Why insist on such a broad definition of religion? I know it’s hard to define, but this definition is so broad it can include a vast array of things. You believe in gravity because you read a book about it, subscribe to newton’s laws and proceed to drop things move or jump without the expectation of flying away, while believing it’s not good to jump out a window ‘cause you’ll die thanks to gravity? Must be a religion. You read about metal working and the physics behind it (believing it is possible due to the laws of the universe and not human rules) then do metalworking with the intention of making money or something of creative value? Religion. You may object that a religion has to be a worldview, but Harari acts like the only reason the theory of relativity isn’t a religion is because it doesn’t have associated practice or values. Also plenty of communists are Christians or Buddhists (if the atheist kind), and who calls stoicism a religion?
A lib in my life cannot stop telling me that I really should read this book. I really can’t be arsed to waste my time with such inept use of language and complete failure to understand basic political concepts.
What’s on the next page, talking about how scientific theories are just “theories,” as in untested and unproven; some stoner’s shower thoughts?
I liked some of the parts like where he explains that humans can live in so many ways that patriarchy and nuclear family are far from the only natural or common way, where the contradictions within Christianity are explained, and some other things. Otherwise there are a lot of problems. He tries to include more disciplines than he understands and pretends to be objective, ignoring his own liberalism. Harari argues for the humanity of corporations, the ignoring of economic debate in favor of a transhumanist focus, and that all ideologies are fundamentally humanist ignoring eco fascism, among other things. Honestly the Bill Gates endorsement on the cover should have been a bigger red flag.
Humanity of corporations or personhood/personality?
Personhood
That’s quite a common view. It didn’t necessarily equate to having humanity. Corporations need personality to act in their own name, enter contacts, etc. It’s a mechanism for protecting shareholders, too, because they can pretend it was the company-person who did XYZ, rather than them.
Sure, humanity wasn’t the right word. His argument that corporations hold the same place in our minds as humans could be used to justify citizens United v fec though.
Oh, I definitely agree with that. Corporations don’t hold the same place as humans in my mind. It can be a useful argument for holding corporations to account but that kind of CSR (corporate social responsibility) has it’s limits.
It gets a bit technical in places because it’s quite an academic book but you might enjoy Grietje Baars, The Corporation, Law, and Capitalism for a good critique of this topic.
I wouldn’t bother. The same thing happened to me, I had no knowledge of the dude but the title seemed interesting, however knowing he’s a lecturer at an Israeli univeristy my suspicions were later proved correct.