Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

100,000 years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Us. Homo sapiens. How did our species succeed in the battle for dominance? Why did our foraging ancestors come together to create cities and kingdoms? How did we come to believe in gods, nations and human rights; to trust money, books and laws; and to be enslaved by bureaucracy, tim...

DownloadRead Online
Title:Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Author:Yuval Noah Harari
Rating:
Edition Language:English

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Reviews

  • Liad Magen

    This book had changed my life, the way I think, the way I precept the world.

    I think it should be an obligatory book for everyone on this planet.

  • Moran

    I believe I am relatively familiar with history in general, and I'm usually not very excited about reading more about it. But this book was something else.

    Beautifully written and easy to read, this book just made me want to know more and more about how the author thinks the world evolved to what it is today. Revolution by revolution, religion by religion, conception by conception, things were simplified and yet still maintained valid points - and it was never boring.

    The best thing about it was

    I believe I am relatively familiar with history in general, and I'm usually not very excited about reading more about it. But this book was something else.

    Beautifully written and easy to read, this book just made me want to know more and more about how the author thinks the world evolved to what it is today. Revolution by revolution, religion by religion, conception by conception, things were simplified and yet still maintained valid points - and it was never boring.

    The best thing about it was that it actually made me think.

    The author doesn't treat you as ignorant at all - he doesn't assume you know nothing but assume you know a lot and understand a lot, and doesn't lecture about anything, and that attitude makes the book a pleasure to read.

    Just read it.

  • Emily May

    I can see why everyone from Bill Gates to Barack Obama was raving about it. It's an extremely compelling, accessible history - almost like a novelization - of humankind.

    I've read a few of these "brief history of the world" books, most notably

    and Bryson's

    . I liked both, but neither is as engag

    I can see why everyone from Bill Gates to Barack Obama was raving about it. It's an extremely compelling, accessible history - almost like a novelization - of humankind.

    I've read a few of these "brief history of the world" books, most notably

    and Bryson's

    . I liked both, but neither is as engaging as this book. Also, Harari's book stays vague on the physics, dinosaurs and such, unlike Bryson's work, making this not so much about the whole universe, but specifically about humans. Or, I should clarify,

    .

    Most of all, I like how easy to digest the author makes all this information. I have a lot of respect for authors who can present something complex in simple terms. I've always liked the quote attributed to Einstein “If You Can’t Explain it to a Six Year Old, You Don’t Understand it Yourself”. Anyone with a thesaurus can make something seem more dense and complicated than it is; it's much harder to explain something long and complicated in a way that everyone can enjoy.

    . Harari takes us through the history of human development and migration, through the Cognitive Revolution

    and Agricultural Revolution. He looks at how currency and coinage developed, the creation of religions, the arrival of imperialism and capitalism, and the history of inequalities and injustices.

    I especially like how he presents a relatively unbiased view of events. He focuses on what we know, and is quick to say when something remains a mystery to biologists and anthropologists. When there are conflicting theories, he outlines all the main ones. The only agenda Hariri seems driven by is a desire to present the most accurate view of humanity's history.

    This book filled me with a sense of wonder. Wonder at how far we've come in just a few millennia; wonder at all the twisting roads of history; wonder at where we could possibly end up. The final chapters of the book take a peek at the future's possibility, making me even more excited (and a little scared) to read

    .

    |

    |

    |

    |

  • Petra Eggs

    The book was too much a basic primer for me, at least to start with, but that's probably because I've read too many books on our origins biologically and culturally. Once the author had us settled into the civilization of cities he waxed romantically (as authors on this subject quite often do) on the life of the hunter gatherer and its perfection. (I've just finished Sebastian Junger's

    and there was more of that.) If it was all so perfect then more of us would

    The book was too much a basic primer for me, at least to start with, but that's probably because I've read too many books on our origins biologically and culturally. Once the author had us settled into the civilization of cities he waxed romantically (as authors on this subject quite often do) on the life of the hunter gatherer and its perfection. (I've just finished Sebastian Junger's

    and there was more of that.) If it was all so perfect then more of us would return to that ancient life style where people had more leisure, freedom and happiness according to Harari and Junger, neither of whom have given up their miserable materialistic lives for stalking around with a spear.

    The book got better. There were some good explanations of why we are as we are and how things developed, Such as human conversation evolving (see below) so we could gossip about our fellow tribes people. I didn't always agree with the author. But I always enjoy books like that to some extent because it gives me a different point of view, different reasons and things to think about. So this was good.

    But then it dragged at the end as the author got preachy and scifi technological about our bionic futures. At some time not in the unimaginable future, robots will think for themselves and be able to feel, and then they will supercede us... Yes well Asimov covered all that more than half a century ago. It's not going to happen we are too complex to duplicate. And anyway I can't see robots gossiping and if they don't do that what have they got to talk about

    that will make them 'human'? If the desire to gossip gave us speech, then the inability to gossip puts us right back into the pre-sapiens world. Robots are retrogression. Bionic bodies though, that might be progress.

    _________

    Written on reading the book. According to the author, basic vocal communication was solved by the primates. And although animals aren't supposed to have theory of mind, green monkeys have been heard calling 'beware there's a lion' when there's no such thing, they just don't want to risk losing or having to share food they've just found.

    Human conversation apparently evolved so we could gossip. As a social animal, we need to know whose screwing who, who ripped off who, and who lives in a really disgusting midden. Maybe the author's right. He also says that we are not a tolerant species. He got that right for true.

  • Maciek

    is a book bound to appear on a large number of coffee tables and favorite lists, and be picked up even by those who normally would not find the time for reading. It will certainly not be the next

    , which is often named as the world's top unfinished popular bestseller.

    Both

    and

    share a similar, worthy goal - to explain complex issues in a way which can actually be understood and comprehended by most people

    is a book bound to appear on a large number of coffee tables and favorite lists, and be picked up even by those who normally would not find the time for reading. It will certainly not be the next

    , which is often named as the world's top unfinished popular bestseller.

    Both

    and

    share a similar, worthy goal - to explain complex issues in a way which can actually be understood and comprehended by most people. Just as

    aimed at explaining cosmology to a lay audience,

    aims to provide a readable and concise historical summary of the progress of human evolution - all in under 500 pages.

    Is this possible? Of course not - histories of individual countries often take up several volumes, and histories of entire civilizations and ultimately an entire specie would take up hundreds if not thousands of volumes. Because Harari's book is limited to just a single volume (and a relatively short one at that), he has to severely limit his scope to what he considers to be the biggest life-changing developments of our species, which essentially reduces it to a collection of trivia about these events.

    But that's not the true flaw of the book.

    begins strong enough with a very interesting presentation of early human history and development of early human species, which culminated in the rise and eventual dominance of our own - the Homo Sapiens. However, the rest of the book consists largely of author's own musings and thoughts about the human condition and character - while some of these thoughts I find interesting and agreeable (such as our collective belief in the value of money), one thesis he that he put forward struck me as truly bizarre.

    Basically, Harari considers the agricultural revolution to be

    , which instead of improvement left humans who settled down to farm worse off and more miserable than their nomadic, foraging ancestors. To prove his point, Harari waxes poetics about hunter-gatherers and their daily existence: they lived in egalitarian communes where property and love was freely shared, and were much more adept at survival in the wilderness than their descendants who plowed the fields. Hunter-gatherers had to have a much larger knowledge of their surroundings, and possessed vastly superior mental reflexes and physical dexterity which put future generations to shame. Although we have since gained vast knowledge as a collective, Harari argues that on the individual level ancient foragers were

    .

    For Harari, our foraging ancestors were not only mental and physical supermen, but also enjoyed a much more comfortable and rewarding lifestyle than all the subsequent peasants, workers and office clerks. They worked fewer hours and since they had no homes, they also had no household chores; this allowed for plenty of free time to play with one another, tell stories and just hang out. Since foraging necessitated exploration, it also provided plenty of adventure: what better thing to do than explore new places to look for cool plants and other edible things? Because they were always on the move and therefore not dependent on a single source of food, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a superior, multi-nutrient diet and were less likely to suffer from hunger and starvation than subsequent agricultural societies, which often depended on a single crop, and not only were receiving much less nutrients but also suffered heavily from famines when their food source failed. Farming? Bah! Humbug.

    True, there were some drawbacks, Harari reluctantly agrees. Although some lucky souls made it longer, life expectancy averaged only 30 to 40 years. Children dropped dead like flies, and sometimes wild tigers came out of the bushes and ate you and your whole family and tribe. Not to mention that sometimes you and your band wandered and wandered, and the food

    . Or even worse - the food was there, but so was another tribe which was not exactly keen on sharing their already limited supply. What about this?

    , says the author, though I do not really understand why, since this is exactly what he appeared to be doing,

    Ain't that the truth. Sometimes, life is just hard. Rocks fall, everyone dies.

    But agricultural revolution? It sucked, Harari argues. First, he has unnamed (and presumably fictitious) scholars proclaim the development of agriculture as

    , which

    . But this is not true -

    , he says, as

    . As I mentioned above, Harari states that agricultural revolution made things

    for farmers - it robbed them from excitement of hunting and gathering by forcing them to settle down next to their fields and perform menial farm work, which strained our joints and spine. Although farming provided a surplus of food it did not provide the farmer with a better diet, robbing us of the diversity of meals experienced by a hunter-gatherer. Farming also failed to provide us with economic security - crops can always fail and lead to hunger, whereas hunter-gatherers can always move on and hunt for other types of food (unless, of course, they do not find any and starve to death). Farmers also had to stay and defend their land if attacked by a hostile group, whereas foragers could always escape to another area, look for food there, and survive (they could, of course, end up not being able to escape -who can fight or run on an empty stomach? - or...not find any food, and starve to death).

    So, what exactly has agriculture ever done for us? Since it has taken so much not only from our fathers but also from from our fathers' fathers, what has it ever given us in return? The aqueduct? Sanitation?

    And why have humans not returned to hunting and gathering but stubbornly toiled their fields and broke their miserable backs, while they could be climbing trees and camping in the wilderness? The answer is simple: more food allowed women to have children more often, and even though they still died fairly often this time births outpaced deaths several times. Village population increased, and soon entire generations of people no longer remembered the good old days of running in the forests and looking for berries.

    , Harari writes,

    .

    He goes on to say:

    .Yet, we are wrong in thinking this, because

    (though apparently not when it comes to foraging, which was a blast by all accounts - that is, the author's). Harari neglects to mention the exact reason

    the agricultural revolution took place - farming first arose in places where

    , and in the long run prevailed as the better option. Hunter-gatherers simply did not choose to one day walk out of the woods and start domesticating animals and plants; they were forced to do that because the environment they were living no longer allowed for foraging to remain a viable option. The Younger Dryas interval in ancient Levant is often linked to the adoption of agriculture in the region, as an example of the first deliberate cultivation of plants. People understood that seeds developed into plants at the time when they desperately needed to increase their food supply in order to survive, and linked one with the other.

    It is interesting that Harari does not only romanticize hunting and gathering, but actually looks at the agricultural revolution and its impact

    a hunter and gatherer - that is, focusing on the thing that mattered most to our foraging ancient ancestors: food. Hunter-gatherers spend their lives pursuing food; as Harari admits, because of their nomadic lifestyle they had very few possessions, as they were constantly moving around in search for food to sustain them. Food was their driving force; their lives centered around food, as they never had a steady supply of it and always had to hunt and look for more if they were to survive.

    In contrast, agricultural revolution provided humans with a steady and regular supply of food, and or the first time in our history allowed humans to take our minds

    food and constant travel. The impact of this is monumental and cannot be stressed enough. Basically, without agricultural revolution, our knowledge would be stagnant - as we would simply not have the luxury of time to develop it. Food surplus and settling down allowed humans to

    more and develop new ideas and technologies, allowing for more efficient farming - which in turn allowed for more time to think and develop even more ideas and technologies. In contrast to general knowledge of our forager ancestors, surplus of food and settler lifestyle allowed for skill specialization, which in turn allowed us to do things beyond their wildest dreams, and become technologically advanced. Basically, I would argue that societies comprised of hunter-gatherers cannot advance and live up to the full human potential - it is impossible to have a truly technologically advanced nomadic society, while it is possible to have a technologically advanced settler society which is able to send some of its members into the world as hunter-gatherers. To put it very simply: hunter-gatherers live in the wilderness, living day to day on what they find or hunt down, while agriculturists discover penicillin, split the atom and fly into space.

    Although the author later brings up valid concerns about our treatment of animals and abuse of collective power, his rant against agriculture is truly bizarre considering that without it he would not be able to write this very book. It's as if he disregarded the very Sapiens which he aimed to describe, and which has defied his thesis by abandoning hunting and gathering to settle down and farm. Still, there are good parts and certain valuable and interesting insights in this book - it's just a shame that it's tainted with such a weird and contrived chapter.

  • Adina

    It is again unpopular opinion time! It seems it becomes a rule for me not to enjoy a book that everyone seems to love. Well, someone has to. Here we go with the review. Prepare your tomatoes and raw eggs (someone actually threw a raw egg at me once for fun but it bounced from my bum )

    Sapiens’ beginning was fantastic. I loved the author’s voice and the information about the early days of the human kind was fascinating. I did not read any non-fiction about the origin of humans so I was excited to

    It is again unpopular opinion time! It seems it becomes a rule for me not to enjoy a book that everyone seems to love. Well, someone has to. Here we go with the review. Prepare your tomatoes and raw eggs (someone actually threw a raw egg at me once for fun but it bounced from my bum )

    Sapiens’ beginning was fantastic. I loved the author’s voice and the information about the early days of the human kind was fascinating. I did not read any non-fiction about the origin of humans so I was excited to understand our origins better. I could not stop highlighting interesting passages to include in my review or to read later. Here are some of the ones that picked my interest.

    However, everything started to go downhill from somewhere in the middle of Part II. From an eager and excited reader I slowly became pissed off, disappointed and struggled to finish. I had several problems that plagued my reading experience and I plan to exemplify them below.

    First of all, I soon grew tired of the author’s ironic and condescending humor. His ego was transpiring from all his words and his personal opinions and the way he tried to enforce them annoyed me more and more.

    Secondly, I felt like many of his assumptions and extrapolations had no proof and they only represent the author’s personal opinion. For example, the way he supported for the whole book that humans were better of as hunter-gathers without bringing no real arguments to support his opinion.

    Finally, I had a problem with the scope of Sapiens. As the titles suggests, the book tries to be A Brief History of Humankind. I believe he did not succeed very well to do that and the reason is that it is quite impossible to do what the author planned in less than 500 pages. The task is too vast. The result is mix of everything with no structure, jumping from one subject to another and confusing the reader. The information was too vague, too general, it all resembled a set of interesting trivia.

    When reading other negative reviews of Sapiens I stumbled repeatedly on a recommendation: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. The book was already on my TBR so it is going to be the next read on the subject. I hope it will be better.

  • William2

    This book is a superficial gloss on human history. Nice try but it excludes too much data in favor of an overarching conceptual view to be deeply interesting. Stopped reading for reasons detailed below at p. 304 of 416.

    Considering the outlandishness of some of its claims—the downside of the Agricultural Revolution, the joys of Empire—the book seems weirdly under-sourced. The bibliography is beyond meagre. Don't get me wrong, I like a little informed speculation as much as anyone. Take for exampl

    This book is a superficial gloss on human history. Nice try but it excludes too much data in favor of an overarching conceptual view to be deeply interesting. Stopped reading for reasons detailed below at p. 304 of 416.

    Considering the outlandishness of some of its claims—the downside of the Agricultural Revolution, the joys of Empire—the book seems weirdly under-sourced. The bibliography is beyond meagre. Don't get me wrong, I like a little informed speculation as much as anyone. Take for example the claim that houses, their advent, "became the psychological hallmark of a much more self-centered creature." (p. 99) I, for one, would be delighted to know how one can discern the psychology of someone who lived more than 9,000 years ago. The apparently relevant note cited is "2 Robert B. Marks,

    ". But when one looks up Mr. Marks' book one sees that it pertains only to the 15th to the 21st centuries CE.

    Another thing, the book seems all biological determinism—and we know what that sort of thinking led to: the Konzentrationslager. The life of the mind is nothing here, the intellect nothing, all because it has no discernible basis in biology—so reductive and materialist, too. I'm hoping this is just a rhetorical device. Please, let it be. Moreover, the author cherishes a certain sneering and glib tone which I find annoying. Well, yes, now he's changing his tune, isn't he? But not before thoroughly pissing me off. Was that necessary? Ah, now he's starting to celebrate the very social constructs—the law, the state, joint stock corporations, etc.—that he so glibly belittled as "imaginary myths" a few pages back. So his earlier arguments were disingenuous. That's not something I prize in a writer.

    Notwithstanding the questionable attempt to raise the reader's hackles, just mentioned, I find myself on p. 170 and 95% of this is material I already know. Granted, the author tries to package it as felicitously as possible, but it's still stuff I know and, no doubt, material my well read GR friends will also know. What I had hoped for on cracking this formidable spine was something far more intellectually challenging, like

    . Still, I find myself nursing a hope that this is just an overly long introduction to a thrilling thesis. At the same time I fear it will turn out to be another tedious read for a far less learned general reader than myself. Am I overqualified for this book? Trepidation abounds. 2.0 stars so far, inauspicious.

    Meh. It's really an undergraduate survey course, if that. It's a great review of common knowledge that seeks to find new linkages and epiphanies. It sometimes works. But often the linkages are specious. As when he terms liberal humanism a religion. It isn't, though it's a neat shorthand for his minimalist theories. Now I'm reading about how religions are unifiers. The author certainly has a flair for the obvious, I'll say that much. Here's an example of author Harari's reductiveness, which is inevitable in a book skirting so many vast subjects. On p. 232 we read: "The Aryan race therefore had the potential to turn man into superman." Nietzsche is nowhere mentioned. The statement is wholly lacking in context—the Nazis are glossed but that's all. It really doesn't make coherent sense. Gloss, that's the word that best describes this book. A gloss.

    The writer is careless with metaphors. We're told that cultures are "mental parasites," that "history disregards the happiness of individuals" and that "history made its most momentous choice." (p. 243-244). To say such things is to give agency to the non-sentient and adds to the narrative's by now utterly grating superficiality. Here's yet another bizarro statement:

    Nonsense. The Spaniards had guns, germs and steel. Reread

    and

    , Mr. Harari. Foreknowledge would have availed the indigenous peoples little or nothing. The author goes on to admit as much in the paragraphs to follow, but why then wasn't that earlier sentence cut? But it gets better:

    It's astonishing the author should use that ecclesiastical word. For what was the ostensible motivation of the conquerors but the glory of Christendom. Harari is blaming the victims. The world view of the Aztecs and Incas and others was limited. Harari blames them because they had not yet advanced beyond that basic if incomplete awareness. He then goes on to excoriate all of Asia and Africa for not having had the wherewithal to explore the world and conquer others. But these are cultural predilections, not standardized goals applicable to all. This leads to an unseemly West is the Best argument that's right out of Niall Ferguson's

    .

    Is this book popular because it essentially functions as the West's cheering section? It's lovely we have developed science and technology and historiography etc. I'm glad I live in the West. But it's absurd to say that earlier cultures, because they did not develop in a timely manner our own particular brand of curiosity, were deficient. All cultures are blood soaked, our own included. The world is only what it is, not some counter-factual supposition.

  • Marc Gerstein

    Had I stopped reading after the first section, I’d have given this a five stars and whined that the Goodreads platform doesn’t aloe reviewers to go higher. But I didn’t stop. I kept reading, . . . until it got so bad, I found myself unable to do more than skim, and eventually, to just skipping large chunks.

    It starts out as a fascinating discussion of the development and rise of our species, homo sapiens. But starting in the second section on the Agricultural Revolution, Harari shift gears and dr

    Had I stopped reading after the first section, I’d have given this a five stars and whined that the Goodreads platform doesn’t aloe reviewers to go higher. But I didn’t stop. I kept reading, . . . until it got so bad, I found myself unable to do more than skim, and eventually, to just skipping large chunks.

    It starts out as a fascinating discussion of the development and rise of our species, homo sapiens. But starting in the second section on the Agricultural Revolution, Harari shift gears and drops any pretense of an scholarly work. From that point on, it’s all personal bias all the time. This guy absolutely hates human beings and society. It seems that he is completely stuck in the idea that the world would have been better off had humanity simply stayed put in the hunter-gatherer stage.It seems all the countless billions of humans who lived since then are deluded and don't get it, and that only he understands. Yeah, right!

    OK. There are worse sins than personal bias. Many great writers have it and let it show. But unlike Harari, the good ones work to try to justify the positions they take. Harari, on the other hand just bombards readers with one opinion after another and treats them as proven fact, even though what he says is often debatable or out and out wrong. That’s one of the reasons I gave up on a close reading as I progressed into the second half. Even when it seemed as if Harari was selling me something I didn’t know (which did not occur often), I simply did not trust him. An author can choose to forego many things. Credibility and trust are not among them.

    Perhaps the best way to illustrate this mess is through a conversation I once had among people who liked to discuss philosophy. Somehow or other, though, this conversation veered off into a set of irritating rants on how western society sucks. The thing that sticks out most in my memory is how the host went off on a diatribe about the greatness of nature and Native Americans and about how he was fine being a non-vegetarian because the cows understood human need for meat and were happy to offer themselves as a precious spiritual gift to humanity. My reply: “That conclusion is based on interviews with how many cows?” The conversation abruptly ended. That is exactly the way I reacted to the self-serving gibberish offered by Harari under the guise of scholarly presentation.

  • Michael Finocchiaro

    History and Sociology for Dummies, this book is almost irrecoverably watered down intellectually. Sapiens does make some interesting points and probably opens a few debates, but it disappointed me. There are lots of soundbites here, especially the oft-quoted one about the agricultural revolution being "history's greatest ripoff", but they remain soundbites because they never really reach a conclusion.

    The book starts out alright was the hunter-gatherer civilizations are discussed in some detail

    History and Sociology for Dummies, this book is almost irrecoverably watered down intellectually. Sapiens does make some interesting points and probably opens a few debates, but it disappointed me. There are lots of soundbites here, especially the oft-quoted one about the agricultural revolution being "history's greatest ripoff", but they remain soundbites because they never really reach a conclusion.

    The book starts out alright was the hunter-gatherer civilizations are discussed in some detail and without focusing exclusively on North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Harari's chapters here did make for decent reading about the concept the author calls the cognitive revolution which separates us from other animals. Unfortunately, the next section about the agricultural revolution is a bit too polemical. Yes, it was a radical change and yes it did lead to new problems (disease, famine, etc), but without it, the human species would likely have never evolved to the point of me typing this text on my laptop and you reading it in a browser. There are not parallel paths proposed, just a vague condemnation of agriculture before he takes on the subject of religions. Here, he talks of the evolution of monotheism from the polytheistic systems that abounded before. I felt he did not discuss in sufficient death the animist systems (which still dominate Africa, South America, and the Arctic among others.) He seems to favor Buddhism (the pages there have a much more tolerant and fawning tone than those of the other religions) which seemed a little intellectually dishonest to me - I mean if he is trying to develop a dispassionate argument about how religions develop, he should not take a particular position without announcing it first. Anyway, after this, the book covers the industrial revolution and brings us up to modern times.

    Honestly, I felt that the end of the book really soured the whole product for me. Well, I was already annoyed with all the cute phrases and the prolific use of "!" at the end of 20% of the sentences (OK, I am exaggerating but seriously, a "history" book shouldn't use the exclamation point says the snob reviewer). But when the author sets up an argument about where we should be headed as a human race, he then goes off on bizarre tangents about cyber technology and refers to an obscure Project Gutenberg (which unless I missed something major earlier in the book, he never mentioned before). I felt that the last chapter just came out of nowhere and made absolutely no sense. Perhaps, as other reviews here on GR have suspected, no one actually reads this book, preferring to leave it unsullied on their coffee table as a prop to their showoff intellectualism. In any case, it didn't do it for me.

    Unfortunately, my in-laws who bought me Sapiens also bought me the sequel so I suppose I will be guilted into reading it at some point. In conclusion, I prefer reading REAL history books with caffeine rather than this decaffeinated, saccharin substitute for them.

    I am not alone in my disdain for this over-publicized waste of trees. A friend passed me this article:

    in which the author concludes:

    "But Sapiens provides us with no resources for answering questions about the moral implications of scientific and technological change. A commitment to a reductionist, mechanistic view of Homo sapiens may give us some insight into some of the aspects of our past most tied to our material nature. But Harari’s view of culture and of ethical norms as fundamentally fictional makes impossible any coherent moral framework for thinking about and shaping our future. And it asks us to pretend that we are not what we know ourselves to be — thinking and feeling subjects, moral agents with free will, and social beings whose culture builds upon the facts of the physical world but is not limited to them."

    This book is waaaaay overrated.

Best Free Books is in no way intended to support illegal activity. Use it at your risk. We uses Search API to find books/manuals but doesn´t host any files. All document files are the property of their respective owners. Please respect the publisher and the author for their copyrighted creations. If you find documents that should not be here please report them


©2018 Best Free Books - All rights reserved.