The Mysticism Of Fromm

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ERIC FROMM

THE MYSTICISM OF FROMM In his book To Have and to Be, Fromm talks about the concepts of Having and Being in the Two Testaments of the Scriptures and in the philosophy of Meister Eckhart, who was also a Christian mystic. It seems that in Fromm’s discussion and distinction between Being and Having, he identified the first as one man’s search for his authentic self. To confront one’s Being is to confront one’s essential questions in life. Furthermore, Fromm argues that to be fully authentic, one has to endeavor to become a mystic. This means then that a person could hardly encounter his/her real self if s/he remains attached to worldly or material things. Hence, Fromm establishes a strong contrast between Being and Having. For him, a person who is busy gathering or storing earthly possessions can hardly become authentic. He seems to argue that earthly goods and possessions are hindrances for a person’s search for authenticity. Hence, if one wants to become authentic, that is, to really be, then one has to constantly and consciously get rid of his own wants. One must get rid of oneself in order to be. Fromm’s comparison and contrast about Being and Having is articulated in his discussion of hte senses of Being and Having in both the Old and New Testaments and the philosophy of Meister Eckhart. Hence, he started the third chapter of his book with a mention about the Old Testament heroes (Abraham and Moses) and the Israelites’ journey from Egypt as told by the Exodus. Fromm believes that Abraham and Moses are perfect examples of people who had faithfully journeyed towards their Being rather than be tempted with the contentment of having. In other words, in Abraham’s and Moses’ desire to be, they had gotten rid of themselves. Fromm argues that Abraham’s search for himself is anchored in his obedience to Yahweh. Abraham finds the perfection of his Being through his undying fidelity to his promised obedience to Yahweh. Hence, Abraham reached the summit of his search for Being when he particularly followed two commands of Yahweh that had also clearly required that he too had to get rid of himself in order to prove that he is the obedient son of Yahweh. The first mark of his obedience was seen when Abraham agreed on leaving his land and kindred in order to go to the unknown.(p.37) This was a clear gesture of poverty. He had to give up his confortable life in order to accommodate the will of Yahweh. He finds the meaning of his life in obedience and not in his material possession. With this, Abraham has shown his commitment to seek for his Being rather than be stucked with Having. Another instance of poverty in the story of Abraham is his willingness to sacrfice his only son. This was not mentioned by Fromm anymore but I believe that this gesture of Abraham strongly supports Fromm’s opinion about the mysticism of Abraham. In the life of Abraham, his fidelity has once gone through a very difficult test, that is of giving up his own son. We recall that at one part in Abraham’s story, Yahweh has requested him to bring his son to a mountain where he was supposed to offer the latter. This was a strong and radical call for poverty. The son speaks a lot for Abraham. The son was the future of his own household. We recall that Abram’s wife was barren, and was only able to conceive through the intercession of an angel. To lose his son would mean that Abraham would also lose an heir who was supposed to continue his name and clan. But should the son be lost, Abraham would also lose everything. And yet, it was also in Abraham’s willingness to let go of what he has where he was able to show his Being. When his faith was tested the most, it was there that he has most powerfully given witness to it. When Abraham lift the knife in order to sacrifice the son, I think that was one of the most powerful expressions of giving up and letting go. With such a gesture, Abraham gave up everything. But it is in giving up all things that he gained his Being. After talking about Abraham, Fromm talked about Moses. Fromm highlighted the image of the desert. Fromm argues that Moses’ journey into the desert together with the Israelites

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ERIC FROMM was a strong gesture of poverty. Moses left Egypt which was a land of security. Though they were slaves in Egypt, the Israelites were at least certain that they would have a place to stay, and that they would be fed with a daily meal. However, when they left Egypt and went to the desert, they also lost their security. Some of them even complained, why should they leave Egypt only to die in the desert? The desert was a powerful symbol of nothingness. I have not personally experienced how it is to leave in a desert, and so I could not fully identify with what Fromm describes as an example of poverty in the desert. However, the desert gives us a strong image of nothingness. In fact, when the Israelites were in the desert, they really had nothing with them. They had no food, no water, no shelter. It is in this absence of any possession where the Israelites were able to deepen their faith in God. For Fromm, such faith-experience is also an encounter with Being. Their experience of their nothingness allows them to encounter their Being. It is in this reflection about the Israelites’ exodus experience where Fromm offers his reflection about the relationship between one’s encounter with being and the value of detachment. Here, Fromm clearly expresses that attachment to things blurs a person’s search for Being. For example, there were Israelites in the exodus event who remained attached to material goods so much so that when there were supplies of mana from heaven, some of them got much more than what they need. This can be taken as a clear instance of not knowing the self. The person’s attachment to things