Set a timer for 15 minutes and free write your response to Galen’s argument. Note specific moments in his essay as you respond. Some things to consider: Have you ever felt impeded by your “life story?” If so, how? Do you feel like it’s truthful or possible to perceive your self as a singular self or can you relate when Galen talks about possessing many selves?

When reading Galen’s argument about the idea of Narratives and a life story, I was generally confused as to where the argument was going. The points that were made were very interesting and made you think about what was going on inside his head. When he brought up the fact that “life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And neither, from a moral point of view, should it”, I didn’t really understand that he was honestly thinking about. When I read that I was thinking that when he says “Story-like” he’s talking about a cartoon or Disney movie stories. When he also talks about the idea that we have many selves, I couldn’t help but laugh. Many selves, like split personalities all trying to fit into one brain, to come up with ideas and make rational decisions? I personally don’t believe that I have other “selves” in my head. I think that we experience life and in turn, it turns into stories which will end in our life being one giant novel filled with little stories. I’ve felt like my life story has held me back in certain ways, but it’s also pushed me forward in a more positive way of thinking. Our life stories shouldn’t hinder us and make us feel compacted and that we must follow a sort of ‘blueprint’. For myself, all I have to follow is the blueprint. I may stray throughout my life, but I have no problem following it. Others may not feel the same way, like their life isn’t a story, but it’s up to them and their perception. Who am I to tell people they’re wrong, that they’re life is a story?

200-400 words comparing your second reading experience with your first. Did you notice something new? Did you react differently to one of the author’s claims? Did you read something critically when, at first, you read it as a believer or vice versa? Continue to “clear the fog.” Look up at least two more terms or references that you don’t know.

When I reread “I Am Not A Story” by Galan Strawson, I had a really different experience reading the second time. I noticed a couple view points that he had throughout the essay. Unlike the first time when I was completely lost between all of the quotes and very little explanations. I only somewhat believe with what he is saying. When Strawson says, “Life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And, neither from a moral point of view, should it,” I can’t help but somewhat disagree. not everyone thinks of their life as a story but Strawson is making it seem like thinking that way is completely wrong. Later on in the essay, Strawson contradicts this saying, “Consideration of the sequence – the ‘narrative’…. – might be important for some people in some cases.” So the thesis doesn’t completely go with this point and that where my confusion is rooted. I do agree with his point that the ‘narrative’ way of thinking or looking at your life isn’t the only one. I cleared most of the fog with his essay. There are blocks of quotes that I don’t 100% understand why he put them there, he contradicts his points, and it’s very lengthy so holding onto the original view, when it isn’t restated throughout the essay, is quite challenging. Other than that, I understand a couple of his view enough to use them in my essay we will be working on soon.

  • Pink and Blue highlighter and purple pen are new annotations.