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?
Religion is when you believe stuff.
Excuse me…I…I believe you have my stapler.
All praise Anarcho-Bolshevik!
Liberal definitions of anything are like this. Vague nonsense that could apply to anything, but they use a bunch of words to say “This is a thing that is defined by stuff.” so their liberal audience eats it up because the big words make them feel smart.
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.
This sack of shit is like the patron saint of hollow liberal enlightment. I wonder if he thinks that the Soviet and Chinese efforts in WW2 were part of a holy war.
Bet you anything this dude has a miniature bust of Voltaire somewhere at home, along with a couple books by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
I wonder if he thinks that the Soviet and Chinese efforts in WW2 were part of a holy war.
Warrior Monk Stalin does have a certain meme potential, however…
But also, why is not Christianism and Judaism and Capitalism together with Islam and Buddhism and Communism?
Idk, it’s almost like he’s trying to drill into the readers’ minds that communism is a religion/cult, and thus imbed anti-communism. I know that’s all I remembered from my first read, not that he thinks ideology is the same as religion and even liberalism would be described as religion.
I stopped reading when he compared Socialism in the USSR to Islam, can someone please summarise the rest for me?
They stop pretending they care about anything other than claiming that communism specifically is a religion.
It’s basically all in the C&C chart religion is when both “human norms and values” and “belief in superhuman nature” according to Harari. In other words religion is when you believe stuff, do stuff on that basis, and judge things based on what you believe.
lorem ipsum
is Veganism a relgion?
By this logic most definitely. Based on superhuman science or moral values against inflicting pain, associated with actions and maybe evangelism. I’m pretty sure in some places you can get religious exemptions for being vegan or even claim religious descrimination.
I had a religious experience with this bomb ass vegan BBQ Mac and cheese burrito I just ate. Does that count?
Yeah it counts
Well this is the dumbest thing I’ve read in the last few minutes. The forces behind religious occurrences are not merely ‘superhuman’ in that they exist without us, they are supernatural - i.e. they exist outside of nature, they violate natural laws. The most you can say about communism is that it posits natural laws, and not everything in it is such a law.
Oh boy liberals really are projecting their shit.
So… do they like religion, or do they not? I can never tell with libs (it seems to flip-flop depending on whatever it is they’re talking about).
Religion is when you apply scientific analysis to critique the norms and values of society. Science is when you regard the norms and values of society as being above analysis or critique. I am very intelligent
How does he define ideology?
Read the last paragraph of the second image. He seems to think there is no meaningful difference between religion and ideology, or at least his definition is the only one that can encapsulate all religions.
I saw that. If that’s the extent of it, his point doesn’t quite stand up to logic. You can’t say two things are the same if you only define one of them and only assume that the other has the same characteristics.
He probably just came up with a definition and ran with it, doubling down when some non-religions fell under his definition.
Fr I think that’s exactly it. One of those writers who has an idea and then applies it to every conceivable topic under the sun (and beyond) until he’s got enough words for a book. He’s clearly not starting with material reality and building a thesis based on his findings otherwise he wouldn’t say such bizarre things.
That diagram could have been made by a 4chan user angry because a marxist girl poked fun at his football obsession.
But neoliberalism is definitely a cult!
How do people take this seriously?
