To have and to be

These two words are decidedly different. Off the top of my head, one definition I can think of (but not all inclusive) is the following:

If you have you something, you possess it.
example: I have a a $10 gold piece.
example: I have a cold
example: I have some money

In the case of being, it may describe a state of (perhaps passive) existence
example: A $10 gold piece is being auctioned off.
example: Being near the kids, I think I caught the cold.
example: Being broke all the time sucks.

But isn't that a huge proviso? I don't think it can be dismissed as breezily as you seem to be doing. Isn't that like saying, "There's no difference between a square and a circle, except for their shape"?

That is a fatuous remark if ever I saw one. That is equivalent to saying there is no difference except the meaning of the words.

Or, there's no difference between an atom and Jupiter, except for their size.

... and, there's no difference between Democrats or Republicans except their politics.

How about this: there's no difference between Cheney and war criminal except for the trial and the prison sentence.

Hey, I like this game. Maybe a new game thread. Ask another one, please.

This is going to be a tough one for you, Cyr.
(And I agree with the other posters; the difference is huge.)

If Cyracruz's proposition were true, then these sentences would be identical in meaning:

John has an automobile.
John is an automobile.

Ye... It's a tough one.

But as far as Joe is concerned, he has an automobile... At least, that's how he sees it when he's in his house looking at the car in the driveway.
But what about when he is driving? Isn't then the automobile an extension of himself? Then, for all practical purposes, Joe thinks of himself and the car as one unit.

But when I wrote the initial post I was thinking along the lines of how we see ourselves. How we define ourselves.
And in painting a picture of our own identity, everything goes into it. What you are (as you think of it to yourself) is closely linked to what you have.
You are a millionare because you have a lot of money.
You are an alcoholic because you have a drinking problem.
See? In some cases having and being are just two sides of the same coin...

That's fine, but "closely linked" is not the same as "equal to." Despite the similarities between "being" and "having" in this specific example of painting oneself, I think we should resist the philosophical impulse to apply the similarity to the very definition of "being" and the very definition of "having."




The key word is "some." In other cases, they are almost entirely opposite:

"I have a slave."
"I am a slave."

From an historical point of view, this is far from being true.

In many civilisations, slaves had slaves..

Fair enough. But in any historical circumstance, the sentences are far from equivalent. You can't infer one from the other, much less equate them, without additional information. That's all I'm saying.

Well, to be honest guys, I've lost the point my intuition was aiming at. I have no objections to what you are saying, but it sort of skirts around what I was getting at... There was a punchline... then there was too much punch during the weekend, and that was the end of the line... Maybe it will come back to me