Thinkers have always intended to account for the existence of the universe with reference to "possibility" and "necessity." That conceptualization has been the result of accounting for God’s existence with reference to "possible" beings and assuming that the universe was a product of his generosity. Once existence was divided into the "necessary" and the "possible," the former came to designate God and the latter came to represent the universe, or the world, including the life of humans with its ups and downs. In this regard, God and everything related to him has been considered indispensable, whereas humans and everything related to them have been viewed as possible (possibility and probability) in the sense that they were not necessary. Up until that point, there is no visible problem, as everyone agrees that such distinctions are needed – notwithstanding differences in the narrative.

Yet, humans eventually realized that the world, which they perceived as "possible" and "probable," was not exactly that way. That realization led to major problems and conflicts among them. First and foremost, it was extremely difficult to live in the possible world. It was hard work for humans to find food and shelter, or to ensure their safety. A lifetime was not enough to live one’s life. The hardship of life was what really changed their minds about the world being a "possible" world. On the other hand, certain people and groups in the possible world liberated themselves from the limits of probability – which the word possibility entailed – and became nearly necessary beings. From that point on, some things or individuals – parts of the world, whose content was considered "not necessary" – came to reach the level of indispensability and obtained the advantage of existing more than the rest. The world was thus divided between two classes: The indispensables and those who were "not necessary." The royalty and the powerholders thus became "indispensable" groups, whose absence their respective societies could not imagine in any way, to claim the lion’s share of indispensability. To speak of rulers or members of their dynasty as if they were ordinary people became considered a criminal act, as people were taught that they were secondary beings.

Indispensable and possible people

Provided that the ruler was chief among the indispensables, the people in his vicinity and his polity were assigned some level of indispensability by becoming indispensable themselves. For everyone else, being servants and slaves in that world could be considered an acceptable honor. Once that gate cracked open, others slipped into that privileged class: Knowledgeable people were quickest to distance themselves from the class of people that lived in the realm of "possibility." Clergymen and sorcerers ought to be added to that list as well. Everyone else came to believe that those groups were indispensable to existence, at least for the sake of appearances, and that any objection to that "fact" was designated a serious crime.

Consequently, we realized that part of the possible world, that humans inhabited, was divided into two: The privileged, who had earned the right to be "indispensable" and gained a superhuman status, and the helpless, who remained "not necessary." It is not possible, however, to argue that the distinction between "indispensable" and "possible" people has been the source of deep crises, conflicts or tensions since the "possible" classes never had the kind of power or ambition that were comparable to the rest. Indeed, since the "possible" class lacked agency anyway, how could it have any impact on conflicts or crises! Instead, the main conflicts and fights occurred among the indispensable, as the possible classes merely sacrificed their lives as powerless tools.

Human beings may never have been equal. This time around, however, the gap widened beyond remedy. Indeed, people were not even equally human: The indispensable were more human than the rest. They came first and, in truth, they enjoyed the privilege of living. Provided that even their birth was not ordinary, it would have been unimaginable for their lives to be such. Their skills and talents were not ordinary either. Oddly enough, their death, too, would not be ordinary.

And what about the rest? That was a question that no one ever bothered asking amid the chaos: Who were the others and what were they experiencing?

The others were people, who lived on Earth under difficult circumstances – in line with the primary meaning of being human. Time passed and the world changed, yet they kept living in a "not necessary" state. Yet they did not view themselves as the equals of other people, in practice, in line with that great division in the world. They did not think that they were equally entitled to living and – at least in practice – did not lead lives based on principles as much as them. Whereas the first class lived according to certain principles, they had focused exclusively on the act of living. Notwithstanding, something else happened:

This world of possibility, which people had effectively lost, survived in their thoughts, narratives and (mostly) dreams and became a great body of literature. Within those narratives, the world remained a world of "possibility" in the exact sense of the word: The truth, albeit distorted by life, came back via dreams and the clock was reset. Anything was possible. Anything could be disrupted. The rulers could become slaves and slaves could become rulers. Even though the power struggles among men had transformed the world into a more rigid and deterministic place, the truth was in line with the content of fairy tales. That possible world was exactly what people described in those fairy tales, looking for the world they had long lost. Let’s take a closer look at that phenomenon:

Searching for possibility, equality

Fairy tales, which often start with "once upon a time," offer us traces of two fundamental pieces of information that humans obtained about the universe and themselves: Primarily, possibility, which represents our ultimate conclusion about the world, remains unaltered in fairy tales and mythological narratives. As such, fairy tales restore our original and primordial perception of the world, bringing down all the insurmountable structures that have emerged among human beings. In this sense, the act of telling fairy tales is to imagine the world in its state of "possibility." Indeed, our initial perception of the world was a place where anything was possible, nothing was certain, and no boundaries had been drawn.

As mentioned in mythology, the world resembled an egg of sorts. It was always within the realm of possibility that something could pop out of it – or not. Just like the world itself, all deeds and all beings within it were open to such possibilities. In the beginning, people believed that they had been born into such a world. They thus distinguished the world from indispensable beings, building their lives on the basis of possibility. When we read a fairy tale about an emperor, who suddenly ceases to be in charge and ends up in the most unlikely situations, we are reminded of that "possible" world. We are not surprised by it. Instead, we conclude that such things tend to occur in the world of possibility. Accordingly, we can wrap our heads around the fact that a poor man could get rich instantly.

Then again, people believe that they are not alone in the world. There are jinns, fairies and other kinds of amazing creatures as well as things that bestow power on humans. Together, they live in this uncertain and boundless realm together. Sometimes, spaces are set up within space, as people discover the most secret places, portals into other parts and hidden treasures to experience the most unlikely events. Other times, they get lost and end up in endless places, witnessing "odd" and unusual activities. Yet other times, the possibility emerges in their perception of time, leading people to experience time within time, as the past and the future become entangled. All those things are worldly situations, in which the state of possibility manifests itself.

Acts of rebellion and rejection

The second issue that makes its mark on fairy tales is the sense of equality among humans, which was lost within the framework of necessity and possibility. Reading a fairy tale, one cannot help but notice the pursuit of equality among human beings – that each person wants to enjoy the same opportunities as the rest. It is possible (and certainly necessary) to view fairy tales as acts of rebellion and rejection against those classes, which have become indispensable, and the "indispensable" world. In this regard, fairy tales are a form of objection, distorting the flow of everyday language, replacing everyday subjects, and getting rid of causality altogether – creating equality among men in a world where anything is possible.

Sometimes, when certain persons, who are more powerful than humans, emerge in fairy tales, we realize that the people we see in reality are not that powerful. There are beings, which bestow power on humans – which leads us to conclude that power does not actually belong to anyone. As the rich become poor and the poor get rich, the possibility of everyone being equal as a result of such changes either gives us hope or makes us afraid. Sometimes, people find fresh opportunities to get to know each other by crossing the limits of class: A sultan could end up needing a shepherd’s helper, staying in his home and getting to know him. One way or another, there is always the possibility that equality among men shall reemerge.

It would appear that the undermining of equality among humans remains one of our most painful memories. That some people were "more human" and "more deserving of life" was rejected by our collective consciousness. Even though we could not oppose it in practice, mankind attempted to reserve its right to equality by voicing its rejection through fairy tales. In other words, that we keep reading fairy tales attests to our belief that equality may be established anew someday. That is how human beings can find an opportunity to be equal in death, at birth or perhaps during their lives.

The fairy tales of Keloğlan

The fairy tales of Keloğlan, a fictional character in Turkish folklore, give us a great opportunity to discover the question of equality among humans. Those tales explain to readers in many ways that the world is rooted in "possibility" and probability, yet highlight the claim to equality among men more clearly than others. In this sense, equality is particularly disturbed between the rulers and the dynasty, and that class, of which the protagonist is a member. Whereas the powerful, almighty sultan is a representative of the "indispensable" class, Keloğlan is poor, helpless and without any family except his mother, whom he is compelled to take care of.

The confrontation between the sultan, who has everything, and Keloğlan, who has nothing, provides us with an opportunity to remember the world, where there used to be equality among humans – a world long forgotten. One of the symbols of Keloğlan’s poverty is his baldness. (Indeed, the Anatolian culture came to inherit the phrase "an orphan with no hair" from that character.) Still, the fairy tale draws one’s attention to Keloğlan’s great ambitions and makes us think about something else entirely. Keloğlan, whom many would pity, turns out to be a shockingly confident and ambitious man.

Keloğlan’s demands highlight the contradiction between man’s actual state and expectations and dreams as well as the great ambition that each person carries in their heart. By viewing the sultan’s daughter as his equal, the protagonist exposes his objection to inequality that spreads all around the world. Indeed, we humans have never made our peace with the undermining of equality. We could not practically oppose it, yet we kept that objection hidden in our hearts. We have also realized the following: One’s lack of opportunity does not mean that they have given up on their ambitions. That ambition merely finds another language or another channel to continue existing on another level.

None of the fairy tale’s remaining parts are of any importance to the reader – especially what the protagonist does to earn the princess’ love or that the sultan ends up needing Keloğlan’s help, as they have no impact on the essence of the story. Through fairy tales, our imagination yearns to go back to that original state of equality. It demands that we tear down the insurmountable walls between humans and restore equality. It is suitable that the story relates to marriage, as marriage certainly occurs among equals. The "indispensable" rule is that the princess can only marry an equal or a hero. Keloğlan, however, rises up against that principle from within the world of possibility, claiming that any person can be another’s equal in terms of their humanness. In other words, poverty or the lack of relatives does not take a toll on one’s humanly ambitions. There is a lion in everyone’s heart of hearts and, in truth, everyone thinks of themselves as a lion deep down. The lion within does not reflect what one thinks about anyone else. In truth, it represents us and that lion demands to be with the princess. The final notable point is that the fairy tale finds a way to achieve that equality.

Indeed, one would not be reading fairy tales still had that not been the case.