Sign in with Facebook
BlackOxford's Reviews > Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
by
by
Choose Your Fictions Carefully
There are far too many fascinating assertions in this book to even mention. But for me the most fascinating is Harari’s idea of the Cognitive Revolution which took place about 70,000 years ago. "We might call it the Tree of Knowledge mutation. Why did it occur in Sapiens DNA rather than in that of Neanderthals? It was a matter of pure chance, as far as we can tell. But it’s more important to understand the consequences of the Tree of Knowledge mutation than its causes."
It is this mysterious, and as yet unexplained, change in human genetics that he pinpoints as the primary reason for the ultimate success of the species Homo Sapiens in competition not just with established flora and fauna but with other human forms. Interestingly, Harari’s argument also establishes the anthropological foundations for literary post-modernism.
To over-simplify, but not by much, the Cognitive Revolution of Sapiens is precisely the ability to tell, and eventually read and write, stories, that is, fictional narratives which are interesting, entertaining, and above all convincing. This ability, an evolutionary enigma because it does not give obviously immediate advantage, underlies human ability to organize beyond very small units, to cooperate in matters of survival, and to prevail against competing species which are stronger, quicker, better adapted to the environment, able to speak in a more varied manner, and even more clever.
These narratives, according to the narrative told by Harari, begin in gossip, talk among ourselves about ourselves, which is a behaviour that is now as far as anyone knows unique to Homo Sapiens, and may even have even been unique among others of the genus Homo. Gossip leads to shared tales about common experiences, ancestors, and problems. These tales evolve into myths which are widely shared and identify large groups as ‘us�. "There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings."
Such tales incrementally employ an increasing lexicon of fictional, that is to say abstract, ideas. It is these ideas which allow the ultimate success of Sapiens, not necessarily because of their pragmatic qualities, but because, whatever they are, they are shared:
As modern existential and linguistic philosophers have thought for some time, these ideas - scientific, religious, technological, social, legal - are fundamental fictions that become progressively indistinguishable from the ‘natural� world which is apart from the imagined world of language. As Harari states what is a reiteration of this philosophical conclusion:
It is this invisibility of these linguistic fictions which constitute daily life that is both the greatest strength and greatest flaw of our species. We are able to organise ourselves, because of them, to travel to the Moon. We are also able to believe a half dozen untruths before breakfast. The internet is perhaps the best example of the paradox of our fraught existence since it promotes both cooperation and mass deceit.
For me the implications are clear: 1) literature is the only hope for the world. Fiction - novels, fairy tales, fantasies, and lots of 'em - are the only means to get a grip on reality. Reading lots of fiction developes the aesthetic sense. And it is only through aesthetics that one can decide what is important and how to deal with what is important. 2) It is also clear to me that novels cultivated our species genetically over millennia for this very reason - to get us better at reading them.
Postscript: For a rather plausible opposing view to Harari’s, see: /review/show...
There are far too many fascinating assertions in this book to even mention. But for me the most fascinating is Harari’s idea of the Cognitive Revolution which took place about 70,000 years ago. "We might call it the Tree of Knowledge mutation. Why did it occur in Sapiens DNA rather than in that of Neanderthals? It was a matter of pure chance, as far as we can tell. But it’s more important to understand the consequences of the Tree of Knowledge mutation than its causes."
It is this mysterious, and as yet unexplained, change in human genetics that he pinpoints as the primary reason for the ultimate success of the species Homo Sapiens in competition not just with established flora and fauna but with other human forms. Interestingly, Harari’s argument also establishes the anthropological foundations for literary post-modernism.
To over-simplify, but not by much, the Cognitive Revolution of Sapiens is precisely the ability to tell, and eventually read and write, stories, that is, fictional narratives which are interesting, entertaining, and above all convincing. This ability, an evolutionary enigma because it does not give obviously immediate advantage, underlies human ability to organize beyond very small units, to cooperate in matters of survival, and to prevail against competing species which are stronger, quicker, better adapted to the environment, able to speak in a more varied manner, and even more clever.
These narratives, according to the narrative told by Harari, begin in gossip, talk among ourselves about ourselves, which is a behaviour that is now as far as anyone knows unique to Homo Sapiens, and may even have even been unique among others of the genus Homo. Gossip leads to shared tales about common experiences, ancestors, and problems. These tales evolve into myths which are widely shared and identify large groups as ‘us�. "There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings."
Such tales incrementally employ an increasing lexicon of fictional, that is to say abstract, ideas. It is these ideas which allow the ultimate success of Sapiens, not necessarily because of their pragmatic qualities, but because, whatever they are, they are shared:
“Myths, it transpired, are stronger than anyone could have imagined. When the Agricultural Revolution opened opportunities for the creation of crowded cities and mighty empires, people invented stories about great gods, motherlands and joint stock companies to provide the needed social links. While human evolution was crawling at its usual snail’s pace, the human imagination was building astounding networks of mass cooperation, unlike any other ever seen on earth.�
As modern existential and linguistic philosophers have thought for some time, these ideas - scientific, religious, technological, social, legal - are fundamental fictions that become progressively indistinguishable from the ‘natural� world which is apart from the imagined world of language. As Harari states what is a reiteration of this philosophical conclusion:
“Three main factors prevent people from realising that the order organising their lives exists only in their imagination:... a. The imagined order is embedded in the material world... b. The imagined order shapes our desires... c. The imagined order is inter-subjective.�
It is this invisibility of these linguistic fictions which constitute daily life that is both the greatest strength and greatest flaw of our species. We are able to organise ourselves, because of them, to travel to the Moon. We are also able to believe a half dozen untruths before breakfast. The internet is perhaps the best example of the paradox of our fraught existence since it promotes both cooperation and mass deceit.
For me the implications are clear: 1) literature is the only hope for the world. Fiction - novels, fairy tales, fantasies, and lots of 'em - are the only means to get a grip on reality. Reading lots of fiction developes the aesthetic sense. And it is only through aesthetics that one can decide what is important and how to deal with what is important. 2) It is also clear to me that novels cultivated our species genetically over millennia for this very reason - to get us better at reading them.
Postscript: For a rather plausible opposing view to Harari’s, see: /review/show...
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Sapiens.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
December 9, 2017
– Shelved
December 9, 2017
– Shelved as:
to-read
December 9, 2017
– Shelved as:
israeli
December 9, 2017
– Shelved as:
science
December 9, 2017
– Shelved as:
philosophy-theology
December 9, 2017
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 58 (58 new)
message 1:
by
Hanneke
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Dec 09, 2017 07:25AM
Great, Michael! Your last paragraph is very encouraging. Isn't it a nice surprise though that, according to the author, language originated because of the need for gossip? I really like that idea!
reply
|
flag
Hanneke wrote: "Great, Michael! Your last paragraph is very encouraging. Isn't it a nice surprise though that, according to the author, language originated because of the need for gossip? I really like that idea!"So do I. Apparently that’s the only really unique thing about us. But I also like my idea that novels are cultivating us! The author only makes the case for wheat evolving human beings.
You are so right! And we do our best!
I listened to about 30 minutes of Harari and found him too arrogant for my tastes. However, I like his ideas in your review about "order organising their lives exists only in their imagination", or, as I think of it, as the cognitive creation of meaning from nothing, such that we can't understand it's fictional foundation.
Do you buy this "cognitive revolution"? It stinks of false human superiority for the insecure to me. I think we are just mentally unstable, destructive critters working within a temporary climactic haven.
Daniel wrote: "I listened to about 30 minutes of Harari and found him too arrogant for my tastes. However, I like his ideas in your review about "order organising their lives exists only in their imagination", ..."
Well it looks like something happened. Whatever it was it does seem to have left us in a state of confusion.
James wrote: "If you don't care to wade through the book, you can get a clearer synopsis of the principle by watching the 1967 movie 'Five Million Miles to Earth' aka 'Quatermass and the Pit." It explains this s..."An innovative source for scientific information!
I think the most the most important thing that drives apart humanity and the rest of biological beings is language. Without language we are just smart monkeys, with it we are almost gods in our planet. After we have language it was inevitable for tales and fiction to follow. Invention of language is the most significant event in human history so far. Unfortunately we don't know how it happened or who did it
Ivan wrote: "I think the most the most important thing that drives apart humanity and the rest of biological beings is language. Without language we are just smart monkeys, with it we are almost gods in our pla..."Not quite true you see: many animals have language. But no others have developed story-telling. It’s not language which should get the rap, it’s the story-telling ability that uses language which is the problem. For monkeys, not everything is language; but for us, everything is a story... even this. Hence the importance of post-modernism, which should generate a little humility but not despair 😩
You have such a wonderful way with words..
"Many animals have language", well not really, not in the human sense. They have a very limited ability to communicate which is nowhere close to create, collect and share information, especially complex one. Fiction is very important but it can't exist without language, you have to have language first, then fiction follows. Invention of language is the cornerstone event after each everything has changed. There's a good essay on this I've read recently
Great review, Michael! I couldn't agree more about the power of storytelling!
It is also clear to me that novels cultivated our species genetically over millennia for this very reason - to get us better at reading them.I'm applauding the entire review fiercely, but that last sentence has me jumping up and down as well - loudlaughinly - laughlovingly!
Watching my dog dream and wondering why this isn’t fiction. If only she could tell me. I think Ivan has a good point about language. But the main thing to me is that this cognitive “transformation� is conjecture, not a well understood fact. So, it should be considered as a no more than a possibility, and probably an oversimplied one.
Everything that you say is true, BlackOxford, but I would like to add it's more the power of your own thoughts than the book itself. I found the book derivative and uninventive, ironically. Your review is much better than the book, and so credit is given where none is due. Just sayin' ...
Fionnuala wrote: "It is also clear to me that novels cultivated our species genetically over millennia for this very reason - to get us better at reading them.I'm applauding the entire review fiercely, but that la..."
Thanks F. And your Joysprick is equaprovingly noted.
Daniel wrote: "Watching my dog dream and wondering why this isn’t fiction. If only she could tell me. I think Ivan has a good point about language. But the main thing to me is that this cognitive “transformation�..."Thanks, but the dog’s dreams aren’t fiction precisely because she can’t share them with you no matter how empathetic your relationship with her and your other intimate modes of communication. And of course Harari is putting forth a ‘conjecture�, which is an evaluative name given to a story that the reader is still comparing with other stories to decide which one she likes best. More ‘complicated� stories abound. And one may like these better if one finds complication a deciding aesthetic criterion. You see how it goes? Stories and their interpretations right to the bottom.
Julie wrote: "Everything that you say is true, BlackOxford, but I would like to add it's more the power of your own thoughts than the book itself. I found the book derivative and uninventive, ironically. Your re..."Julie, I can see that. Thanks. Any scientist trying to summarise a field has to be derivative. But then again, anything claiming story-status is derivative. And clearly one’s response to it depends significantly on whether one has heard it before and how well it’s been told comparatively. As a novice in anthropology and socio-biology I have the great luxury of appreciating Harari as new and interesting, and most of all off-hand about his material. When he highlights gossip as an essential human trait, or the way wheat has cultivated humankind, I know that Harari has a sense of irony that doesn’t allow him to take his material as more than it is, particularly as ‘truth�. So I suppose that you could put my admiration down to a literary interpretation and your to a more serious scientific one. But then you see once again how it all comes down to aesthetics.
I like your post, but I didn’t mean to imply that complicated is better or more accurate. Only that in this case, he’s oversimplified. If I didn’t imply he’s dangerously oversimplified, I should have. Also, of course, the reason my dog can’t share her dreams is because she can’t talk in a way I can understand. It’s a language barrier. If there’s a cognition barrier, we’d need to figure that out in a way that gets around the language barrier.
Daniel wrote: "I like your post, but I didn’t mean to imply that complicated is better or more accurate. Only that in this case, he’s oversimplified. If I didn’t imply he’s dangerously oversimplified, I should ha..."Thanks. OK then, ‘oversimplified� as the criterion. My point is simply that ya� choose your aesthetic, an� ya� have yer preferred liquer.
Here’s the thing: if it were a ‘language barrier� we could simply employ a translator to communicate with the dog. Since we have living dogs, this task should be a lot easier than translating Linear-B.
I’m not denying the importance of language to humanity, I’m following Harari’s rather interesting assertion that there is something other than the language gene at play: a genetically-induced capability that is obvious once stated but not before, namely story-telling, which is distinct from language-using but is obviously dependent upon it.
Since we don’t know and I haven’t read the book, we could go over this a long time and not get anywhere. : )I agree my dog doesn’t have the language sophistication we have. I argue that if she did, she would have a lot of stories to tell. I think we are more sophisticated in our story telling than dogs, but I think language makes our differences appear more significant than they really are genetically or physiologically speaking. Do I know this? No. And I’m not an expert in non-human anthropology (is there such a field?) But I feel H doesn’t know either. He just appears to present as if it is absolutely not so, despite lacking conclusive data.
Daniel wrote: "Since we don’t know and I haven’t read the book, we could go over this a long time and not get anywhere. : )I agree my dog doesn’t have the language sophistication we have. I argue that if she di..."
Well Holy Cow Daniel, read the book first! 😈
I gave it 20 minutes... (I like your review a lot better)
Daniel wrote: "I gave it 20 minutes... (I like your review a lot better)"
I've heard that the first piece of legislation Roy Moore intends to introduce when (it's Alabama, therefore when) he's elected will be to outlaw rights for Homo Sapiens including marriage and the cakes that go with it. He will also make sure that this abomination of a book will be outlawed since his Lord only created the world 6,000 years ago. 🤓Very interesting review!
Greg wrote: "I've heard that the first piece of legislation Roy Moore intends to introduce when (it's Alabama, therefore when) he's elected will be to outlaw rights for Homo Sapiens including marriage and the c..."The ironic thing us that the evolutionists could drop all this 6000 years crap and just claim the Tree of Knowledge mutation as divine action. No one has a better explanation at the moment. That would also solve the problem of other worlds and salvation since only those with the gene are relevant. But of course it is hardly likely that they read much. Perhaps they don’t have the gene at al!!
YNH is an enchanting communicator, but his ideas aren't very original, are they?
Frank wrote: "YNH is an enchanting communicator, but his ideas aren't very original, are they?"As I mentioned above, I wouldn’t know. They are certainly new to me and therefore intriguing.
" the Cognitive Revolution of Sapiens is precisely the ability to tell, and eventually read and write, stories, that is, fictional narratives which are interesting, entertaining, and above all convincing. This ability, an evolutionary enigma because it does not give obviously immediate advantage, underlies human ability to organize beyond very small units, to cooperate in matters of survival, and to prevail against competing species which are stronger, quicker, better adapted to the environment, able to speak in a more varied manner, and even more clever."Nicely distilled! Not overly concerned about simplification.
HBalikov wrote: "" the Cognitive Revolution of Sapiens is precisely the ability to tell, and eventually read and write, stories, that is, fictional narratives which are interesting, entertaining, and above all conv..."Thank you H.
I'm a little surprised that you liked it so much. Given the depth of your thinking that is obvious in a lot of your reviews, I would have thought that you would have had more of the "been there, done that" reaction that I had. I'll try to think about it a bit more now that I have finished it to give it a chance to develop more flavor in my mind with aging.
Richard wrote: "I'm a little surprised that you liked it so much. Given the depth of your thinking that is obvious in a lot of your reviews, I would have thought that you would have had more of the "been there, do..."Possibly. But tying much together with the idea of a Cognitive Revolution begun in gossip is simply brilliant, don’t you think?
I think that it seems like a big insight because of the terminology -- "gossip," a little trivial thing, being contrasted with "Cognitive Revolution," a giant thing. If you were to say, "Use of language to facilitate social interactions was a major driver of human intellectual development," then you have said about the same thing, but it seems less dramatic, and we are back into the Ho Hum. On the other hand, I guess sometimes brilliance can come from word choice, so maybe I am being too critical.
Richard wrote: "I think that it seems like a big insight because of the terminology -- "gossip," a little trivial thing, being contrasted with "Cognitive Revolution," a giant thing. If you were to say, "Use of lan..."I see you points - both of them.
The ability to construct fictional narratives would seem to be collateral to the ability to construct factual narratives, a really useful ability for passing along information of all kinds. I should think this would have conferred an immediate evolutionary advantage. Why this fellow Harari thinks it is primarily an ability to construct fictional narratives is entirely beyond me. On reflection, however, it is just this kind of innovative thinking that has placed the social sciences at the pinnacle of intellectual achievement. Physicists are positively green with envy. Your mileage may vary.
My addition of the adjective ‘fictional� to the noun ‘narratives� was a lapsus linguae. Please just ignore it. The rest of the paragraph is, I believe, correct. There is perhaps at least one nuance that you may have missed (understandably given my rather condensed summary of the work), that is, that communicative abilities in themselves are not part of the Cognitive Revolution. Bees, for example, can communicate quite complex matters of the location and character of food sources non-verbally. The blackbirds in my garden have a variety of shouts which I now know and can interpret fairly well. But neither the bees nor the blackbirds conduct conceptual arguments. This is a capability which is necessarily communicative but is far more subtle than mere communication. I doubt for example that either a bird or bee would be capable of irony as you have used it (or more accurately, perhaps, sarcasm). Such might even be the case with at least some physicists, a profession not well-known for its facility in the use of natural language. Your response to what you thought was Harari’s communication, I think sums up his point rather well. This is why he uses the word ‘gossip� as central to the genetic event he has in mind. Of course, he may be wrong. But at least he has something interesting to say, unlike many physicists.As if to prove the point, I am at a loss as to the meaning of your last sentence.
This is quite a lapse. The remainder of your review dwells exclusively upon myths, tales and literature. If you vacate 'fictional' do you necessarily vacate the rest? Say it ain't so. I much prefer the BlackOxford who understands the poetry of the human soul to some alternate who admires factual narratives (if indeed there be any).Per usual, I do miss many things. As luck would have it, I did not confuse animal communication (a vastly interesting and entertaining subject) with a narrative, either factual or fictional. Of course, I have not read Harari and did rely entirely upon your interpretation. But then again, it was your review upon which I was commenting and not his book.
And, lastly, not everyone possesses my high opinion of the social sciences. Some may be less charitable and thus my last sentence which is idiomatic American English (an oxymoron?) for such a situation.
P.S. And be of good cheer. Though I take exception to the odd review, it is a rarity. Your reviews are invariably closely reasoned, illuminating and entertaining. I look forward to many more.
Lawrence wrote: "This is quite a lapse. The remainder of your review dwells exclusively upon myths, tales and literature. If you vacate 'fictional' do you necessarily vacate the rest? Say it ain't so. I much prefer..."Narrative = story, fictional or factual or lie; literary, scientific or poetic. Given the way language works it’s often difficult to distinguish among them. Always rely on the original source as a matter of principle. Otherwise, thanks.
I like that you connected Harari to the Ligotti book (which I have not read). However, based on your review of Ligotti, I wonder if their points of view are actually opposed. I may be bringing in context from his next book Homo Deus in here since I read them close to each other, but Harari feels that humanism and any optimistic epistemology are not justified by human history and predicts that we will be ashamed of human-centered narratives in the future. I do see a kind of aesthetic optimism and joy in Harari (which is why I enjoy him), but the basic philosophical grounding of his work also does seem to rely on insights from existentialism and Buddhism about the profound absurdity of human existence and the massive suffering we have unleashed in the Anthropocene.
Anthoferjea wrote: "I like that you connected Harari to the Ligotti book (which I have not read). However, based on your review of Ligotti, I wonder if their points of view are actually opposed. I may be bringing in c..."Thanks for commenting so aptly.
If you are correct in your assessment of Harari, Ligotti most likely would classify him as a heroic pessimist. Such a person exemplifies his thesis most clearly. He allows himself just enough awareness to be pessimistic but not enough to threaten his preferred attitude of ‘life is OK.� He isn’t radical about his pessimism because that would be too distressing. His remarks about Nietzsche suggest this sort of critique.
Ligotti has much to say about Buddhism, none of it good. It too is a qualified pessimism which offers an unlikely escape. He might also question Harari’s pessimistic credentials given the man’s concern with the future at all: “Disenfranchised by nature, pessimists feel that they have been impressed into this world by the reproductive liberty of positive thinkers who are ever-thoughtful of the future,� Ligotti says. He might suggest that Harari’s predictions of human regret are a pose, a ploy to improve matters.
Think in terms of the most extreme Calvinist who believes that the process of human thought is so corrupt that it can’t comprehend its own corruption (perhaps like Karl Barth). Then take away the crutch of divine revelation. This is the level of Ligottian pessimism. His difference from the Calvinist is that he considers the defect as one of avoiding recognition of the true pain of existence.
The Calvinist thinks we don’t know enough or how to use what we do know properly. This attitude presumes that we have some valid epistemological standard of ‘proper�. Of course we do not. And we use all kinds of tactics - religion, literature, epistemology itself - to constrain the implications of what we do know.
I hope that helps. But it’s clear that you would engage fruitfully (!) with Ligotti so I suggest you get yourself access to him directly.
This is an enormously helpful description! I've got Ligotti on the borrowing docket. One concern I've always had with existentialism (whose genealogy I would track back to Nietzsche) is that it destroys meaning while substituting knowledge, in Harari's words, and that trade-off never felt as "heroic" to me as the thinkers in that tradition believed it was. Your description of Ligotti using Calvinism reminds me of my recent interest in metal and emo music. I like the attitude of these musical aesthetics: one of absolute unknowing and untrustworthiness, without the crutch of experience that says that this kind of pain can be winked at or transcended in the way that much rock music attempts to do. Strangely I didn't listen to this music as a teenager, I preferred more knowing, "ironic" music just as I preferred knottier, denser forms of literature. One more side-note: I liked how you took an essentially literary view of Harari's project. I've been annoyed at critiques of his work that simply say he over-simplifies history or anthropology or religion. The more important question to me is whether his epistemology is flawed---and by addressing his theory of human understanding and its correlate in a view of the project of human understanding as a less than worthless adventure, you've at least addressed his core points.
-James
Anthoferjea wrote: "This is an enormously helpful description! I've got Ligotti on the borrowing docket. One concern I've always had with existentialism (whose genealogy I would track back to Nietzsche) is that it des..."Again thanks for being so on point James. Clearly you’ve thought about these things a great deal. I particularly appreciate your connecting Ligotti’s radical Gnosticism to metal and emo. It becomes obvious as soon as it’s said; so thanks for saying it. The insane thing of course is that it is possible to enjoy both books!
I loved learning about the human language allows us to communicate things that do not exist in reality - and reading more is a good takeaway for most situations :)
Irene wrote: "I loved learning about the human language allows us to communicate things that do not exist in reality - and reading more is a good takeaway for most situations :)"Once again proving that there is no free lunch. Thanks for commenting Irene.
This was chosen in my book group but for other reasons I had to drop out of the read. I have it pending. Your review encourages me to tackle it soon.
BlackOxford, great review. I once went through a snotty phase where I only read nonfiction. Fortunately, I was saved by reading several excellent literary fiction novels. I concur, they’re important. Thanks.
Yes, the human revolution that led to the creation of fictions was the most striking part of the book. It places into perspective human thought from religion to law, nations and professionalism.
Kalliope wrote: "This was chosen in my book group but for other reasons I had to drop out of the read. I have it pending. Your review encourages me to tackle it soon."A must read, even if only for the imagination.
Toni wrote: "BlackOxford, great review. I once went through a snotty phase where I only read nonfiction. Fortunately, I was saved by reading several excellent literary fiction novels. I concur, they’re importan..."Toni, I’m certainly glad you got over your fiction-phobia. There are just too many important stories, even merely the gossipy ones, to miss.
Nick wrote: "Yes, the human revolution that led to the creation of fictions was the most striking part of the book. It places into perspective human thought from religion to law, nations and professionalism."I think so too, Nick. Stories underlie everything - including, unfortunately, the infallibility of stories. As I said: No free lunch.
I guess I truly need to read the original English version because the French translation (a gift) was horrific, boring, pedantic and unreferenced (no bibliography or sources) and as I wrote in my review I detested this book as having no point other than coffee table pretension, Starbucks philosophizing for Millennials, etc. Maybe I’ll give it another change someday. I’ll look and see if you reviewed either of the sequels. Thanks for your unique insights as always.
