responsible for all of my own actions.
I would like to know his views on the genocide in Gaza, though. Then, I would be in a much better position to make a judgement.
It’s out there and that’s the rub. I have long enjoyed his writing and his interviews. Someone asked him a question that he didn’t know the answer. He actually said I don’t know. After prodding he still said he didn’t know.
I am steeting clear of that topic for now
“Humans are hackable animals”
YNH
So glad this video came into my feed. I read his first three books, but have also read Will and Ariel Durant's and AJP Taylor's books. Yuval Noah Harrari's success by comparision made no sense to me, as I was finding so many holes and what I perceived to be biases.
I've seen so many people on the tube reading his books. He's the most popular historian of our time, and that speaks volumes about the time we live in. It's not the most intellectually honest by any measure.
Harari writes trash whic people like for no reason
I like his writing for many reasons. Good ones imo.
but but he's a genius isn't he....LOL
There is a reason . He tells people what they like to hear .
people like simple answers said with confidence
@@JaJDoo Indeed, like; yuval is evil, being a a good example.
22 minutes to get to specific critiques of Harari, and it's all pretty vague and general. No specific points of error from Harari. I agree that he's just rewording old stories, and is more a futurist than a historian, but I don't think this video contributed much to articulating SPECIFICALLY where he's erred.
Id suggest everyone read the Work of Graeber and Wengrow for specifics.
Thanks for the suggestions. I think books and articles are the best place to do the detailed points of error. Feel free to give the titles of the worls you mentioned.
@@theburningarchive
Graeber and Wengrow articulate significant errors in Harari's assumptions in their book "The Dawn of Everything". For context, they are an anthropologist and an archaeologist (Wengrow is British, and the UK differentiates between anthropology and archaeology for some reason, whereas in the US archaeology is a subset of anthropology).
The Dawn Of Everything really does sound like a worthwhile read from all I've heard and read about it!
Harari = pure propaganda. it has a very engaging text and some interesting insights, but it is a work without any scientific rigor, it is sad to see the huge stage it has in the world today.
Yes, that is why I did the video. I did it less bluntly because he has many fans and people need to be coaxed along a little. thanks for the comment
Suppose it is true that the last 2 revolutions (agricultural and scientific) are a function of the first (cognition), then what is the first revolution a function of, IF, as he says, we are simply a series of hormones and biological processes which are the only things that make us happy (via sugar, sex, adrenalin rushes etc). The problem is that all mammals have the same kinds of hormones and biological processes, as do hordes of other species in the animal kingdom, so why would evolution have driven towards greater cognition if A) we were already being fully satiated, and B) those subsequent things didn't and don't bring us increased happiness over and above the previous level of happiness? Doesn't make sense. I know this is not your purpose Jeff to answer this, so the question is rhetorical, and anyway, I have my own hypothesis on it! 😂 I have found Yuval's work to be very "pop" and mostly regurgitation. A single episode of your podcast is as enlightening as 50 of his! 😅
Divine logos, us as an emergent manifestation, faint flicker in the cosmos perceiving nature's laws?
Greater cognition is extremely disruptive since it tends to transcend a species beyond its function within the biosphere.
Just imagine the sheer chaos if every competing species in the biosphere had greater cognition.
@@zaniwoob Another good reason why purely materialistic explanation for cognition doesn't fit the model.
Harari’s books are a tale of intellectual hubris. When you write about so many things that are outside of your academic wheelhouse and all the specialists in those topics pan your shoddy misrepresentation of their field, that should make you think…
A book I recently read and enjoyed on a much better circumscribed aspect of “deep history” was James C. Scott’s “Against the Grain” on the foundations of the earliest states
In my opinion, people like thinkers of everything. In this sense, Harari was attempt to replace old Žižek, but without sense of humour which on the other hand has gave to Žižek sort of intellectual humbleness and therefore trust by readers, which lucks to Harari. There’s something sleazy in his structure of arguments (as you have put it - he uses history to justify his wishful ideology, namely, materialistic hedonism without strings attached). I’ve used to buy Annual Forecast edition of the magazine Economist, predicting geopolitical and economic future. I’d read it one year letter. I did it for more than 10 years. Non single time the Economist’s think tank didn’t predict the first quarter, nonetheless the whole year ahead.
Actually I find Harari's take on things most thought-provoking and worth exploring.
"People are never happy by finding true love, people are really happy by pleasant sensations in their body". 'nuff said for me.I've seen enough of this killing of love values, just look at the last Olympics opening celebration in France... or just about everywhere in this terrible world. Also, I think the author on the video doesn't put enough enphasis on Harari's transhumanism.
Reading his books is a suffering .
Indeed, I won't be returning to them. Sorry to trigger you.
I catered an event for the DNC's National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016. It was actually a birthday party for Bill Clinton and maybe 1,000 of his 'closest friends', held at the National Museum for American Jewish History. Clinton is a captivating speaker. He went onstage and extemporized a tale of the history of mankind- for 40 minutes!- leading up into the importance of the present moment. This was in 2016. I didn't realize at the time that Yuval's 2014 publication was the source material.
Yes. I think that is Yuval's role - good dinner party stories for the elite!
I find 99.99 per cent of coments over the top
Agreed
Yep, makes me wonder...
Claiming that Hararis view is reductionist is not a weekness I was waiting for some substance or evidence or just an explanation of the 'critique' but nothing !
OK. can we agree to disagree?
@@theburningarchiveno, you talked in 30 about nothing. No facts, no book quotations and proving he's wrong. No factual statements whatsoever
Conventionally, reductionism is seem as a flaw because it omits important details and suggests motivated reasoning. But you do you.
tl;dr :
Harari's pros: charismatic story teller
Harari's cons: motivated reasoning
great summary!
Harari is the new “spoon bender” of our time.
22:50 as Neurobiologist , I don’t see other way to understand nature, animals including humans… reduction is necessary for understanding, otherwise is just interpretation , guesses beliefs…
I understand that viewpoint. The historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto i think does a brilliant job integrating biology and culture in understanding history. Great point, thank you. You might want to check my interview with him th-cam.com/video/8zkd0Bax9Xo/w-d-xo.html
Harari is a good read and a pricipator of ideas. He is no polymath though. He abounds the psychology of the mind and the great psychoanalysts. He is not strong on philosophy including the history and philosophy of science. To me he is messianic and prone to narcissism. But he does precipitate debate.
A good summary. I didn't find him a good read, though: very shallow, repetitive and reductionist. Anyone who has any proficiency in any of the areas he covers will, I believe, find him insufferable.
He sounds more like a charlatan than a historian to me.
Yes I think that is a French colloquial word for futurist, yes?
Another one of the tribe
@@THINKincessantly
Yes, another one of the special people we are never allowed to criticize ever under any circumstances.
I don t like Harari, but I find this barely disguised racism even more ridiculous
@@rolandperlitz8508 videos like these are a cesspool for hate comments* and ignorance
עם ישראל חי חביבי
@@MrStrocubeעם ישראל חי
Drawing attention to problematic ideas in such a measured & respectable manner is very admirable & a serious breath of fresh air compared to the usual youtube dunking & destroying
thank you. Please spread the word about my channel. 🙏💐
Very dangerous for troubled spirits to meditate
Better to keep them distracted.
With fundamental critiques.
There are no shortage of troubled spirits especially in the country that create endless wars of aggression around the world
your statement relies on a particular (American) understanding of meditation. to the contrary, where is the danger in being present?
A very thorough and balanced assessment of Harari's work! Thank you for summarizing and presenting it so clearly. I wasn't sure why people were so hot and cold about his work, but I understand why now: he's a great storyteller, but not a very original or deep thinker. What's really remarkable is that his premises are quite antique reductionist tropes from the turn of the 20th century, and yet they're celebrated as stunning, revolutionary ideas.
I am sensing that people are having trouble with the concept of "What is the role of a historian?" here. There is no point in merely talking about the past unless one understands that history is a river of time that flows into the future carrying momentum of past events. I'm also rather tired of people who confuse the art of history, which is about subjective storytelling, with anything whatsoever to do with science or objectivity. Stop. It's an art. It's inherently about spinning narrative. What is interesting about YNH is his particular takes and you are free to agree or not as you see fit. There is no "correct answer" when dealing with history.
Now, having read these three books some years ago and thus being somewhat faded in memory, I recall only the first two to be truly worthwhile. There was a lot of food for thought there. 21 Lessons seemed to be more for people who hadn't watched his talks.
this video seems a pat conclusion in a desperate search of a premise. While I'm not a fan of Harari, you seem to take for granted the issue at point, which to me at least poisons your conclusions.
OK what is the issue at point?
@theburningarchive shouldn't you know ?
Harari doesn't really introduce novelty, he does recycle some ideas, but particularly the notion of cognitive revolution appears supported by the rapid step change in social complexity and material culture development between homo sapiens robustus, and our more gracile form. As to agriculture as a major lever in transition from small family groups to larger populations, no one seriously debates it. The scientific and industrial revolutions happened in europe, and nowhere else, and it is only controversial to people who wish to be outraged by the facts of history, as opposed to vicarious zero sum egalitarianism . I'm not saying you're necessarily one of those, but I do note a dismissiveness about Harari's materialism, which - frankly - is the only position someone interested in evidence can hold.
Your critique of his supposed "tone of haughtiness" shows that this is not about the argument. Particularly, your need to insert empathy as a criterion, which you say he is missing, seems spurious, especially since this is wholly relativizing your judgement.
00:23 'His rotting has real power' or 'his writing has real power'. Hmmm...
British people don’t know how to pronounce vowels correctly. 😅
In one of the interviews of Harari I had heard him saying no one read his books until he was only writing about complex and critical history ; as soon as he started writing about future he earned his fame . The educated people who holds the money in our society mostly studied STEM . They are a generation who only looked into the future with a speculative mind - in terms of new ventures , asset prices . Selling speculation would be an easy task to these community - Harari is the genius to recognise this . He is a super genius there is no doubts.
Yes he has a nose for a speculative scheme doesn't he?
Lets talk about Isstaell supporting apartheid in South África.
good point
That has absolutely nothing to do with the content
@@theburningarchive LOL! You're just jealous End of story poor baby