"Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari.
Hands down the book that most influenced me. The book had (for me) not one but several simple-yet-profound ideas that were forever inserted into the foreground of how I make sense of the world. For example, the existence of shared myths that allow humans to cooperate on a large scale. Or how I too, am religious, though I was sure I wasn't.
If you enjoyed this then I highly recommend Ideas: A History by Peter Watson, a far superior book in my opinion.
I found Sapiens to be shallow and full of useless waffle after reading Ideas. It really highlights the fact that Harari presents one particular version of history and there are many great thinkers that have an opinion on the things he discusses. E.g. Harari speculates on how and why money came to be used where as Watson presents a plethora of ideas on the origin of money and discusses the merits of different views.
Ha. My gut reaction to reading your and your parent post was "What?! How can they criticize the book. It's pure truth!" Guess I really took a liking to that book. :)
But seriously, can you elaborate on where you thought it was biased?
It’s not so much that it was biased, more that it presented a particular view on history as if it was the truth. Harari view would have been a data point in “Ideas”, which is more a (very detailed) survey of the ideas about history. Gun, Germs and Steel is actually discussed as are Jared Diomonds other works in relation to his ideas of the grand narratives of human evolution and thought.
Harari often speculates about what people in the past were thinking when we have actual written accounts from the time. The point of “Ideas” is that imposing modern ideas on the past doesn’t really work or is at least difficult because the ideas of the time were so different. An example would be the modern conception of an “artist” being a concept created during the romantic period. Before that people doing painting or music considered themselves craftspeople. So trying to read intent into what they were doing based on the modern conception of an artist is a fools errand. Harari seemed to do this kind of thing all the time.
There were some interesting facts in Sapiens but there was so much fluff as well. Maybe this is just me but do we really need a page of speculation about what society would have been like if we used seashells as currency?
Maybe it’s the editors fault but I though Sapiens could have been a cut down to a third of its length by removing (to me) useless, unreferenced speculation about what people may have thought. A don’t get me started on the poor referencing.
Anyway this has turned into a bit of a rant so I’m going to stop here.
Highly recommend Ideas: A History. It’s denser, a little drier but definitely far superior to Sapiens.
I just finished this recently and would definitely recommend as well. It really made me question a lot of assumptions I had about humanity and history. For example it's really not obvious that the agricultural revolution should have ever taken place considering the challenges associated with changing from a proven system for survival.
Fantastic and I completely agree. The book helped me to get perspective on current events and helped provide relevant historical precedent for almost everything in the world around us.
For example, I never thought about how ideas that are touted by organizations or religions are frequently argued to be "natural" or "divine" or somehow sewn into the fabric of the universe. The book helped me to become a little more skeptical by portraying how versatile and diverse human societies can be, and how there is truly very little that is "natural", "eternal", and meant to be.
Similarly, the book helped me to realize how unprecedented the current rates of economic and technological growth are. Its an exciting time to be alive, filled with almost infinite possibilities, and that fact is especially inspiring when you understand how much more restrictive previous generations and cultures were.
I'm finding it a bit hit and miss. I agree, the "shared myths" notion is very appealing. And I enjoy learning the facts that form the skeleton on which he pins his thinking. However, I can't help feeling that a professional thinker -- philosopher, whoever -- would debate his proposals. It seems to me that a collaboration with a second author would have leant robustness to his philosophy. As it stands, it comes across as an historian stepping outside of his expertise unchallenged. All well and good, but a bit flimsy.
I look forward to reading further books published in response by others.
It was a funny book in that he introduced very few facts about the world that I didn't already know, but that he tied all of it together so well. I find that I'm a much more empathetic and rational person whenever I try to frame my opinion of something/someone the way Harari would.
Hands down the book that most influenced me. The book had (for me) not one but several simple-yet-profound ideas that were forever inserted into the foreground of how I make sense of the world. For example, the existence of shared myths that allow humans to cooperate on a large scale. Or how I too, am religious, though I was sure I wasn't.
Can't recommend it enough.