I was wondering if this was a philosophical question or just a semantic difference. What is the difference, if any, between “existence” and “having being”?
Thank you in advance.
From a dumb-guy’s (me) point of view, it appears to be a semantic difference. It depends on how your interpret each to mean in any given context. 
I pretty much agree unless you want to approach it from some kind of Eastern perspective…
In philosophical discussion the terms are probably interchangable. The only exception would be if you were attempting to point out a difference between sentient (having being) and non-sentient (existence). There are arguments that there is a difference between a rock and a human being, although occasionally, the difference is minute. 
JT
Sartre’s being-for-itself and being-in-itself comes to mind…
According to the medieval scholastics, being (Sein, ens) is divided into existence (Dasein, existentia) and essence (Sosein, essentia). The same dichotomy has been adopted by the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl, and particularly by Max Scheler. Dasein is an object of (multi-staged) reduction (epoche), while Sosein is the ultimate object of intellectual insights called phenomenological intuition (Wesenschau). The task of the philosophy is to help any rigorous thinker develop a special kind of attitude (Einstellung) by putting into brackets all naturalistic inclinations and prejudices.
Thanks much Imago – very informative. By “having being” I kinda meant “esse” not “ens” – but I should have remembered this difference myself.
Since you know Eastern philosophy, you might comment on another question i have on the Psychology board. 