My second read through of Galen Strawson was admittedly almost as confusing as my first. This timeI just had a lot more questions marking up the page, like “how?” and “why?” Even after talking about it in class, I had a hard time deciphering his points from his counterpoints. One thing that was cleared up, however, was how he chose to start his essay. I was confused on how he could start off an essay with really strong evidence to support one argument and then turn around and claim the opposing argument. After figuring out that he was in fact starting with “they say”, the only confusion I had with his intro was why he would pack so much evidence so quickly.

Nevertheless, some points made during his argument made sense, if you took the time to dig deep to find the true meaning. Even so, there were sometimes I could not understand the meaning, even the second time through, because I didn’t understand some of the language used. For example, when he said the popularity of the narratives view is “prima facie evidence,” I had no idea what that meant or how it applied to his argument. Upon a Google search I found the phrase to mean “based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.” This cleared things up a bit as I now realize he means that the narrative view is supported by people who haven’t seen a reason not to believe it.

Another latin phrase that had not previously been in my vocabulary before this is “curriculum vitae.” When Schechtman used this to describe single finite biological individuals in her claim, I stared at that sentence like it had five heads. Now I know it means a certain resume, or life story. I now understand her point that people experience their life in unity and that unity goes beyond their comprehension, beyond just thinking of themselves as traits and accomplishments on a sheet of paper.