Throughout history, philosophers have argued the meaning of owning something and how it affects your character. I believe, as Sartre puts it, "Knowing something thoroughly means to own it, and to own things can help you grow as a person, but addiction to owning things can lead to moral corruption. The obsession with obtaining physical objects leads one to only care for themselves and their own interests, at the expense of other people who depend on them, and their own financial well being.
The relationship between ownership and sense of self can be both positive and damning, based on how the person views the interrelation. Ownership can be mistakenly claimed due to a false sense of feeling like a person owes you this claim, when in reality it's not yours to have as people can't be owned, creating a toxic situation founded by possessiveness. However, people benefit from having ownership of something that's not a person because those things are what are most important to them and their sense of identity. It gives them an understanding of what they value and need to flourish in life. On the other hand, if you have nothing, you want for nothing, preventing you from becoming greedy and possessive of things that aren't rightfully yours. The most positive connection between proprietorship and identity is being an expert on something, leading to a personal sense that you "own" that topic, because it fosters a sense of justifiable pride that due to hard work, the right of ownership has been earned.
The ownership of inanimate objects doesn't help the process of self development but rather reflect the revision itself. Personal evolution is constantly occurring due to ones community, societal expectations, and new trends. As ones personality and character changes so does someones ownership of objects, thus reflecting their change. The possession of items does not cause reform, but demonstrates transformation to ones character has been made to the rest of the world.
Owning tangible objects in most cases does transform a person's character. This usually comes when someone acquires some form of wealth or something that is very expensive and they begin to think that they are better than everyone else. I have seen this firsthand within my family as soon as some people comes into money they think they're better than the rest of their family and cuts of contact completely. However there are some people who take their wealth and possessions with grace and stay the same some even become better people. Wealth does change most people but its not always for the worst.
Ownership has a direct connection to one's sense of self. Owning tangible items makes people feel connected to their society whether they're consciously aware or not. For example, many people want to own AirPods, and a profuse amount of people who own them feel as if they're somehow better by owning an expensive pair of wireless earbuds. There are even some people in the world who don't own a pair and somehow feel lesser than AirPod owners. Even owning skills makes people feel connected to their society. When people win a race or ace a math test they 'own it' and it helps people feel in sync with those around them. Humans, down to their core, desire owning something whether that something is tangible or not.
The ownership of certain or many tangible objects can make people arrogant at times. Being in possession of expensive items or items that are of great worth can go to a person's head and make them believe they are better than everyone else. Take the Kardashians for example. This wildly famous family owns more luxurious and unnecessary objects than necessary. With this, the whole world and the family themselves believe that they are better than any other humans. This is called being arrogant and overly confident with oneself. Therefore, ownership causes the sense of self to skyrocket and if someone doesn't 'own enough things,' this can create the feeling of not being enough in the world.
Ownership is main factor in developing a person and their personality. Owning skills and objects make you unique by effecting your personality, decisions and moral views. However, just because someone owns something doesn't mean that everyone else is condemned to a life without it. For example, a person can own the skills of honesty and loyalty and that does not mean that everyone else is is deceitful and treacherous. The ownership of different things doesn't effect your personality, it instead makes up you as a person. The ownership of ability and thoughts makes your decisions, feelings and thoughts altogether and makes your person into who you are.
Ownership leaves an impressionable mark on one's character by the fatal upbringings of some insensible people. For one to believe his or her position in the world is higher due to the amount of things they "own", is a common mistake repeated among the wealthier fragment of the social system. Possession of knowledge is the only feature of ones characteristics that may put them at a higher level than anyone. We look up to philosophers for their great knowledge, our president to make the right decisions bearing our country, doctors to maneuver through the body in desperate situations. The amount of knowledge one "owns" is due only to their work-ethic and abilities, not given to them. Knowledge is obtained at the rate the receiver can take it in and that is why intelligence will consistently be the most culmination characteristic a person can possess.
The mindset that the objects a person posses can determine their character has always been false. The things someone has does not in any way determine who a person is. A historical example of a man who owned nothing but impacted the world in unimaginable ways is Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi was one of the most important people in the world during his time , and he had very little as far as physical objects in his life. Their are many people in this world that have been blessed beyond belief that still have terrible morals. Materialistic objects will always make people to appear to have a better character ,but the amount of things a person has bought will never dictate who they are.
Owning tangible items in the modern world is a necessity. Whenever a person rewards themselves with the ownership of something they are passionate about, they are able to elevate themselves as people and work harder in general. With this, people who take ownership in goods have more confidence in life, knowing that they have done well, and can continue on this path of self success. Although ownership is very beneficial in most cases, it can become detrimental to a persons character as the great philosopher Plato believed. For example if a person becomes too obsessed with the ownership of a certain thing, they could go to the extreme to get this thing, not worrying about anything or anyone along the way, and lose their sense of self. Disregarding this, ownership is almost always a requirement for a person to prosper and is worth the risk in life.
Ownership, by book definition, means to physically possess something. However, one can also own their thoughts, ideas, and creativity. Especially when it comes to writing, ideas are only one's own if they can adequately rephrase it and add their own additions into someone else's ideas. Agreeing with Jean-Paul Sartre, intangible ideas, such as skills and education can be owned by someone once they have mastered it beyond the standard. In figure skating, people can have their own spin, jump, or other skill. People tend to find the skill they enjoy and feel comfortable with to practice obsessively. Eventually, this skill may become theirs and everyone at that rink will associate that skill with that person. For example, my skill is a layback spin, an upright spin with a curve in the back. This spin is not only my best, but also gives me comfort and peace during a stressful time. Ownership of a specific skill, in or out of sports, can bring people comfort in rough times. For some, this may be their ability to write stories, play an instrument, or paint an image. The comfort that comes from knowing that this is one's own is something that can forever be present.
Owning something develops your character. If someone owns a car or owns something else that holds value in their life, they are responsible for it.Owning something can benefit somebody in many ways. It gives the person authority on what happens to the owned object. It can create a sense of responsibility for the person. It can cause someone to be more careful with things when they realize that some objects hold value to other people just like their's does to themselves. Owning something benefits a person in many ways as it creates a sense of responsibility, and with that can build character.
Some may argue that owning objects will define someone's character and sense of self, but I believe that owning things is all materialistic. Although, owning your dream house or dream car will bring happiness to one self, in no means should someone develop a moral character based off of these objects. While some may own very special and meaningful objects, for example helping someone remember a loved one, can be very touching to one's character. But at the end of the day, these objects will not always be in someone's presence, but the person itself is what will be remembered. Owning things is a addition, not a necessary thing that should determine your moral characters.
The relationship between ownership and sense of self is very complex and is different for every individual. For some, obtaining lots of ownership no matter the form creates a sense of security and satisfaction. For others, obtaining vast amounts of ownership no matter the kind, makes them extremely greedy and selfish. I myself and many other benefit greatly through obtaining ownership. I couch hopped and went place to place for about six months. Personally I can say obtaining a bed, room, and a closet, was the most uplifting thing that has happened for me this past year. Just obtaining things that seem so simple and even bare necessities created a sense of security that I didn't even fully realize I was missing. During all of this I saw many fellow students complain that they didn't have the newest phone, or a high-dollar car, and this is when I realized that some of us turn greedy the more ownership that is given to us. This is why the relationship between ownership and self is different for everyone; everyone has a different circumstance that causes the relationship to change.
To Plato, owning tangible goods is "detrimental to a person's character," Aristotle claims that this develops moral character, and to philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, ownership extends to non tangible things, like having great knowledge about something. Philosophers for centuries have pondered the question, "what does it mean to own something?" To own something is to have a physical item, not to have a deep knowledge of something. If one was to own something by just studying it deeply and knowing vast information on it, there would be multiple people that would own something.
As Aristotle claims that "tangible goods" help develop self identity, I believe he has a point. Ownership of tactile objects can allow one to have a better sense of improving their self (in a way that is more obvious to them because they can "see" the improvement more clearly if they feel they have a real thing in their hands), however, contrary to Sartre's view of being proficient in something and saying that you own it, does not apply. Ownership may have a slight relationship in self identity, but it is to an extent. "Knowing something thoroughly" may help develop character, however one may not be the only person to "know something thoroughly," therefore it does not give anyone the right of ownership to the subject. With that being said, tangible goods may give a more clear feeling of self identity because the object can be held and more personable, and being proficient and well educated on a subject may develop self identity as well, but one can not "own" a subject because they are (most-likely) not the only one to be proficient in it.
Coming from the materialistic country of America, owning objects appears to set social standings, but the value those products have on a person can be self-deteriorating when tested to the extreme. The common phrase comes to mind, "money doesn't buy happiness." Most of the population brushes the phrase of their shoulder because their social-economic standing doesn't allow them to gloat in money anyways; however, owning to much plastic, worthless products can be harmful because of how their peer may view them. No one likes that one friend that talks about all the Apple products their parents bought them last weekend or how they got a Ferrari last weekend for their birthday. Many people value their peers thoughts and therefore it can hurt someone to have too much material. On the opposing side objects can also boost self-esteem. From a homeless man who just received a blanket for the cold winter, or the poor family who was gifted clothing objects can have a positive effect on these people. The social-economic standing affects whether owning objects are positive or negative on one self.
Ownership constructs characteristics in the idea of the self-concept. Owning tangible items provide individuals the opportunity of building self respect, responsibility, and values to ones persona. For example, owning a house builds all three of those. How you uphold your living area builds self respect; if your humble abode is clean and tidy you value where you are and what you worked for. One will have responsibilities like chores, bills, and other house hold items that make your house your home. Non tangible items build character as well. If a person possesses skills and believes that they are great at that skill courage and hard work ethics build up; nine times out of ten it will make an individual want to work harder.
The relationship between owning material objects and ones sense of self is no diabolical phenomenon, and should not be treated as such. It is true, however, that people who have lived a prosperous life are bound to develop at least slightly differently than someone who has been deprived of necessities or recreational items, and may not posses as great of an appreciation for them. Or, on the other hand, some who let their tangible objects directly control and reflect their character might not have had a strong sense of identity to begin with, and find comfort in labels or connect with items they can touch and feel. Even if ownership doesn't always reflect "good moral character" as believed by Greek philosopher Aristotle, holding a certain amount of goods and items isn't inherently negative to your moral standing, and shouldn't be frowned upon without prompt.