preview

Erich Fromm

Decent Essays

Erich Fromm in his novel To Have Or To Be argues that there are two forms of existence: having and becoming. He believes that modern society is dominated by the “to have” mode, which is as a soul-less and selfish pursuit of material possessions. He also argues that neither capitalism nor communism offer a way out of society’s obsession with having because both economic systems have a materialistic foundation. Therefore, Fromm attempted to synthesize capitalism and Marxist humanism to form a society based on becoming. Fromm defined becoming as “the mode of existence in which one neither has anything nor craves to have something, but is joyous, employs one’s faculties productively, is oned to the world” (16). The main difference between being …show more content…

Therefore, Fromm believed that our economic, political, and even our religious systems were encouraging the having mode of existence. These systems, according to Fromm, must be changed to ensure our survival. We can see flavors of existentialism, humanism, rationalism and a rejection of materialism, egotism, and hedonism in Fromm’s philosophy. Fromm stated that society believes in the great promise of unlimited happiness, freedom and material abundance. It is from this promise by which the industrial age began and proved that a society based on materialism leads to human suffering. The great promise failed because of radical hedonism, and the egotism, selfishness and greed of society. A society based on the mode of having creates economic systems that have no concern for what is good for society, but rather what is good for the growth and development of the system. In this sense Fromm can be viewed …show more content…

In the poem Tennyson describes the reaction he had toward a flower he saw while taking a walk. Instead of merely enjoying its beauty he wanted to have the flower and thus he plucked it. Tennyson, even though he gained spiritual insight, ultimately killed the flower because of his interest in it. Fromm’s thesis is that society in its having mode of existence destroys the natural world in its pursuit for knowledge and truth (plucking the flower). For example, scientists dismember natural systems to understand their function and origin. Scientists may gain knowledge, but at the price of killing or damaging the system they were observing. Overconsumption and pollution will always be a problem for as long as mankind view the natural world as something to have or to own. An antithesis to Fromm’s assertion is that interfering with the natural world does not harm it (or plucking the flower will not kill it). God created the world for mankind thus mankind can do with it as they please. I offer a synthesis of both philosophies by suggesting that a passive appreciation of nature is good and is needed, but manipulating nature is also needed for scientific advancement. However, science must not be in the having mode, but rather it must be humble to avoid overconsumption and eventual catastrophe. The purpose of science is to learn and to become better citizens of the world (or to become one with the world). However,

Get Access