How do we feel about this book?

how do we feel about this book?

It was written by a white guy, so its good, and everything in it is true.

HOW PREPOSTEROUS YOU MUST BE FROM /POL/ NOW I HATE WHITE GUYS AND /POL/

most of it is good, but the belief that hunter gatherers didn't believe in gods and only spirits is bullshit.


and "muh matriarchal religion mother goddess" is completely wrong as well

t. christcuck

Absolute trash. Pre-eminent fedoralordism.

Wittgenstein hated it

source?

Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein

damn, he wrote a whole book about it, which just so happens to be being re-published in two weeks

I want low IQ Christian fundamentalists to GTFO already. Veeky Forums is not for you.

Very comfy anthropology stories but almost every conclusion Fraser draws from them is silly.

it can be studied to know the mind of the victorian englishman and his conceptions of the world.

today, it is not a work of anthropology but an anthropological document useful to study a way of thinking of a past historical moment.

the mythology of mythology?

Best critique of the book I've heard thus far from this board. Thank you.

Personally, I think that even if you don't agree with everything Fraser says, it still serves as an excellent catalog of beliefs from around the world, and illustrates certain themes and ideas that are shared by a large part of humanity.

I'm a Pagan you cuck. I just hate the theory of "muh matriarchal religion" because it's not true

>I'm a Pagan you cuck

I haven't read The Golden Bough, but I did read Robert Graves' The Greek Myths, in which he cited Fraser, and mentions matriarchal religion. Is that theory actually nonsense?

mm yeah i guess it could be so called, but being aware that the word is being used differently in each case. an awareness that anyway makes such notion obsolete, at least in the way it is usually used.

i dont think it is a matter of agreement for the point is not that his descriptions are false. it is that they are based on a certain conception that is too biased to be taken seriously today. they are true in their own way, but that is an old view.

what you say could be applied for instance to the work of franz boas, who endeavored to make a descriptive anthropology, as far from emty theorizing as possible. such was not the case of frazer. who is of course not to blame, for he, as everyone, was a man of his times.

I'm from Europe, not amerimuttland, lmao

Back to plebbit.
Frazer was a fucking moron and so are you.
Mate he blatantly fucking lies or warps beliefs to fit his agenda.
WE WUZ VIKANGZ N SHIEEEET
PATRIARCHAL RELIGIOMAN NOT STUPID WHORE BITCH RELIPIECEOFMEAT

Back to the desert.

kys sodomite

JJAJAJAJAAJAJJAJAJAJAJA LE DESERT MEME XDEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LE EPIC MEMES XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD I HATE N*GGERS AND K*KES XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD GO BACK TO YOUR OWN CUNTRY JAJAAJJAAAJAJAJAJAJA XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

...

>reddit

...

DAE VIKANG?!?!?!1?1?!?

...

WIR

WAREN

KÄNIGE

UN

SCHEEEIßE

relativism, lazy analysis

...

...

>relativism

the fact that there are different conceptions at different historical moments in the development of a society, ie that societies change, is not relativism.

...

butthurt christcuck. Your religion loves homosexuality. Lmao. We threw homosexuals in bogs

...

Mytholiography

I mean he's right. It's a historical fact that different societies have different conceptions. To acknowledge that fact is not relativism. Relativism (of the cultural variety) goes on step further and says that there is no truth over and above the differing conceptions of differing societies. admitting a multiplicity of viewpoints is not the same as admitting a multiplicity of truths. Relativism is concerned with truth.

>Mate he blatantly fucking lies or warps beliefs to fit his agenda.

Are you going to provide any examples? Or just spout bullshit and expect me to believe it? If the examples are "blatant" you should be able to provide at least a few.