To Be or to Have

This is a question of defining who we are as people, at the heart of it.  What is it that makes us who and what we are?  What are the characteristics that make up the description/definition?  "Being" is obvious, at first, as personality traits or emotions.  However, emotions are temporary, and we can show traits in some situations but not others.  It is difficult to know for sure what traits are native to a person, even oneself.  Then, we "have" many things which are easy to see, but how much should they count towards defining us?  We might think only about physical objects and tangible possessions at first, but we also have many things which are not tangible - knowledge, training, experience, etc.  Language muddles things even more, with the variety of expressions for describing people using these two verbs, occasionally having phrases for both of them - have success vs. be successful.  Have as a verb seems to separate the possession from the person, making it more external than the verb be, which feels more like integration into the person herself.  Following the example, being successful is an inextricable part of that person's self, while merely having success can be in a single instance only.  Many of the things we have, we acquire for the benefit of others who wish to define us, that is helping them define us in the way we want to be defined.  A degree or certificate is a signal of what kind of person we are as much as a big house or fancy clothes.  Being, as previously stated, is less reliable because it is very situational.  Although we differentiate in English between someone who is generous and someone who is being generous, it is still not easy to know for sure which behavior is inherent to the person and which is just a temporary reaction to special circumstances.  The fact is, we cannot avoid being as human beings, and we also need to have things in order to survive.  Everything beyond the bare minimum for survival is decoration, but also a natural thing for us to do as self-aware creatures, and part of how we navigate society and our relationships to others.  Probably, neither one should be more important than the other, and our definition should be based on the combination of the two.

The Actress began by saying that people praise who you are more than what you have, and you are born who you are rather than being created over the course of your life.  It is therefore easy to be, but having requires effort.  Even making an effort sometimes is not enough, since one has to acquire the right things to get access to places and people who want to see a particular projection of those around them.  Our accessories, handbags for instance, are not just accessories, but extensions of ourselves.  We can be good people, but if we do not have the right keys, society opens no doors for us.

A Returned Participant said first that have and be should be considered equal terms, in that both of them are necessary for our survival.  At the same time, we do not need most of what we have anymore, in our times of abundance.  Social values dictate what you have and what you try to have, by placing value on certain possessions, especially physical ones.  She felt that religion promotes being more than having, which is certainly the idea religions have about themselves.  Morality can be considered as having its foundation on being mindful of others and generous to those in need.  Being is more complicated than having, as it is something that happens internally, and can even be a synonym of thinking.  What we think is influenced by what others think.  Moving back to having, she commented that we acquire possessions thinking about the future and the limits on available resources, choosing the most necessary and the most valuable.  We make decisions about the future based on what we see others having in the present and predict what will be needed.  Finally, she also commented that things have both a practical value and a social value, and returning to being, what we are helps us in our search for things to have.

The Leader disagreed with the placement of "be" in a passive category while "have" lies in the active; both require action and decision making.  There is an implicit exchange involved in having, as well as subjectivity in the value of what we have.  Something cheap can have sentimental value, making it worth more to its owner than any $2000 version.  He stated that our possessions can, in fact, affect our character, and wondered who gets to decide who we are in the first place.  As for religion and its emphasis on being, he commented that it may be cheaper to promote that, but the trappings of religion itself can be quite expensive.  Religious leaders certainly have plenty of things.  Our self is a combination of what we think we are and what others think we are.  What it comes down to oftentimes is how much backbone we have and whether we can project the image of ourselves that we want others to have.  As mentioned by others in the discussion, there is a definite influence from the society around us when it comes to building our character and it is very difficult to escape those influences even when we are able to recognize the harm in them.  What we are is not only our we use our inherent traits, but also others' reactions to us and our reactions to their reactions.  The intangible assets we have, such as intellectual property, can now be monetized more than ever before and those reflections of what we are allow us to have more things, physical or non-physical.  The Leader saw a cause and effect relationship between being and having, although they seem to go in an endless cycle and which one is the ultimate cause is something of a chicken-and-egg question.  As a slightly morbid conclusion, he reminded us that we do not take our tangible possessions to the grave with us, but our knowledge and ideas do go.  In the end, what we have is only a collection of tools to make us happy, and we cannot expect the fact of having to produce happiness or satisfaction.

The Educator also agreed that we cannot survive without having some things, and even the poorest among us have something.  The difference between the terms is a matter of perspective - personal identity vs. personal property.  At the same time, we allow what we have to define us.  We live in a consumerist society, where we are encouraged and even pressured to acquire things that are not absolutely necessary for biological survival, but are necessary for social survival.  She told us of people in her country who committed suicide when they fell on hard economic times, not because they had lost everything, but they had lost enough to lose social status.  For some people, moving down the social ladder is a fate worse than death because their being is so tightly bound to what they have.  As for the influence of society on our development of our personalities, she said that those who are strong enough can remain consistent in their values and do not feel much pressure to bow down to society's demands.  The question remains, though, of how we can develop values that are different from those of the society we live in.