After reading through the whole article by Galen Strawson, I was honestly left a little confused. His opening argument seemed to be that either people really do not have personal narratives, or that they simply shouldn’t. Yet by the end of the article, it felt like his views blurred with the views opposing his and I no longer understood what point he was trying to get across. Another general thing that I picked up on which was more of just a preference thing, was that the whole article, all of his arguments, seemed to just be quotes! Nearly every other line was a new quote. While I definitely recognize the strength and power in adding extra outside support and evidence, it feels like he was overdoing it, almost just quoting others with none of his own input. Maybe I am being a bit harsh, his quotes did aid in his argument, and helped display the opposing side.
In the beginning Strawson claims that nobody stories themselves, and that it is not always a good thing to do so. While I see his point in its not always good, I disagree with the other point. Self stories have the possibilities to have a negative impact too, that one point being one of the very few things I agree with him about. However, I definitely feel it is too much of a definitive and frankly, close-minded statement to say that nobody gives themselves a life story. It seems to me he is projecting. He thinks just because he does not consciously give himself a life story, that nobody else does. Obviously, this is not true from his support he supplies later on for the other side. It seems to me he does this throughout the article.
Like I said earlier, I feel like in the end, he blurs what his argument truly is. Maybe I just don’t understand what he is trying to say with this whole article, but I feel like it is pretty vague if anything. In fact, even the very last sentence seems to be him either changing his mind, or just ending it with the other side’s argument? Again, I feel I could just be misunderstanding or misinterpreting what he is trying to say, but overall the argument seems kind of weak.
