To Be or to Have, that is the question........

 What is the difference between ''to be'' or ''to have''?

If I am what I have, then what am I if I lose what I have?

According to Erich Fromm there are two modes of existence:

To have or to be, having or being.

If we state that ''I have a very nice home'', that is very different 

to stating that ''I am very happy in my home'' as it refers to

two fundamental different modes of existence.

''Two different kinds of orientation toward self and the world,

two different kinds of character structure the respective

predominance of which determines the totality

of a person's thinking, feeling, and acting.''

Put differently: ''to have'' is commonly about possession,

ownership, and or something that is required.

''To be'' is commonly about existence/state/condition,

to be, as in: I am, You are, they are, something is.....

Perhaps one could say: 

Being is about ''animate'' things, having is about ''inanimate'' things.

In Erich Fromm's publication ''The Art of Living'' he

writes: ''That we want to live, that we like to live, are facts

that require no explanation. But if we ask how we want to live -

what we seek from life, what makes life meaningful to us -

then indeed we deal with questions to which people will

give many different answers.''

Most of us have probably said things like ''when I have this, that, 

and the other, then I will be happy.''

Most of us have probably also discovered that when we did have

this, that, and the other, we found new things that we thought 

we had to have in order to be happy.

However, the excitement that we often experience when we acquire

materialistic things usually doesn't last.

Having stuff, it seems, can only offer us a momentary sense of satisfaction

and fulfillment.(Happiness)

We can even become so ''addicted'' to the possessing of stuff that

we ignore our inner selves cravings for meaningful interactions

with others. Instead of spending time with our loved ones,

we spend our time working in order to amass more money,

in order to amass more possessions.

(I am not talking about those of us who work endless hours in

order to meet basic physiological needs for food, shelter and

clothing.)

According to some statistics(forget where I read them) that I came

across, there was an indication that most people who say that they are

unhappy because they believe that they don't have enough money,

may perhaps not be unhappy due to a lack of money, but perhaps

more so due to a lack of self-fulfillment.

Self-fulfillment is not about having, it's about being.

Being, in my view, is knowing who you are and also what you are not, 

it's knowing what your core values and principles are 

and adhering to them. 

''If well-being - [defined as] functioning well as a person,

not as an instrument - is the supreme goal of ones efforts',

two specific ways stand out that lead to the attainment of

this goal: Breaking through one's narcissism and breaking

through the property structure of one's existence.''

(Erich Fromm)

(My understanding of ''property structure'' used in the quote above

is: ''having, owning, possessing structure''.)

So perhaps the quote can be interpreted as:

If well-being is one's goal as a human, then attaining such

one must must let go of the narcissism of having in

preference of being.

Instead of viewing oneself as: I am what I have, rather...

I am what I do, I am what I am.

''Life is problems. 

Living is solving problems.''

(Raymond E. Feist)

about the image: Hamlet pondering whether to Be or to Have

ink on paper