Telling a story

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I’ve spent years trying to (and failing)
to turn Philosophy into a story… for
all that is human, is found within a story…
The problem with Philosophy, since the beginning,
has been the nature of the story that Philosophy tells us…
Think of Plato or Aristotle, what story are they telling us or
even Socrates? Plato’s story is that there are aspects
of existence that is permanent, found in the ‘‘eternal forms’’
of Plato… and that which isn’t permanent, is not worthy
of studying… Math is permanent, thus worthy of study…
But the problem lies with the fact that in our own lives,
we don’t see the permanent, we see the temporary,
changes that occur in our lives every single day…
for one of the key laws of the universe is entropy…

ENTROPY: is a scientific concept that measures the amount
of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty in a system…

but the early philosophers like Plato or Socrates, make no
mention or use of entropy… a large part of the human
story isn’t even mentioned by the early philosophers…
for any stories about the ‘‘human condition’’, must include
entropy… and read the histories of Philosophy, and
at no point does entropy become part of the story…
and that is, in part, why the story of Philosophy
is incomplete, inadequate, fragmentary…
Philosophy has yet to come to terms with the
science of the last two hundred years… not only
does philosophy fail to recognize entropy, but also
Quantum Physics, and the theory of Relativity, or
gravity… for many of the great questions of science,
also work within philosophy…
for example, the problem of connecting the very small,
the quantum world with the very large, the world of planets
and stars and galaxies… how do the two, the very small
and the very large, connect? We have the exact same
philosophical problem… how does the one person,
the very small, connect with the very large, the state/
society? At times, the fit is really good, the Middle Ages,
and other times, like the modern age, it becomes so
ill-fitting that it causes a crisis… How does modern
man, as an individual, fit into our current state/society?

Read the story of Philosophy and see how the story
is static, stationary, immobile… For the Greeks and the Romans,
the story of philosophy is the search for the permanent, the
story is static, stationary… There is very little movement
within the Greeks or Romans philosophy… and there is
no sense of history within it either… For Aristotle,
however, there is movement, it isn’t stationary…
philosophy has a history and does move…
and this is and has been the essential conflict within
Philosophy for all these thousands of years…
How do account for change, movement within Philosophy?
within Plato, the world is not about change, but about
the immoveable, the ‘‘unchanging eternal forms of existence’’
and Philosophy has, for the most part, has followed Plato
in seeking out the eternal, static aspect of existence…
but in doing so, Philosophy has lost the most important
aspect of Philosophy, its story…and every single story
requires change and movement to be a story…

Following history through the story of Philosophy,
we see for over a thousand years, Philosophy being
static, immovable, stationary… think about Medieval
Philosophy… it is a very static, stationary…
it doesn’t change the story of people, although
the philosophy itself does, sort of, change over the
thousand years period between the fall of Rome and the
rise of the modern state… roughly from 400AD, to
about 1400 AD…

It has been said that Descartes is either the first Modern
philosopher or the last Medieval Philosopher… depending…
and let us think about his ‘‘story’’ which is ‘‘Cogito, ergo sum’’
let us pause and this about this…there is movement within
Descartes but he dismisses that as not relevant…
the only aspect of the story he works for/with is the
‘‘Cogito’’ and what story do we get from ''Cogito?"

think about the history/story of Philosophy from Descartes
to Kant…What is the essential quest of Philosophy for
those 150 years? the quest of Philosophy was its search
for the limits of knowledge… the limits of knowledge…
there doesn’t seem to be a story within that search…
for the search for the limits of knowledge doesn’t
really lend itself to a story that we can use to understand
who we are and what we are to do…

and finally, we get to Hegel… for Hegel saw philosophy
as a story, a history and incorporated into his philosophy,
motion, history, change… it wasn’t the idea of entropy
within philosophy, as the story should go, but it is the
story of movement within philosophy…

Within the last 200 years of Philosophy since Hegel,
we are beginning to see, as in Nietzsche for example,
philosophy as a story, having a history, past, present,
and hopefully a future…

Let us try something, think of the ‘‘Lord of the Ring’’ movies…
think of them as telling a story… but what story is the
LOTR actually telling? it is the story of the Ring…
and the various characters relationship with/to the ‘‘One Ring’’…
we could hold to the LOTR being about Bilbo or Frodo, but
they are very late additions to the story of the ‘‘One Ring’’
The ‘‘One Ring’’ had thousands of years of history before
Bilbo found it and Frodo carried it back to Mordor…
so, using LOTR has a template, what story can we
tell about Philosophy?

In the end, the story of Philosophy is the story of
what it means to be human… The Kantian questions,
''What am I/we to do?" ''What am I/we to believe in?"
''What can I/we know?"

For if Philosophy cannot be used as a story within our lives,
it has no point, no function within our lives…

as with all stories, it depends on the choices we make to
tell our story… for example, we can tell the story of Philosophy
in terms of the beliefs of various Philosophers over history…
and that is how most history of Philosophy books approach
Philosophy… Plato believed this, Kant believed that,
Spinoza believed this… but to make that story work,
we have to connect the various stories each philosopher
tells…How does Kant use Plato’s story, to tell his story?
the connection of Philosophers is one way to connect
the various philosophical stories… but the problem
I have is that I cannot connect most Philosophers with
my own story… I can’t connect with Plato’s eternal forms
because I don’t see that in my own life, within my own
philosophy… I am a modern philosopher in that I
tell my story in historical context, when I was young, I
believe in this, and now that I am old, I believe in that…
there is a change in my beliefs and why did I change
my beliefs? Therein lies a story…

Now theology also tells us a story… ''In the beginning…"
and the difference between theology and Philosophy,
is that Philosophy must, MUST deal with life as it is
and could be… Theology has no such connection to
reality that philosophy must have… all theology requires
is faith… and all that philosophy requires is reason/logic…
faith, an essential aspect of theology, has no place
within Philosophy… but faith and reason are just
another way to tell a story… they are the tools
by which we tell a story… my story of faith doesn’t
have to connect or be about something real… I can have
faith in something that doesn’t even exist, such as god…
but that doesn’t work within the story of Philosophy…
for Philosophy to work, it must connect to our lives,
it must inform us as to ''what am I/we to do?"
''What should I/we believe in?" ''What can I/we know?"
One of the things that theology does better than
Philosophy is that theology does place us within
the story better… meaning is given to us, as oppose
to finding meaning ourselves…
and finding meaning for ourselves is, frankly, hard work…
theology offers us a story that doesn’t require anything more
than faith… it is a lazy way to understanding existence…

So, what story do you tell yourself about your philosophy?
What is your philosophical story?

Kropotkin

1 Like
2

Great post, PK.

3

think of theological stories… there is no movement within
them… we are born in ‘‘sin’’… or we are born to suffer and
to end this suffering, we must seek out enlightenment…
which is to say, we are no longer being reborn, our
existence has ended by our joining the ‘‘void’’ from which
all came… but this is, of course, faith at work…
for we take it on faith that the point of existence is
suffering, and we must do what it takes to avoid,
pass by suffering…
but even suffering itself can create meaning and
purpose… I had spinal surgery roughly 20 years ago…
It still hurts to this day, my back pain, in some ways,
defines who I am… I am limited by action, by my back
and the pain I suffer every single day… that limitation
helps define who I am… my back surgery is history,
and that history defines who I am… and that personal
history I have, is just another story I can talk about,
when I define who I am… today and going into the future,
but I don’t have to include my spinal pain to make
a coherent story about who I am… it is through
philosophy that I tell my story, not theology… and
that is my choice… and our choices are what define
us as human beings… animals don’t have choices like
human beings do… the question of ''What am I/we to do?"
isn’t a choice that animals have… there are no possibilities
within the animal world… a dog has no possibility of
being anything else beside a dog… it is limited to
a few set possibilities… and the dog cannot go past
those choice/possibilties… whereas we human beings
can and quite often go past our limitations by
making choices… and let us bring this to life…
we often hear that sexually, we are limited
to being a man or a woman… and we can only love
the opposite sex… and that is true, if we were just
animals… but other possibilities exist… thus
the famous ‘‘LGBTQ’’ and to affirm these choices is
to affirm we are indeed human… for animals cannot
choose the way we can choose our sexuality, and we
can choose to tell the story of our sexuality by
theological or philosophical means… a theological
story is a limited story, whereas within philosophy,
we can tell a much broader story of finding love within
‘‘LGBTQ’’ parameters… we aren’t as limited as we are
with a theological story… where everyone is born in ‘‘sin’’
and the point of our story is to overcome our ‘‘sin’’…
but the point of the human story isn’t to overcome ‘‘sin’’ but
to discover what our possibilities are and then explore those
possibilities… as I am old, I can no longer run or mountain climb
or play sports, as I did for many years when I was younger,
my possibilities have diminished, but they haven’t ended…
I can still explore my possibilities of becoming a great
philosopher or relearn German or travel to other countries,
all of those remain possibilities for me…
I can make choices based upon my remaining possibilities…
something a dog cannot do… or any other animal for that
matter… there is history within my own choices…
for I once spent time learning German, and given
I shall retire within 6 months, I shall reengage with German,
as I will have time to do so… or not… as is my choice…

What story I shall tell when I retire will be my choice,
and that is what makes me human…I can think about
my choices 6 months away from actually making them…
no other animal does or can do that…

what is the story you are telling yourself, today, right now?
will it be a theological story or a philosophical story or
another type of story? That is your choice…

So, tell me a story?

Kropotkin

4

Maxx:

Great post, PK.

K: I admit to being confused… most posters simply just insult
me or tell me I have no fucking idea about anything…
did the Apocalypse just start?

anyway, thank you, I guess…

Kropotkin

5

We’re all alone in this little planet, old man, in this vast universe which cares nothing for us, and we’re here to deal with each other one way or another, to support each other or to hate each other when it’s inevitable, learning both from fools or from sages (Dream On, Aerosmith), never knowing whence the helping hand or the understanding smile will come.

1 Like
6

to continue on…

we tell ourselves stories, oftentimes our stories
reflect our political, social, economic or philosophical status…
the stories conservatives tell is a different story than liberals tell…
the young tell themselves different stories than the old…
conspiracy theorists tell themselves a different story than
those of us who don’t have faith in such stories…

I suspect the difference lies in the connection to reality each
story has… faith based stories, theological stories,
that there is a god, is a different story than philosophical
based stories… there is only us, as human beings…

and the question becomes, who is right? Who is closer
to ‘‘reality?’’ and it is quite clear that theological based stories
require faith for them to be true… whereas philosophical stories
don’t require faith… for example, the question, how am I to live?
In a faith based story requires belief in things that aren’t provable,
that have no evidence for them… that there is a god requires
faith, but has no evidence or facts suggesting there is a god…
or the conservatives belief in ‘‘Rugged Individualism’’, has
any bases in fact… the story of human beings lies in the
tale of the tribe or the village, not in the single individual…
for one individual cannot survive on their own…
all the basic needs of an individual, both physical and
psychological, are met through and by the village, or tribe,
or other individuals… we cannot feed ourselves, or clothe
ourselves or educate ourselves or raise a family without
the help of others… there is no aspect of our lives that
isn’t impacted by others in deep, profound ways… take
the psychological need of esteem… we all need to feel
esteem of others, to feel a sense of belonging…
and that isn’t possible within the right wing fixation of
the one, the supposed superiority of one person…
the story of the ‘‘Rugged Individual’’ who has built
himself up isn’t reality… it takes a village…

The human story is not an individual one, but a collective
story of us together… we become human by our
interactions with others, individually and collectively…
I cannot, under any circumstances, without the help
of others, of many other who have a hand in my own
story… from parents to teachers to family to friends,
to my extensive reading… Kropotkin becomes
Kropotkin because of the impact of many, many others…
but as Nietzsche pointed out, we are on the road, path
of becoming… going from animal to human… that
tightrope as he calls it…

and my own road/path of becoming, to becoming human,
lies in my own choices within the context of community…
to say, I can only love women, is to limit my choices, to say,
I must believe in god, limits my choices, to say, I must give
approval to IQ45 and his destruction of America is to limit
my choices…

the ongoing battle of being human lies within our own
personal obligations and our social, societal obligations…
my choice within a societal choice recalls that to become
human requires, no demands, that I work within the
human obligations of the state/society… for my own
personal journey requires the state/society to function
for me to reach my own personal possibilities…
or said another way, I need the state/society as much
as it needs me… and the story of human beings reflect
that dual need, of the needs of the state/society and
the needs of the one, the individual… and much of
our schooling reflects that nature… we study political
science and philosophy and economics and sociology,
all of which is a study of the individual in context to the
larger group… Marx’s story of the individual context to
the state is different than Adam Smith’s story…
communism tells a different story about human beings than
capitalism… That Plato tells us a different story than
Nietzsche is a given… and who is closer to reality, the truth?
Given that Plato has very little movement or history behind
it and Nietzsche central point is the history of individuals
lies in our journey from past to present to some future…
I would give the nod to Nietzsche for his story has movement
and history behind it… so, what story floats your boat?
and why that story, and not another?

Kropotkin

7

This is a point I try to make, not only here, in this online community consisting of monikers, ie, masks, but also in the real world and every situation I may find myself in: the reality of the flesh and blood preceding all. Philosophy, whatever the -ism attached to it, has no meaning, has no value, has no importance whatsoever, without the flesh and blood. It’s just a random collection of words, a dispute to see who gets to concot the most unintelligibe system, a system condemned to stay on a shelf, alongside other mummified systems, a dead collection of concepts, deprived of the force of life.

So, my “story” didn’t begin until I realized it was my story, not your story, the story of my country or the story of my family. My story, uniquely mine. And this story, attached, belonging, concerning a fragile creature of flesh and blood who will soon disappear from the living, like he was never here in the first place, will always look meaningless, much ado about nothing, something full of sound and fury but devoid of substance, to all others except myself. So, my whole existence, my life, my passions, the books I read, the women I loved, my parents, my children, all of this is “sound and fury” to anyone not able to perceive or accept my singularity, my uniqueness, ie, that I represent a very special moment of existence, a thinking individual, a thinking creature, and that this creature is the center of the whole universe his senses perceive.

“You do not exist”- that’s the summa denigratio someone, or some group, can attach to an individual. “You are nothing. You have no sense of being. You have no right for a life of your own, a personality of your own, a freedom of your own. You either belong to us or belong to nothing, ie, you are either like us or nothing.” Of course I choose to be “nothing”- if everything I can be is restricted by a formula ascribed to me from birth, by simply choosing to step out of this, I’m automatically “nothing”.

But this “nothing”, as Max Stirner said, is a creative nothing. A nothing from which everything (in my life) emerges. All of creation. All of words. The entirety of the universe. Whatever. Whatever I create I create out of this “nothing” which is me. A flesh and blood man who can die anytime, for whatever insignificant reason. And who is, ironically enough, the center of the whole of creation.

So you talk about philosophy and religion, and your point seems to be that you need the first but not the latter, and, mostly, that you need your philosophy, not a philosophy imposed on you by others. Your philosophy, taking into account your life, your ideas, something coming from you, having you as its beginning and its end. However, I see you are mostly concerned with a social role. Your social role. As I wrote in other post of yours, you’re a proponent of the primacy of the hive mind. Collective thinking. I would say this is an inevitable road to disappointment. Your disappointment, not mine or society’s. You present yourself as a natural discontent. A man plagued by an innate desire to question the reality around you, and what plagues you more is your impotence to change such reality.

Why do I choose myself as a starting point, why am I my own destination? Because of my perception of my own impotence. I cannot “change the world”, no matter how much I try. It’s a hopeless endeavor. I cannot change others either. Not even the ones who are closest to me. So, if I’m not to be a Sisyphus, I must concentrate on what I can really do in life. This is a way for me not only to make sense of what I see in the world around me, but to avoid despair, which is the worst poison of all. I can also give a purpose to all the “sound and fury” around me.

So, if I can discard religion entirely, given it’s a system designed to make me submit to “powers” beyond me, I will not disregard philosophy, as it has been so far a long road towards me. A journey to discover the truly autonomous, thinking individual. If all we have to concern ourselves with is the external world, the “hive mind”, then yes, all that has been written so far has been in vain. Only when the life of the flesh and blood human being doing the thinking gains significance, importance, meaning, is that the meaning has any value whatsoever. Otherwise, philosophy is just a collection of empty words, like religion.

8

Kropotkin, I was sitting in the office when I suddenly became aware of a loud kerfuffle in the adjacent reception area.
I opened my office door, whereupon I was confronted by a giant squirrel. He was accompanied by dozens of smaller squirrels.
Before I was given the opportunity to familiarize myself with the bizarre scene before me, the rather enormous bushy-tailed rodent handed me a sheet of paper.
“I won’t beat about the bush,” he said. “I have prepared a written statement on behalf of all right-thinking squirrels.”
Raucous squeals of approval from his entourage.
He explained who it was for. I assured him I would deliver it. It was a simple message.

“NUTS”

Just another day in the office. :smiley:

9

We continually tell stories because that is how we are intelligent. At our core, human beings are storytelling creatures. Since the earliest days of our species, we have tried to make sense of the world and our experiences by weaving them into narratives. Stories help us organise information, remember important details and communicate complex ideas to others. They provide us with a framework through which we interpret reality.

When we encounter gaps in our knowledge or experience, moments where information is missing or unclear, our imagination steps in to fill those voids. This is not just a creative impulse, but a fundamental cognitive process. Our minds are wired to seek coherence and continuity, so we instinctively construct stories that connect the dots, even if some of those dots are products of our own imagination.

This narrative impulse is so deeply ingrained that it persists even in the face of cognitive decline. For instance, patients with dementia, despite experiencing significant memory loss and confusion, often attempt to make sense of their fragmented memories by creating stories. They may confabulate, unintentionally fabricating details or entire events, to fill in the gaps. This is not merely a symptom of their illness, but rather a testament to the enduring power of the storytelling mind. Even when the facts are elusive, the drive to understand, explain and create meaning through narrative remains.

In essence, storytelling is not just something we do; it is how we think. It shapes our perception of ourselves, others, and the world around us. Our intelligence is narrative in nature, and our stories, real or imagined, are the threads that hold our understanding together.

While religion is renowned for its rich tradition of stories, science cannot fully escape the need for narrative either. Despite the scientific method’s emphasis on objectivity and data, scientists often use stories to make sense of the world and communicate their findings effectively. Narratives help to structure scientific explanations, connect data points and provide context, making complex information more accessible and memorable to both experts and the public.

However, scientific narratives differ from religious or mythological stories in that they are constrained by evidence and must be testable and coherent. Nevertheless, both domains rely on storytelling to convey meaning. Even in technical writing, scientists impose a narrative structure, introducing a problem, describing methods, presenting results and drawing conclusions, to make their work understandable and persuasive. This narrative approach is fundamental not only for communication but also for the scientific discovery process itself, as humans naturally seek patterns and causal explanations.

In summary, although science strives for objectivity, it still relies on narrative frameworks to organise knowledge, explain phenomena and engage scientific and broader audiences. This reflects a shared human tendency to use stories as a primary means of understanding and interpreting the world.

Therefore, the way to approach any narrative is to understand that we all have our stories and try to fathom the one before us, rather than saying “it’s just a story,” reach the core of that story, which is a human mind. As a child, I was renowned for having an expansive imagination, so that my stories seemed to me to be the world I was in, and the border between truth and fantasy was often breached.

Especially as a child returning from the Far East, I was accused of “making it all up” and was ostracised at times until my teachers came to my rescue. I came to terms with the accusation of “lying” and turned to writing down my stories. It was also the way I approached Christianity, and all was good until fundamentalists did the opposite and told me that “it isn’t just a story!”

But everything is a story, and in retirement, I have returned to my childhood passion to tell stories. Not necessarily “true” but hopefully “true to life”.

1 Like
10

Can we all stop just for a brief while and thank Bob for trying to bring some intelligence to this place?

11

For the sake of humor, let’s compare two types of intelligence before handing out thanks. The knowledgeable share their knowledge—that’s the purpose of a forum. But what about those who don’t want to know anything? These poor souls are forced to repeat what others say, simply memorizing without understanding. Then there are those who know how to ask questions. Still, what’s stopping us from combining the first and the last in a rational person? That would be true intelligence.

12

What does this even mean? What is your intention here? I don’t need thanks, I was speaking from professional experience, but your agenda is unclear.

13

I gotta say that to you, Demon, I’m more and more inclined to think that time is running, is running fast, and therefore I have to carefully select what I waste my time with more and more. It’s not like I have an endless amount of time to be wasting on internet bots, when I could as well be reading one of your gifted compatriots, like Dostoyevsky, a much more profitable manner of wasting time.

So, forgive me for the indiscretion of wanting to thank the knowledgeable. They’re such an abhorrent exception on the internet, that sometimes you even forget they exist.

Nonetheless your advice also proves you’ve more to offer than windmills. Combining knowledge with the the right question, learn to make the right questions, that’s essential. If we spend our whole days pondering useless questions, it’s no surprise we will always end up frustrated. Learning to make the right question is an art, and also a privilege of the knowledgeable. We first must admit our own ignorance on a lot of things, then go and try to learn, to fill the holes in our knowledge, and only by making honest, really interesting questions, questions of one who really wants to see through things, we show a real interest in learning anything.

Otherwise, like PK himself said, it’s all about “sound and fury”.

14

Here are two perfect questions for you. Nothing funnier than this could be made up. Is everything God’s will? Why? You might ask when to laugh. It’s better to do it right away, because none of the people will have an answer. The Demon knows the answers. But you probably don’t want to listen or understand.

15

Here’s how you ruin your whole point.

So, the Demon knows the answers. What are we even doing here? Let’s ask Demon all we need to know and move on with the rest of our lives.

16

Good conclusion. Ask away. I can even do it for you. For example, the right question would be: Why is everything in reality not as people would like it to be?

As for the question of why you’re needed, I’ll give you a simple answer. As knowledge grows, a person becomes wiser. And wisdom is simply the rejection of foolishness. Foolishness is the only tool of knowledge for people.

17

You need all the foolish ones here so you can show who’s the wise one, right?

18

derleydoo:
Kropotkin, I was sitting in the office when I suddenly became aware of a loud kerfuffle in the adjacent reception area.
I opened my office door, whereupon I was confronted by a giant squirrel. He was accompanied by dozens of smaller squirrels.
Before I was given the opportunity to familiarize myself with the bizarre scene before me, the rather enormous bushy-tailed rodent handed me a sheet of paper.
“I won’t beat about the bush,” he said. “I have prepared a written statement on behalf of all right-thinking squirrels.”
Raucous squeals of approval from his entourage.
He explained who it was for. I assured him I would deliver it. It was a simple message.

“NUTS”

Just another day in the office.

K: and as always, it is good to hear from you my old friend…
and as always, I like your stories… and feel free to bring us
some more of your wisdom…

Kropotkin

19

Your squirrels and nuts remind me of a truth Hitler once said: “Propaganda must be brutal and show no compassion for enemies; it must be relentless in its attacks.” And another: “A big lie is always more believable than a small one. The more you repeat it, the more people start to believe it.” It’s like propaganda — if you repeat an absurdity enough, it eventually becomes the truth for people. So your story about squirrels could easily serve as an example of this!