#21 ·
Mick Jagger said:If I am what I have, then who am I when I lose it all? (Fromm)
No way. We are actually everything we've ever lost!
Home › Society › Philosophy ›
To have or to be?
To have or to be?
Started by Bradley Fisher20 · · 👁 6 views · 63 replies
Participants
No way. We are actually everything we've ever lost!
#24 ·
mistyfox812 said:Why so dramatic with the language?
Dramatic? About as dramatic as 😉mistyfox812😛 herself.
There aren't really any "heavy" words; there are only heavy people. 😉
#27 ·
Oh man, it just hit me.
In some deep philosophical way, you could say the whole "to have or to be" debate is basically just "to grab or to grow."
In some deep philosophical way, you could say the whole "to have or to be" debate is basically just "to grab or to grow."
#28 ·
illegale said:You have to possess it to be it.
Actually, I’d argue you have to *be* it first if you ever want to *have* it.
For instance:
A pro athlete—say, a LeBron James type—has to first BE disciplined, willing to make those sacrifices... only then will they actually HAVE the results. That's just how the world works these days.
#29 ·
illegale said:To actually exist, you need food, air, water, shelter, warm clothes, security, and so on. Without those things, you can't even exist.
Illegale... as usual, your philosophical reasoning is completely off base. And even worse? There's a real chance nobody is listening to you... or actually believing a word you say.
Look, let's get this straight...
FIRST, you have to exist before anything else can follow.
WITHOUT BEING, THERE IS NO HAVING.
Second, and just as vital...
Man has no inherent "being," so logically, he can't possess anything else either.
In reality, possession is an extension of existence, making it impossible to have something if being is the only thing truly possible....
Therefore, the concept of "having" is a total sham....
And if someone insists on the idea of ownership, there's a clever little phrase from a very brilliant mind that sums it up perfectly...
"Man has no being... man merely 'has' a destiny...."
Hail to the truth... clearly showing who really owns our existence.....
Anyway, take care. 🙂
#30 ·
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👋
#31 ·
Damn, is it just me, or are we having the exact same debate every single time?? 😕
In the end, everything just devolves into people arguing over the definitions of the words they're using...
What if someone actually bothered to explain things clearly in the very first post, instead of making us all wander around aimlessly? 🙄
In the end, everything just devolves into people arguing over the definitions of the words they're using...
What if someone actually bothered to explain things clearly in the very first post, instead of making us all wander around aimlessly? 🙄
#32 ·
It comes down to the purpose of existence. Is it about amassing wealth or self-actualization? You have to view Fromm's philosophy through the lens of post-war Germany, where the obsession with possession was extreme—a "Haste was, biste was" mentality. Only then does his work truly make sense as an antithesis to the dominant materialism of that era.
That materialism arrived in waves. First, there was the food craze, where Americans in the late 40s began gorging on lard, buttercream, and high-calorie foods after years of scarcity.
Then came the Furniture boom, as everyone rushed to buy pieces to decorate homes built atop rubble and broken bricks—I know the feeling, having lived in a building like that myself. Alongside that, we saw the Travel boom, with people riding their Vespas or driving their Isetts from the Rust Belt down to Miami.
While early post-war materialism offered some practical utility, the urge to possess eventually shifted toward excluding others or using objects as mere status symbols. Fromm rejected this. He defined "functional ownership"—possession used for a specific purpose, like a farmer owning a tractor. He didn't argue against owning things; he simply tried to redefine the individual by their function rather than their possessions.
That materialism arrived in waves. First, there was the food craze, where Americans in the late 40s began gorging on lard, buttercream, and high-calorie foods after years of scarcity.
Then came the Furniture boom, as everyone rushed to buy pieces to decorate homes built atop rubble and broken bricks—I know the feeling, having lived in a building like that myself. Alongside that, we saw the Travel boom, with people riding their Vespas or driving their Isetts from the Rust Belt down to Miami.
While early post-war materialism offered some practical utility, the urge to possess eventually shifted toward excluding others or using objects as mere status symbols. Fromm rejected this. He defined "functional ownership"—possession used for a specific purpose, like a farmer owning a tractor. He didn't argue against owning things; he simply tried to redefine the individual by their function rather than their possessions.
#33 ·
stormylynx14 said:The question touches on the very purpose of human existence. Is it the accumulation of wealth or self-actualization? You have to view Fromm's philosophy within the context of post-war Germany, where the drive toward possession was extreme ("Haste was" — essentially, you are what you own).
<cut>
That specific mode of possession wasn't an argument against identity, but rather an attempt to replace the core definition of an individual with their function instead of their property.
One could just as easily draw the lesson that philosophy is inherently susceptible to the era in which its theses emerge (which isn't surprising at all), ... but unfortunately, I don't know what (Erich?) was arguing against, if this isn't how he defined the individual too ... well, sorry, I'm just a layman when it comes to studying philosophers through their theories... 🙄
My own theory would be this:
I am
what I possess or lack might change the quality of who I am but it doesn't change the fact that I am
If I were to alter my being simply because of what I have or haven't, would I still be me? (though I suspect "me" can't really change, aside from certain traits)
So, according to Mr. F., I am not myself if I possess nothing—I'm sorry, but I can't say I agree with him ... though, then again, I am not a child if I have no parents (or at least I'm not a concept if I don't have a fused egg and sperm), I am not a friend if I have no constant company, I am not a farmer if I don't till the earth and so on... one might say I am not a poet if I haven't even penned two or three lines... 😁
How, then, would he define a man who heads to work at some firm in the morning (say, an administrative job), comes home, works in the garden, spends Saturdays out in the fields or a vineyard, and then, to top it off, writes poems on Monday nights, goes to the movies on Tuesdays, stamps documents on Wednesdays, acts in a local theater on Thursdays, and gambles on Fridays? In other words, what does that man actually *own* that makes him who he is?
Everything? So he's versatile? No, I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that who I am is defined by what I own ... because the person I just described might own absolutely nothing at all, and yet, they are still right there...
#34 ·
Kate Lee12, you’re being too abstract when you try to dissect being versus having. Theories don't exist in a vacuum; they have to be viewed through the lens of their era. On the flip side, your example of the "versatile man" is far too literal. This isn't about one specific life scenario—it's about the ultimate pursuit: Having or Being? The dominant value system of that time was rooted entirely in possession, and Fromm wanted to pivot toward being. He wanted people to define themselves by who they are—their essence and function—rather than what they own. It’s a short leap from there to realizing that the goal of life shouldn't be amassing stuff, but rather self-actualization or at least developing one's own potential. I don't think Fromm was arguing against ownership itself, provided it stems from fulfilling one's potential, but he was certainly fighting against making possession the primary drive.
#35 ·
illegale said:P.S. There’s an old saying for this kind of mindset:"material foundation, spiritual upgrade."
Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Fromm's theory aren't at odds; they complement one another. You could argue that those obsessed solely with possession are simply underdeveloped.
Maslow postulated that humans have primary needs—food, clothing, shelter—and once those are met, we seek security, then self-actualization at the peak.
So, if someone satisfies their basic needs but continues to chase unjustifiable material excess—not out of necessity, but pure accumulation—they haven't moved up the ladder. They're stuck at the bottom. A developmental stuntedness, perhaps?
#36 ·
stormylynx14 said:I don't think we're talking about a specific life situation here... it's more about what one should actually strive for: Possession or simply being?
okay, my apologies... based on those previous posts, I gathered that Fromm believed you are defined by what you possess—your function, essentially. That having something makes you who you are... or rather, lacking a function makes you non-existent... did I grasp that correctly, or am I completely off base?
if that's the case, then everyone would have some sort of purpose before they even truly existed? rather than existing first and then finding a "purpose" later?...
😁
#37 ·
Secundo said:I don't think Maslow’s hierarchy and Frommian theory are fighting each other at all—they actually fit together perfectly. It’s almost like people who are obsessed with just *having* stuff are basically stuck in an underdeveloped phase.
So, Maslow’s whole deal was that we have these basic needs first (food, clothes, a roof over our heads), and once those are checked off, we look for security, then finding our purpose, and finally, that peak level of self-actualization.
So, if someone manages to get their basic needs met but still spends their whole life obsessively chasing more material junk—not even useful stuff, just hoarding—they haven't actually moved up the ladder. They're basically just stuck at the bottom. Like, is that just a total developmental fail?
Honestly, that pyramid is kind of silly. I can think of endless examples where people choose freedom, love, God, their country... all of that over those "basic" needs.
Like Plato said, humans are plants with roots in the heavens.
#38 ·
It’s basically this messy collision between democratic ideals and pure capitalism. Democracy tells us everyone is equal, right? Like, the good guy is just as important as the jerk, the gorgeous person is equal to the ugly one, the philanthropist is on par with the cheapskate, the genius is level with the average Joe, and the intellectual is treated the same as the guy who just wants to grab a Bud Light and chill.
Because of who we are as humans, we’re all equal. That’s the whole democratic promise.
But then capitalism steps in and says everything can be boiled down to a dollar sign. So, if one person is out there chasing knowledge while another is just focused on drinking beer, that’s gonna show up in their bank accounts. If someone is stunning and someone else isn't, yeah, that hits the bottom line too. Every single human quality gets flattened into a number. It just becomes more or less cash.
When it comes to what we own, we definitely aren't equals.
And honestly? It’s all totally broken. People aren't actually "equal" when you look at their flaws or their strengths, and you can't take the crazy spectrum of human personality and turn it into a spreadsheet or some net worth.
Because of who we are as humans, we’re all equal. That’s the whole democratic promise.
But then capitalism steps in and says everything can be boiled down to a dollar sign. So, if one person is out there chasing knowledge while another is just focused on drinking beer, that’s gonna show up in their bank accounts. If someone is stunning and someone else isn't, yeah, that hits the bottom line too. Every single human quality gets flattened into a number. It just becomes more or less cash.
When it comes to what we own, we definitely aren't equals.
And honestly? It’s all totally broken. People aren't actually "equal" when you look at their flaws or their strengths, and you can't take the crazy spectrum of human personality and turn it into a spreadsheet or some net worth.
#40 ·
nobody says anything at all:
That pyramid is nonsense. There are endless examples where people prioritize freedom, love, God, their country, etc.—all of it—over those so-called "primary needs."
If you actually used real philosophical names, people might take you seriously..
The fact that some fanatic kills 200 kids in the name of Allah, or someone straps on a suicide vest to die for some "Higher Truth" we pathetic souls can't grasp—or even an ultra-nationalist giving his life for the USA, or some young romantic committing suicide over love—none of that contradicts these primary needs..
Fromm writes about this too.. in my view, it’s basically about escaping freedom and the anatomy of human destructiveness..
anyway, slightly off topic
When I first read Fromm in my early 20s, I thought he was so incredibly lame.. all that Illegal stuff the old man talks about--love being about "being" rather than "having," how good and loving we all are.. it felt so pathetic. Back then, I preferred those postmodernists who were so "too much" they were actually better 🙄 , like Derrida, for instance..
Today, a few years later... I see Derrida as just a guy with a well-developed prefrontal cortex who is great at abstract shaving.. but I finally "get" Fromm 👍
he actually knows what he's talking about..