the book "Sapiens" by Noah Harrari and whether or not it has a valid argument
The book "Sapiens" by Noah Harrari argues that religion among other human fictional constructs were necessary for people to work together and in some ways conquer this planet. If you've read the book or have read books similar to it i would like to welcome (keyword is welcome) you to comment on this concept or this book or this concept. Personally i think the book has alot of great points and i believe the book is very much true.
Comments (14)
At some point a split emerged between "adaptationists" - those who, like Harrari, explain religion as a useful adaptation - and "spandrelists" - those who view it as a byproduct of other developments, in itself adaptationally neutral at best. Among the latter are Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, Robert McCauley, E. T. Lawson, Harvey Whitehouse - most are cognitive scientists, although the best-known "spandrelists" happen to be evolutionary biologists who are not really experts in this particular field - Richard Dawkins, who went so far as to call religion "a virus of the mind" and Steven Gould, who offered the spandrel metaphor (an architectural element that is not usually build for its own sake).
Adaptationist theories are advanced by anthropologists and some evolutionary biologists, such as Joseph Bulbulia, Richard Sosis, D. S. Wilson. I find some of the anthropological research such as that of Sosis and Bulbulia, particularly interesting, since it does not just offer tendentious interpretations, but subjects the hypothesis to an empirical test.
Some of those authors i am familiar with and i find their work severely lacking as to the others i'll have to research them myself and see what they say.
He doesn't argue that religion was necessary, just that fictional constructs had a use and were of benefit in ways.
thats true.
There has been a slight up-tick in the use of perdure in various forms. Keep up the good work!
I suppose now that God is dead, and we have killed him, we could aspire to become ubermensch. Do you know of [I]Thus Spoke Zarathustra[/I]? It's a book for all and none.
"Hitler's explicit condemnations of the slave race, his ravings about the Aryan elite, and his proposed Darwinist resolution, as well as Hitler's relationship to Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Richard Wagner signal a definite connection to Nietzsche's work."
http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm
I understand Hitler may have been taking Nietzsche out of context when using him for inspiration but i think the new collective fiction needs to be very well thought out.
There's no "may" about it, and if you understand the above, then why propagate the association between the two which has already done so much damage?
Quoting christian2017
Have you read the book? Or are you judging it by its cover, and by the propaganda?
there is may about it and thats where we disagree. I'd have to read mein kampf and various works by Nietsche and i just haven't gotten around to it. That being said what i just said doesn't prove you wrong.
If you say so, [I]christian2017[/I]. I trust your impartiality in this matter.
If you want an authority on Nietzsche, look up Walter Kaufman.
Interestingly, the co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, whilst completely accepting the principle as far it applies to the physiological origin of the species, also argued against the idea that the principle of natural selection can be applied to all of the attributes and traits of humanity, saying:
He then develops the argument based on abilities including mathematical, scientific and artistic, and moral and spiritual, saying that:
He concludes, most unfashionably,
From Darwinism Applied to Man.
Of course as is well known, science now generally views Wallace as a genial eccentric with an interest in Victorian spirituality. But in culture, ‘selection’ is not always ‘natural’.
Mr. Harrarri does mention something to that effect