The past decades have witnessed a significance growth of interest in the matter of “storytelling”, so much so that it would not be much of an exaggeration to argue that the word “storytelling” might have already become a hype, especially in a world where commercialization has been underwriting almost everything that can be commercialized. A debate has naturally followed. Some authors have cautioned against hyping storytelling, whereas countless more seem to have contributed to its popularization. In the same vein as semiotician Thomas Sebeok, who once commented that “a sign is just a sign”, I would simply like to point out (remind) that “a story is just a story”, in which light it is the human being, as a storying animal, that ultimately and truly matters. This might promise to be a key to solving the above-mentioned debate. To take the argument one step further, we may as well highlight a point that the storying animal is but a catchier name than the narrating animal, in the same way as “storytelling” is indeed just another name for “narrating”. To narrate is to semiotize, and to semiotize (whether through semiosis or through modeling) inevitably creates what I have called the “double semiotic paradoxes of humanity”, shackling and liberating human existence at the same time. Yet still, narrating, as an instance of semiotizing, is as close to true freedom as the human being can ever get. It is a life-affirming and self-affirming action that brings us an opportunity for freedom.