5 ms·

These are non-exclusive sets imo. I'm curious what you think about it and why you might form one on the other.

• bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I would put the acquisitiveness thing as a form of any obsession - acquisition of money, books, lovers, things with the color red, to more abstract things - renown in the community, power... as with many things in human existence on a behavioral spectrum, some of these forms of acquisition would appear neurotic from the outsid ne (acquiring things with the color red for example) and some would easily meld into each other - money and power for example. The acquisition of possessions is probably one of the more commonly observed patterns of the behavior, probably because a socially accepted and even applauded behavior. Acquiring lots of lovers is for example somewhat frowned upon, so if you can move your love of acquisition from sex to money that's moving from being despised by the community to being respected.
  • ludston 5y ago
    'Acquisitiveness' must be clearly defined as a category, given the colloquial definition of it being the "desire to get things" seems tautological. Otherwise Russel is failing to say anything more than, "humans are driven by four desires, one of which is the desire to have things". Although, I think it's somewhat absurd to have power and things as separate categories given that 'ownership' is a social construct where we agree that certain people get to have power over certain objects, and can thus exert power over anyone else that wishes to use them.