The Incredible Significance of Story

[Archaeopteryx]

A fundamental story (or a worldview), as I defined in the OP, is a story that tells us:

1. Where we came from
2. How we fit in the world
3. What went wrong with the world
4. What's going to fix the world
5. Where the world is going

But a more basic definition of story would be a sequence of events relevant for people that has exposition, conflict, and resolution.

Which seems no different to saying that the story reflects a set of goals, values, and beliefs about 1-5.

 

[quatona]

A fundamental story (or a worldview), as I defined in the OP, is a story that tells us:

1. Where we came from
2. How we fit in the world
3. What went wrong with the world
4. What's going to fix the world
5. Where the world is going

Now, the crucial question is: What is required for a "fundamental story" to be good or convincing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

A worldview isn't a set of values or goals. It's a story.

I don't think that I agree with that. It may be a set of stories, including non-fictional narratives that won't seem very story-like.

However, I agree with your thesis that big stories tend to make for big changes in society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

My worldview is neither. It is a set of principles to guide me in choosing the right values and goals.

Keep in mind, though, just how many people come to accept those principles by reading philosophical fiction. You know which fiction I mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

A fundamental story (or a worldview), as I defined in the OP, is a story that tells us:

1. Where we came from
2. How we fit in the world
3. What went wrong with the world
4. What's going to fix the world
5. Where the world is going

But a more basic definition of story would be a sequence of events relevant for people that has exposition, conflict, and resolution.

How do our life experiences and personal psychological needs factor into which stories we decide to cling to?

 

[bhsmte]

Now, the crucial question is: What is required for a "fundamental story" to be good or convincing?

IMO, some will be influenced heavily by how a story meets a psychological need. Some will be influenced by how credible/accurate the story is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Where we came from
2. How we fit in the world
3. What went wrong with the world
4. What's going to fix the world
5. Where the world is going

IMO, 3+4 are entirely optional. They fit a narrative which starts off as a utopia, continues as a dystopia, and ends up as a utopia. Worldview narratives can differ from that pattern quite a bit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

1. Where we came from
2. How we fit in the world
3. What went wrong with the world
4. What's going to fix the world
5. Where the world is going

IMO, 3+4 are entirely optional. They fit a narrative which starts off as a utopia, continues as a dystopia, and ends up as a utopia. Worldview narratives can differ from that pattern quite a bit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It may not be "what went wrong with the world. It could be what is wrong with the world.

But I cannot think of a worldview that doesn't acknowledge some problem with the world as it is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It may not be "what went wrong with the world. It could be what is wrong with the world.

But I cannot think of a worldview that doesn't acknowledge some problem with the world as it is.

I can, actually.

Wasn't it Leibniz who suggested that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Voltaire mercilessly criticized that idea in his novel Candide.

I don't know how fair Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's idea is, but even if Leibniz were to admit that the best of all possible worlds is imperfect, he might still insist that because we live in the best of all possible worlds, it is the most right out of all of them, and therefore we can't say that something is deficient in comparison to a better possible world.

But, yeah, this is likely to be an unpopular position.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

I can, actually.

Wasn't it Leibniz who suggested that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Voltaire mercilessly criticized that idea in his novel Candide.

I don't know how fair Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's idea is, but even if Leibniz were to admit that the best of all possible worlds is imperfect, he might still insist that because we live in the best of all possible worlds, it is the most right out of all of them, and therefore we can't say that something is deficient in comparison to a better possible world.

But, yeah, this is likely to be an unpopular position.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Admittedly I am not intimately acquainted with this view but if it's true that we live in the best possible world then why did he write a book? Why do anything at all? A "perfect" or "complete" world is lacking in nothing, yes? So why add a book to something that's already complete? Apparently it's not the best possible world.

 

[quatona]

Admittedly I am not intimately acquainted with this view but if it's true that we live in the best possible world then why did he write a book? Why do anything at all? A "perfect" or "complete" world is lacking in nothing, yes? So why add a book to something that's already complete? Apparently it's not the best possible world.

So writing a book per se accounts for 3+4:
What´s wrong with the world? This book hasn´t been written yet.
How to fix it? By writing this book.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Admittedly I am not intimately acquainted with this view but if it's true that we live in the best possible world then why did he write a book? Why do anything at all? A "perfect" or "complete" world is lacking in nothing, yes? So why add a book to something that's already complete? Apparently it's not the best possible world.

I don't think that Leibniz made the claim that the world is "perfect" or "complete", just that it is the best possible world available at any one time.

Why write a book? Presumably because that too is what happens in the best possible world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

To me it is self evident.

That sounds to me like you're making stuff up and you know you can't defend it. I don't mean that in an offensive way.

I'd think the only self-evident thing is that I am experiencing sensations right now. Nothing else is self-evident.

We can reason within our stories. But I think that when we're doing this we're comparing one story with another, making alterations, and arriving at a new story. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis style.

What is the difference between comparing stories, and reasoning without stories?

I'm not really sure what you're claiming.

For example, I used to believe in free will, then I reasoned that free will was impossible because if one's will isn't determined, then it must be random.

I could walk you through the reason, but how do you put that in 'story' terms? Do you think I'd be doing something other than seeing if the idea of 'free will' makes intellectual sense?

The evidence that science is producing is telling us a story.

Which means evidence made the story... so is the story fundamental?

I wouldn't separate the two.

I don't get how you think about how reason, stories, and values relate. I'm not saying you're wrong... I kinda get how stories can have an affect.

Yes, sorry - I didn´t mean to speak on your behalf!

You're a terrible person.

I agree.

 

[Tree of Life]

Now, the crucial question is: What is required for a "fundamental story" to be good or convincing?

Speaking as a Christian, I believe that every story that we find compelling is somehow a shadow of the Christian story. In order to explain this let me tell you a story...

CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were walking through the gardens at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?). This was before Lewis was a Christian.

Tolkien asked Lewis: "What gives your life meaning and motivates you to be a better person?"

And Lewis answered: "I'd say it's the stories that I love. Those stories motivate me to go out and be a better person and help bring meaning to my life."

To which Tolkien replied: "Me as well. I have a theory for why that is true. All those stories that you love - these myths - are pointing us to some ultimate reality. But that ultimate reality is a story itself - the Christ story. All of these stories are shadows of the Christ story and we are compelled by them because we were made for the Christ story. But the Christ story is not just another myth pointing at some ultimate reality or universal truth. The Christ story is the ultimate reality to which all the other stories point."

 

[Tree of Life]

How do our life experiences and personal psychological needs factor into which stories we decide to cling to?

They certainly do factor in. Our life experiences can cause us to gravitate or build a certain meta-narrative. For instance, a woman who feels oppressed in a bad marriage with a chauvinist husband might be likely to gravitate toward a story about equal rights and women's liberation.

No matter what story we believe, in order for it to be compelling it has to take into account our needs and experiences. Otherwise we probably won't be swept up into it.

 

[quatona]

Speaking as a Christian, I believe that every story that we find compelling is somehow a shadow of the Christian story. In order to explain this let me tell you a story...

CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were walking through the gardens at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?). This was before Lewis was a Christian.

Tolkien asked Lewis: "What gives your life meaning and motivates you to be a better person?"

And Lewis answered: "I'd say it's the stories that I love. Those stories motivate me to go out and be a better person and help bring meaning to my life."

To which Tolkien replied: "Me as well. I have a theory for why that is true. All those stories that you love - these myths - are pointing us to some ultimate reality. But that ultimate reality is a story itself - the Christ story. All of these stories are shadows of the Christ story and we are compelled by them because we were made for the Christ story. But the Christ story is not just another myth pointing at some ultimate reality or universal truth. The Christ story is the ultimate reality to which all the other stories point."

Well, now you have told me what your personal favourite story is (and guess what: I already suspected it was the bible, since your criteria appeared to be modeled after it ).
Wasn´t my question, but ok.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To which Tolkien replied: "Me as well. I have a theory for why that is true. All those stories that you love - these myths - are pointing us to some ultimate reality. But that ultimate reality is a story itself - the Christ story. All of these stories are shadows of the Christ story and we are compelled by them because we were made for the Christ story. But the Christ story is not just another myth pointing at some ultimate reality or universal truth. The Christ story is the ultimate reality to which all the other stories point."

That sounds like some crazy form of Platonism.

I think that Tolkien flatters the Christian narrative too much. Other religions, and even other non-theistic philosophies, have compelling narratives as well. It is just favoritism to suggest that one's favorite story is the "ultimate" story.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

They certainly do factor in. Our life experiences can cause us to gravitate or build a certain meta-narrative. For instance, a woman who feels oppressed in a bad marriage with a chauvinist husband might be likely to gravitate toward a story about equal rights and women's liberation.

No matter what story we believe, in order for it to be compelling it has to take into account our needs and experiences. Otherwise we probably won't be swept up into it.

Ok, it sounds like you are admitting then, that the narrative we create or the story we cling to, can be completely independent of reality and still work for us, because it meets a psychological need.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That sounds like some crazy form of Platonism.

I think that Tolkien flatters the Christian narrative too much. Other religions, and even other non-theistic philosophies, have compelling narratives as well. It is just favoritism to suggest that one's favorite story is the "ultimate" story.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is favouritism. Someone who privileges another story may similarly claim that all other stories, including the Christ story, are merely shadows of their own preferred story, and that their preferred story is the ultimate story from which all others are derived.

 

[Gottservant]

I think that we basically have a bunch of triggers that may or may not lead to creation, and we tell certain stories and they activate certain triggers and some of us end up with what we want and some of us don't and the ones that are strong are the ones that either hold on to their story or cope without it. This isn't given by anything other than experience and experience could be anything. (selah)