To have or to be?

You gotta have it to be it...

If I am defined by what I possess, then who exactly am I once it's all gone? (Goldman Sachs)

Extremism is never the answer.
In my view, there is no merit in swinging from one extreme to the other.
If you constantly pivot from one radical ideology to its polar opposite, you end up achieving absolutely nothing.
😉

Keith Phillips3 said:Going to extremes is never the move.

Honestly? Success is all about overdoing it!
I mean, if you don't push things to the edge, how are you ever gonna figure out where the limit actually is? 😉

Better to be broke than to have nothing at all... 😁

As far as I am concerned, the entire premise of this question is fundamentally absurd, primarily because I fail to grasp how one could possibly claim that one factor excludes another from being true.

So, he’s basically trying to pin down what it actually means to have versus what it means to be.
You can possess just about anything, I guess, but being something else entirely... that's a whole different level. 😁

Bradley Fisher20 said:You have to have, in order to be.

So, does this imply that possession is a prerequisite for existence? That’s certainly how it reads. "To have, in order to be." It sounds as though you're suggesting that having precedes being. As if you're trying to tell us that possession is more vital because, without it, existence is impossible—not just more important, but an absolute necessity that must precede any state of being.

Hmm... I can't seem to recall a single shred of evidence that supports this line of reasoning. What exactly must one HAVE in order to BE? From my perspective, the logic is quite the opposite: in order for someone to even claim they possess something, they must first exist. Being comes before having. You cannot own anything if you don't exist first. So, my friend, your logic is completely backward. 😉

Kenneth Ward8 said:So, what you're saying is we need to possess things just to exist? That’s how it sounds. "Having so that you can be." Like you're trying to tell me that material stuff comes before existence itself. Like having is more important because without it, you can't even function—not just important, but a total prerequisite for being alive.

Ugh, please... I honestly can't think of a single thing that proves your logic even makes sense... Like, what exactly do you need to HAVE just so you can BE? Because from where I'm sitting, it's the exact opposite—you have to EXIST before you can even claim to own anything. Being comes way before having. You can't own a damn thing if you aren't here first. So, kid, your logic is totally backwards! 😉

Look, to actually exist, you gotta have food, air, water, a roof over your head, clothes to stay warm, security, and all that other stuff. Without those basics, you don't even get to be.

But seriously though, you only truly "own" what you are and what you actually give to others. Everything else—all that stuff people call "possessions"—could be snatched away from you at any second... so thinking you actually "have" it just because you happen to be holding onto it right now? Honestly, it’s kind of a joke.😉

Bradley Fisher20 said:To exist, you need food, air, water, shelter, warm clothes, security, and so on. Without those basics, existence isn't even possible.

You’re missing the point entirely. It’s the old philosophical dilemma: do you eat to live, or do you live to eat? What you're attempting to argue here is that you live merely to consume. Fine. But regardless, you haven't grasped the distinction between being and having, nor have you engaged with what Fromm was actually writing about.
Let’s try this one more time: YOU don't need to possess anything in order for YOU to be (and please, emphasize the YOU). This isn't just true for you as an individual, but for everything in existence—everything that simply *is*. Anyone who exists does so primarily by virtue of being. Existence comes first; only then can the concept of possession even be contemplated. Being is the foundation; having is essentially a virtual appropriation of something that can only be perceived by a fraction of what truly exists. And even that fraction must first *be* before it can *have*. In fact, the more one ceases to "be," the less one is capable of "having." Beyond that, focusing on "having" is actually a distorted way of viewing "being." You might prefer to say you HAVE a wife rather than saying you ARE married. You’ll say you HAVE a job instead of saying you ARE employed. But there is no point in me laboring over this further; you will likely just repeat the same argument and continue to miss the mark...👋

Ashley Ramirez41 said:Look, being real here... you only truly "own" what you are and what you actually give to others. Everything else—all that "stuff"—could be snatched away at any second. It's honestly delusional to think you "possess" anything just because you happen to be holding onto it right now.😉

And that’s exactly why capitalism hasn't collapsed yet while communism totally tanked. It doesn't ignore that one basic, raw truth: the animalistic human urge to own things. That craving for power just to make sure you survive... it's built in.

Kenneth Ward8 said:You don't get it at all. It’s like... do you eat to live, or do you live to eat? What you're trying to pull here is basically saying you just live to eat.

To have in order to be.

Do you even see the contradiction in how you're reading what I wrote? Seriously...

Bradley Fisher20 said:Do you see the contradiction in how you’ve interpreted my text?

Of course I see it. You are the one claiming that there can be no cause without an effect! Do you realize what you're saying? You're suggesting that the consequence is a prerequisite for the cause to exist in the first place. To me, that sounds completely backwards (my apologies if you disagree), so let me try to simplify it with a classic American idiom—though I suspect you might struggle with the nuance here: do you live to eat, or eat to live? That phrase touches on the very purpose of existence, but perhaps you'll just tell me you live to eat, implying food is your sole purpose. It hardly matters... why don't you take a break, clear your head, and then we can finally close this illogical debate.

Bradley Fisher20 said:It’s just that primal, animalistic urge humans have to own stuff.

But animals don't actually own anything—they don't have this weird drive to accumulate junk.
So, how exactly is that an "animal instinct"? 😕

Kenneth Ward8, take a chill pill and actually use your brain for once.

Ashley Ramirez41 said:Animals don't own anything and they don't have any need for stuff.
What exactly do you mean by an "animalistic need"? 😕

You've got a point there. It isn't an "animal instinct" to own things, it's just the drive to survive. Owning stuff is just a side effect of that survival instinct. Hmm 🤔. We really need to break down this whole "animalistic" concept.

If an animal just *is* without needing to *own*, then where does the human urge to possess come from? Is that a uniquely human thing? Maybe it's because humans think ahead, you know, we plan things out.

So, when we talk about animals here, we're basically saying humans are built on those basic animal needs. That we're just products of nature. And nature doesn't run on vibes—it runs on simple stuff like food. Monks or whoever, they still gotta eat, even if they claim they live on nothing. Even Fromm. And Kenneth Ward8 along with him. I'd love to see any of them try to survive without a meal. Then maybe I'll listen to their big philosophy about existing without owning anything...

You’re really struggling to grasp the concept here. Look—you don't actually need to "possess" food. Food exists as an entity in its own right; it simply *is*. But that distinction isn't what we're debating.
It’s perfectly obvious that any living, breathing organism needs to consume nutrients to survive. However, consider the sequence of events. At the very beginning of our discussion—whether we are talking about a human, an animal, a plant, or even Bog himself—there had to be a moment of emergence. Existence must precede possession (regardless of whether "possession" is even a coherent concept). The only way you could argue that a cause is contingent upon a prior effect is if you're operating within a system that completely disregards standard logic. Try to wrap your head around this: the ability to possess something, or even the sensation of ownership, can only exist if there is a subject present to do the possessing. The air, the food, and the other elements you kept bringing up in your examples existed long before us and will persist long after we're gone... but before we arrived, there was nothing for us to "have," and once we are gone, there is nothing left to hold. We don't begin to exist because we acquire something; we acquire things only after we have already begun to exist. You previously agreed that animals don't "own" anything. Does that mean they don't exist?

Bradley Fisher20 said:To possess is to exist.

Every individual is a microcosm of immense value, representing exactly how we imagine the world ought to function.

So where is the disconnect? We often fail to honor that inherent richness because we handle life's defining moments with negligence. Life moves quickly, leaving behind memories we don't fully grasp until later. When we look back, we realize we missed the chance to truly live out certain values—opportunities that will never return. People often have everything they need right in front of them, yet they lack it all due to laziness, fear, or a failure to recognize the ethical weight of a moment. Instead of taking the easy way out, they could choose to uphold a principle that can only be exercised once.

To truly possess something means having the moral clarity to accept people and their diverse worlds without pride or fear. It means looking straight ahead with an open heart rather than turning away.

Bradley Fisher20, that is my take on possessing as a way of being.

🙂 🙂 🙂

Harold James9 said:To truly possess something means having the moral guts to look people right in the eye—without fear or some massive ego trip—and accepting everyone and every little subculture just as they are. It’s about not looking away... it's about keeping your heart wide open.

Bradley Fisher20, that's exactly how I see it... having stuff in order so you can actually exist.

🙂 🙂 🙂

Heh. 🙂. I'm with you on this one, as usual. 😎
But when I was talking about "having" things, I meant the basic material needs a person needs just to survive... those are the bare essentials for existing.

One probably needs to possess things just to realize that possession isn't everything.
It’s possible to exist without owning anything at all.
But I suppose having wealth doesn't necessarily mean you have the capacity to truly be.