Is there a word for someone who owns nothing?
June 8, 2015 7:03 PM Subscribe
Is there a word in the English language that means a person who owns nothing?
We, a group of friends, had a lively conversation last night that strayed onto the limits of language being the limits of my reality concept [Wittgenstein ?] Somewhere in the proceedings, we tried to think of a word to describe someone who owns nothing. We could think of adjectives - eg possessionless but not a noun. Some had words like 'free' which is not a specific noun for this experience, and is highly subjective.
I wondered that if there isn't a word for it, can it exist?; or because it doesn't exist, there is not a word for it? Or there is a word for it, but a group of relatively intelligent people [albeit, disabled somewhat by mild intoxication] couldn't think of a noun?
Is there a word in English, or indeed in any language that you know, for someone who owns nothing?
We, a group of friends, had a lively conversation last night that strayed onto the limits of language being the limits of my reality concept [Wittgenstein ?] Somewhere in the proceedings, we tried to think of a word to describe someone who owns nothing. We could think of adjectives - eg possessionless but not a noun. Some had words like 'free' which is not a specific noun for this experience, and is highly subjective.
I wondered that if there isn't a word for it, can it exist?; or because it doesn't exist, there is not a word for it? Or there is a word for it, but a group of relatively intelligent people [albeit, disabled somewhat by mild intoxication] couldn't think of a noun?
Is there a word in English, or indeed in any language that you know, for someone who owns nothing?
An ascetic might fall into this category, although possessions are only one small aspect of their philosophy.
posted by mykescipark at 7:08 PM on June 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by mykescipark at 7:08 PM on June 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I want to say bereft, but I'm not sure it quite works.
posted by phunniemee at 7:11 PM on June 8, 2015
posted by phunniemee at 7:11 PM on June 8, 2015
I know this is a party game, but ... "someone who owns nothing," as a phrase, is indeed within the limits of linguistic expression. Not every concept that is accessible linguistically is described by the unit of the single word.
posted by third rail at 7:13 PM on June 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by third rail at 7:13 PM on June 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
If it's a choice: renunciant, if it's not a choice: destitute
posted by coleboptera at 7:14 PM on June 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by coleboptera at 7:14 PM on June 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
Pauper.
posted by littlewater at 7:23 PM on June 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by littlewater at 7:23 PM on June 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
You need to define how it is they came to be possessionless and what the context is. An infant can make no choice to own anything. A hobo or a monk has only what they need or can carry, and neither has things of much (or any) value to anyone but themselves. An ascetic may have had possessions, but chose not to use them (and again, may still yet possess the bare minimum for sustaining life).
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:45 PM on June 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:45 PM on June 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Destitute.
posted by alms at 8:21 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by alms at 8:21 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well for one thing, there isn't one word for it because it doesn't have only one meaning. These words people are offering do, or can, mean someone who owns nothing, but they all have different connotations. You really need context.
posted by J. Wilson at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by J. Wilson at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
limits of language being the limits of my reality concept [Wittgenstein ?]
"world", not "reality", in Wittgenstein, if you want to get picky, which seems appropriate to me
posted by thelonius at 8:34 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
"world", not "reality", in Wittgenstein, if you want to get picky, which seems appropriate to me
posted by thelonius at 8:34 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mendicant doesn't strictly mean this but it's a partial meaning of the word.
posted by jessamyn at 8:48 PM on June 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jessamyn at 8:48 PM on June 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Proletarian used to mean this, but I don't think it does any longer.
posted by Jasper Fnorde at 9:44 PM on June 8, 2015
posted by Jasper Fnorde at 9:44 PM on June 8, 2015
Response by poster: I agree J.Wilson about context. All of the words we came up with, and these here, imply an action, done or done unto, and a context. 'Infant' is interesting because is probably the closest to that person which owns nothing, but of course 'infant' performs as a word way beyond this function.
And yeah, thelonius, I know world is in Die Grenze meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt but it's very common to see this qualified as reality, nuanced as the word 'Welt' is apparently in German?
posted by honey-barbara at 9:50 PM on June 8, 2015
And yeah, thelonius, I know world is in Die Grenze meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt but it's very common to see this qualified as reality, nuanced as the word 'Welt' is apparently in German?
posted by honey-barbara at 9:50 PM on June 8, 2015
Is the context someone who has been deprived or stripped of everything, or someone who has nothing by choice?
posted by bendy at 10:39 PM on June 8, 2015
posted by bendy at 10:39 PM on June 8, 2015
Free
posted by meeeese at 11:32 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by meeeese at 11:32 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
No. This condition is too rare to have a word for it. Even a homeless person owns their clothing. The answers to this thread just go to show that the closest you can come is a list of synonyms for "poor" (destitute, have-not, judgment-proof, etc.). But poor people do own things.
posted by John Cohen at 5:48 AM on June 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by John Cohen at 5:48 AM on June 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
The thing itself: unaccommodated man.
posted by alms at 10:37 AM on June 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Why, thou wert better in thy grave than to answerKing Lear, Act 3 Scene 4
with thy uncovered body this extremity of the skies.
Is man no more than this? Consider him well. Thou
owest the worm no silk, the beast no hide, the sheep
no wool, the cat no perfume. Ha! here's three on
's are sophisticated! Thou art the thing itself:
unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor bare,
forked animal as thou art. Off, off, you lendings!
come unbutton here.
Tearing off his clothes
posted by alms at 10:37 AM on June 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: I'm in awe of the Lear - I wish 'unaccommodated man' was it!
posted by honey-barbara at 7:25 PM on June 9, 2015
posted by honey-barbara at 7:25 PM on June 9, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by willbaude at 7:06 PM on June 8, 2015 [1 favorite]