45 ms·

I had to put down Harari's "Sapiens" because his equivocation between different uses of the word "myth", particularly around any medium of exchange, contracts,

I had to put down Harari's "Sapiens" because his equivocation between different uses of the word "myth", particularly around any medium of exchange, contracts, or law, is so infuriating. A myth implies something that is false. An agreement between people is not false like a myth describing why it rains. He uses myth to describe every abstract concept shared between people. This fallacy underlies the bulk of his arguments, and makes most of his writing worthless.

jonnybgood 8y ago
Myth doesn't imply something false. I think you are going by the common usage of the word myth. Myths have little to do with falsity. Wikipedia says it best: "Recent approaches often view myths as manifestations of psychological, cultural, or societal truths, rather than as inaccurate historical accounts." [0] Harari uses the word correctly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
fsloth 8y ago
Myths are not necessarily false. They are just things people believe. To a physicist there is nothing unmythical about a contract. It is based on the belief that the words on the paper will entice the other party - like some sort of golem that can be commanded with words - to act accordingly. It is one of the wonderful unbelievable symmetries of human behaviour that often the other party will belief likewise, and this common belief makes the contract actualized. Note - there may be several reasons why it is rational for the other party not to brake with the contract, but constructing the complete cost benefit scenario for the other party in ones head is quite labour intensive - this is not how fundamentally people in general approach things - but rather people follow accepted norms and believe they will work as expected. It is totally wonderfull and unexpected that this common web of belief and action makes the human civilization work. I think Harari's description of human interaction is philosophically deep and cuts to several points if one wants to create a "system theoretical" model within ones mind how and why humans can function as a coherent civilization.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
He just uses the word myth to mean "social construct," (which he explains in the book). Social constructs are those things we all pretend are real, but aren't objectively real in the scientific sense (e.g. a country). He probably chose to use "myth" instead of "social construct" because it sounds less pretentious.

jonnybgood 8y ago

Myth doesn't imply something false. I think you are going by the common usage of the word myth. Myths have little to do with falsity. Wikipedia says it best: "Recent approaches often view myths as manifestations of psychological, cultural, or societal truths, rather than as inaccurate historical accounts." [0] Harari uses the word correctly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

fsloth 8y ago

Myths are not necessarily false. They are just things people believe. To a physicist there is nothing unmythical about a contract. It is based on the belief that the words on the paper will entice the other party - like some sort of golem that can be commanded with words - to act accordingly. It is one of the wonderful unbelievable symmetries of human behaviour that often the other party will belief likewise, and this common belief makes the contract actualized. Note - there may be several reasons why it is rational for the other party not to brake with the contract, but constructing the complete cost benefit scenario for the other party in ones head is quite labour intensive - this is not how fundamentally people in general approach things - but rather people follow accepted norms and believe they will work as expected. It is totally wonderfull and unexpected that this common web of belief and action makes the human civilization work. I think Harari's description of human interaction is philosophically deep and cuts to several points if one wants to create a "system theoretical" model within ones mind how and why humans can function as a coherent civilization.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

He just uses the word myth to mean "social construct," (which he explains in the book). Social constructs are those things we all pretend are real, but aren't objectively real in the scientific sense (e.g. a country). He probably chose to use "myth" instead of "social construct" because it sounds less pretentious.