Why do you think the poet has called the desire to own things, a mania? Is the poet right in doing so? Write your own views.

The poet's decision to describe the desire to own things as a "mania" suggests that he views it as an obsessive or irrational attachment to material possessions. By using the term "mania," the poet emphasizes the extreme and potentially harmful nature of this desire, implying that it can consume individuals to the point of obsession and negatively impact their well-being.

In my view, the poet's characterization of the desire to own things as a mania is apt and reflects a common observation about human behavior. The pursuit of material possessions can indeed become excessive and detrimental when it becomes the primary focus of one's life, leading to dissatisfaction, greed, and a sense of emptiness. This obsession with ownership can detract from more meaningful aspects of life, such as relationships, personal growth, and spiritual fulfillment.

However, it's essential to recognize that the desire to own things is a natural inclination for humans, rooted in our evolutionary history and cultural influences. It's not inherently wrong to desire material possessions or seek comfort and security through ownership. The issue arises when this desire becomes disproportionate, leading to negative consequences for oneself and others.

Ultimately, the poet's characterization of the desire to own things as a mania serves as a poignant commentary on the pitfalls of materialism and the importance of finding balance in one's relationship with possessions. While owning things can bring temporary pleasure and convenience, true happiness and fulfillment often come from experiences, relationships, and a sense of purpose beyond material wealth. Thus, the poet's portrayal of this desire as a mania serves as a reminder to reevaluate our priorities and cultivate contentment and gratitude for what truly matters in life.