Below I'm going to write some notes on "The art of being" by Erich Fromm.
30.03.2023, Thu, 11pm.
Istanbul, Turkey.
by Tirkish Baymyradov.
- Today, by and large, individual narcissism is simply being strengthened and the inability to reason and to love (which, according to Fromm, are characteristics of an orientation toward being) entrenched, as techniques of self-awareness offer new crutches of orientation toward having. [from Foreword]
- In the end, a person orients his life either toward having or toward being. [from Foreword]
- All that matters to us is that we have esteem, a certain image, health, beauty, or youth, and when this is no longer possible, then we at least want to have "experience" or "memories." [from Foreword]
- Convictions of a political, ideological, and religious nature can also be acquired as possessions and staunchly defended - to the point of bloodshed. [from Foreword]
- Yet each person can quickly test himself or herself by asking what he or she finds particularly valuable, thereby getting an idea of what would happen if he or she were to lose what was important and valuable: whether he or she would lose the ground from under his or her feet and whether life would then become meaningless. [from Foreword]
- He or she is himself or herself only insofar as that person has something. [from Foreword]
- Orientation toward being always means that one's purpose in life is oriented toward one's own psychic forces. [from Foreword]
Foreword by Rainer Funk, 1992, Tübingen, Germany.
1. On the Art of Being. (pages 1-9)
-----
Just my ideas and criticism. Both in English and Turkish. 05 Apr 2023, 06:51 am, Istanbul
As far as I understand Fromm criticises owning. But what he doesn't know is that without owning we wouldn't have this level of knowledge. For example, if I hadn't owned an iPad then I wouldn't have read his book. His book reaches multitude thanks to materialism. Without the internet or technological devices present today his book wouldn't have reached the fame it has today. I read it from Internet archive of e-books on archive.org; somebody built the website for sharing, somebody scanned the book and uploaded it there, and somebody (me, e.g.) read it online. And tonight we are going to discuss that book with my friends on the internet, via zoom meeting. Last week my friend called and informed of book reading group that was going to be established anew. As you see all these things are thanks to the developed society.
The author idolises the primitive hunter-gatherers but he forgets that even though the gatherers were active in production they wouldn't be able to think this far in terms of intelligence or analysis. Yes, they were pretty good observers, they had common sense much better than us, they were active and developed in most areas, not like us, focused on the sole or a few areas. But to indulge in the faculties takes some price.
What comes to your mind when you are asked of the first civilisation? Most would think of ancient Greece. They gave themselves on philosophy and science because of excessive materialism. They were built after the small tribes. In small tribes you have what you need, I mean basic needs, no more. As tribes grew, they needed leaders; as it grew more, they needed people for other areas like defense, health, belief (e.g. church) and so on. They appointed people there and fed them. Thus started a central kingdoms; all the excess materials gathered in the centre - in king, for instance. It created cities, cities created idle thinkers, idle thinkers created science and philosophy, and that created Erich Fromm, and he created "the Art of being." You see, we need a lot of things to arrive to that book.
I agree with Mr Fromm when he says that children and wives were also property in the past and they are not now, at least to certain degree. That knowledge is surprising. He also claims that production line has alienated the workers. Worker thinks that he created a car but in fact he just did a small part in the production of that car. He didn't achieve something great. It is all fake in modern workforce because you are never (or at least hardly ever) involved in the production of a total thing from beginning to the end. I guess the author claims we need to produce a thing compact in order to satisfy our being. Otherwise we are incomplete. And he is right.
Fromm claims that one should not be naive. I was one in the past and I can relate to that. I used to believe that all people are nice until vice versa is experienced. Erich says that is a bad idea; he writes that one should be aware of bad people; and he provides examples of Gandhi, Jesus Christ and many more martyrs of the knowledge against ignorance. I experienced this first hand; it is much better if you know it beforehand and act accordingly. The world is not a nice place!
He claims there is arrogance under extreme modesty; one hides his arrogance under the mask of modesty. He says that people act humble in order to attract others' attention and gain their respect to oneself. The opposing characters are hidden under the mask he says. Cowardice under the bravery (I made it up), arrogance under the modesty, narcissism under altruism, maybe ignorance under the knowledge, avarice under generosity and so on.
He opposes the owning, possession if it is not necessary. The cars, not necessary for him. I disagree, it is good to have in modern world. I agree with him that people just want own everything because of greed, because of the fake ads. Freud and the author claim that to own everything is an psychic illness. Babies want to own at the beginning; and if they continue to do so in their adulthood then they haven't matured. Also, the feces are likened to gold. Many mythological examples are provided.
After all, book is both easy and difficult at the same time. Easy because you feel as if you are having a conversation with the author. Difficult because you need understand some concepts described there.
05 Apr 2023, 07:26 am, Istanbul.
