In this paper I am concerned with our conception of ourselves and how best
to study the person. I will argue that it is on a non-psychic conception of
the person that we can pin our hopes for knowing something interesting and
informative about people. Moreover, I suggest a productive route out of th
e (metaphysical) dualism between bodies and minds-which seems to have alway
s bedevilled the study of people-and into another; that between science and
stories. I advocate a continuous interplay between stories and science bec
ause, in this way, we are better able to account for and configure who we a
re and how to live, as I argue in what follows. However, this does not prom
ise a final word on how to study people, nor does it solve inter-theoretic
battles between science and stories.