Like the article author, I have always found Harari's work and ideas, if not facile, then uninsightful, and the size of his following unwarranted. But a passage in the article stood out to me:
> According to this notion, our mastery of the world is due to our talent for fiction, for constructing (and believing) stories about things that only exist in our imagination. It’s undoubtedly a simple and easy idea to buy into. But the question is whether this idea is also another one of those stories about things that don’t exist [emphasis mine].
To me, what the author is complaining about here would, in light of the size of his reception and following, in fact be a recursive demonstration of Harari's thesis.
Not quite so - Harari’s thesis makes specific anthropological claims (for example, about the development of cities, agriculture). Downstream of the central conceit of stories, but confident and specific nonetheless.
I think the author is making a cute, ironic parallel, and perhaps suggesting that it may have warranted more reflection from Harari.
> According to this notion, our mastery of the world is due to our talent for fiction, for constructing (and believing) stories about things that only exist in our imagination. It’s undoubtedly a simple and easy idea to buy into. But the question is whether this idea is also another one of those stories about things that don’t exist [emphasis mine].
To me, what the author is complaining about here would, in light of the size of his reception and following, in fact be a recursive demonstration of Harari's thesis.