This is an easy read that draws a narrative through the whole of human history. Unfortunately, it’s full of opinion written as fact, bending things out of shape to fit in with an idea and I think quite a lot of inaccuracies.
For instance, it seems odd that he says we know nothing of hunter gatherer society cultures, then goes on to say how much worse life was after the agricultural revolution. I think he’s underestimating both how hard it would be to survive winter through foraging and the joy that people get from cultivating and farming land.
He also talks about human happiness as if it’s nothing more than the hormone levels in the brain, which is a massive simplification in danger of just being wrong.
This section on Humanism stood out to me as absolutely wild:
Humanism is a belief that Homo sapiens has a unique and sacred nature, which is fundamentally different from the nature of all other animals and of all other phenomena. Humanists believe that the unique nature of Homo sapiens is the most important thing in the world, and it determines the meaning of everything that happens in the universe. The supreme good is the good of Homo sapiens.
That’s very different from any definition of Humanism I’ve ever heard, it sounds much more like a religious viewpoint. I imagine every Humanist I have met would bristle at the idea that humans are “sacred”. We are animals that have developed self-consciousness, that makes our time on Earth precious. It doesn’t elevate us above all other animals and phenomena. He clearly started from an argument he wants to make, and has come up with his own definition to fit. Also this section on polytheism is total nonsense:
The fundamental insight of polytheism, which distinguishes it from monotheism, is that the supreme power governing the world is devoid of interests and biases, and therefore it is unconcerned with the mundane desires, cares and worries of humans. It’s pointless to ask this power for victory in war, for health or for rain, because from its all-encompassing vantage point, it makes no difference whether a particular kingdom wins or loses, whether a particular city prospers or withers, whether a particular person recuperates or dies. The Greeks did not waste any sacrifices on Fate, and Hindus built no temples to Atman.
The idea that the supreme power being indifferent is the fundamental insight in polytheism doesn’t align with anything I have ever read about the Greeks or Romans. The Iliad is full of sacrifices to the gods. The gods were directly involved in what was happening to the heroes. They hold grudges, they have favourites, they play games with the lives of humans. I had never heard of a single entity named Fate, only the fates, of which there were three, and they had sacrifices made to them. If Fate is the most important deity in the Greek pantheon, why do none of the texts I’ve read spend any time on it?
I’m so bored of the futurism stuff in the last chapter too.
I can see why this book is so popular, the authoritative writing style makes it feel like you’re being taught by someone very impressive. It feels like a complete waste of time to me though.