“Whether valuable I am a person?“
During some period of life (at everyone it the) the person makes for himself the global choice defining how there will be his life further. We speak about the choice “to have“ or “be“. Let`s not sort in detail each of these concepts - hardly anyone - that will be able to make it better now, than Erich Fromm in the work (1976) of the same name already made. We want to talk only shortly about it from the point of view of practice.
At books and articles on psychology and philosophy there are such concepts as “here and now“, and “to have or be“. But owing to various circumstances often there is not absolutely correct or not full understanding of these concepts. It occurs including because, unfortunately, not all who use them in the work seek to help people to understand their true value. Often the due attention just is not paid to it.
I will give an example. The person hears (or reads) that the principle “to have“ extends not only to things, but also on people - on friends, relatives, darlings, children... Then the person is offered to refuse the principle “to have“ and begin to live by the principle “to be“. But if at the same time not to explain a real essence and not to tell, how exactly to carry out this transition, then people, naturally, have doubts. There is a simple question: “And what to do? Really I need to refuse close people? Or to cease to love them? To care...“
Those who is interested in this question should reflect and understand that to live in modern society of the western type without having anything simply not perhaps. The person anyway needs to eat something, to put on something itself, somewhere and with someone to live... Therefore will - bondage of people it is forced to have some quantity of “everything“.
For an illustration of the principle “to be“ often cite as an example life of Buddhist monks. Like, they can!? Yes, can. But here it is necessary to notice that everyone cannot become a monk - on light just there are no so many monasteries. Or you will order to remake the whole world to the monastery? And in general, unless it is possible to compare the Buddhist monastery and, for example, Paris? Or to compare the people living in them... Agree that it is absurdity. Generally we want to tell that to demand from the person of observance of any principle without explaining it, - it simply is not correct.
However, it does not mean at all that living in modern society it is not possible to use the principle “to be“. The real essence of the matter is that from “to be“ and “have“ the person chooses for itself the main thing, paramount. The principle in itself “to be“ does not exclude possession something. The matter is that the person living on principle “ to be“, as the main thing for himself chooses the one who is he is what it is that it represents, but not what he owns. Living, such person tries to feel life, to feel it and himself in this life in each timepoint, during every instant, every second. Of course, it has things, but at the same time their existence does not play the predominating role. Such person will not begin to measure the advantages and dignity of other people by what they have what property possess. Loss of any material value (it is not dependent on its cost) can be an unpleasant event, can annoy, afflict, even to anger, but it will never become the TRAGEDY! Life does not come to an end with loss of things, does not lose meaning from - for losses of material values.
Unlike it, the person living by the principle “to have“ also itself and others estimates only from a position of that what sum of material benefits they have. That is, what clothes, what car, what apartment. The cover, than internal contents is more important for it.
Unfortunately, the number of those who instead of teaching people to develop, to raise and achieve real success, learn as “to make impression“ the successful person is too high today. To put on properly how to behave as how to speak to SEEM successful - here a subject of tens of trainings and many hundreds of books.
The principle “to be“ much deeper, than the principle “to have“, but at the same time it does not mean need of refusal of the family and transition to a lonely ascetic way of life for the remote cave. No. To be, not obligatory to be the monk. It is possible to be the lover and to be him, or to be a knight, but to be it every minute in any situation and all depth of the being to feel and perceive itself the knight. Yes, it is possible to be the knight and to be a lover, but it is impossible to be Mercedes, or a mink coat as it is impossible to be a country house or a diamond ring. The principle “to be“ is to be healthy, to be happy, or, unfortunately, to be unfortunate. But to be!
If to reflect, then those who live by the principle “to have“ despite external chic and a luster are much more vulnerable, than those who live by the principle “to be“. If at the person who and people around measures himself by a measure of existence of material benefits, then having lost these benefits, he turns into a blank space. You remember the known parable about Nasreddin and Timur:
“Once Timur took Nasreddin`s Mall with himself in a bath. On Timur there was expensive bathing apron. They washed and talked about different affairs. At last, Timur asked:
- Mall what I am a person - valuable or not?
of Mall, having a little thought, answered;
- the Price to you - ten fogs.
- You do not say so! - objected Timur - One my apron costs ten fogs.
- I also speak About this apron!“