To have or to be?
in Philosophy ·
Pandora11 says:
You're an outlaw... and as usual, you’re making massive philosophical blunders—not to mention the risk that someone might actually believe you.
Look, let's be clear...
YOU HAVE TO BE someone first before "having" anything can even follow.
WITHOUT BEING (even if you have things), THERE IS NO HAVING.
Man, I love a good debate, and hey, we all make mistakes. Look—from the moment you're born, you already possess things: parents, air, water, probably some love, a roof over your head, food. But think about it—tell me the truth—as you grow, you can lose all of that if you haven't first mastered who you ARE. Parents pass away; that's a certainty. If you weren't GOOD to people, you lose your friends. If you aren't working and don't have money, you lose your home, your food, your water... In the other scenario, if you HAVE BEEN who you need to be, you'll have it all. Basically, a person has their essence, yet they also shape their own destiny. The biggest hurdle is finding that essence because nobody teaches us how—so you simply have to BE in order to find it. Ask yourself how many things in life you want right now that you don't currently possess (and I don't just mean material stuff). If you AREN'T the kind of person willing to pay the price for what you desire, then you won't HAVE what you want.
Cheers👋