3 ms·

I find this interesting. I've read Graeber essays, but the only book I tried is "Utopia of Rules" and I found that it read as if he did exactly what you describ

I find this interesting. I've read Graeber essays, but the only book I tried is "Utopia of Rules" and I found that it read as if he did exactly what you describe Harrari as doing. It felt like he set up a windmill separate from reality to tilt at. I do agree that Harari is great for thought piece stuff, I put him in the same category as Gladwell. Entertaining to read, but not to be trusted as a singular source.

abdullahkhalids 4y ago
Our models and explanations of the world are dependent on our belief system and the framework through which we look at. For example, a marxist's explanation of the economic system is very different from that of a neo-liberal. The two would not even agree on an ontology, yet alone the mechanism. Graeber was a self-proclaimed anarachist. His books indeed have a different description of reality than the orthodox description of reality. If you don't agree with his description, then it will indeed look outlandish - the same way an atheist's and religious person's descriptions sound outlandish to each other. If you do agree with his descriptions, or at least that there are many different conceptions of the world, then his views are more reasonable. Harari is not making scholarly arguments at all, so we cant even say much about his books.