171–178 of 178 posts
The problem with minimalism is that the word doesn't have a comprehensible definition, so any time you get into a discussion about minimalism, the entire discussion ends up being an argument over the definition of the word. The only winning move is not to play. At one point I might have called myself a minimalist, but these days I'd call myself more of an anticonsumerist or something along those lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. For me, the hardcore/conspicuous materialism (i.e. "I only have a 100 things.) is largely for well-off people only, who can afford to outsource all their uncommon needs - the kind of needs which require tools and parts to sit idle for years, until the occasion arises when you need them. It's telling that poorer people tend to hoard things - you never know when you're going to need that piece of cooper wire etc.
Do you include storage costs? Keeping stuff in your home is the most expensive option most of the time given how expensive homes are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If your possessions all have practical utility, This seems tautological or uselessly subjective. What is a possession without practical value? You seem to have talked yourself out of seeing the value in possessions you own. Perhaps you are simply anxious. How this attitude began to be associated with the minimalist design movement I have no clue.
> What is a possession without practical value? Token gifts that have been gifts for the sake of gifting something. Most things in a souvenir store.
> Token gifts that have been gifts for the sake of gifting something.
There is utility value in sentimental gifts, too, but it's obviously subjective. Why not just say "get rid of items that stress you out", like people have been doing the entirety of human history? That's hardly a social movement or a lifestyle, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If your possessions all have practical utility, This seems tautological or uselessly subjective. What is a possession without practical value? You seem to have talked yourself out of seeing the value in possessions you own. Perhaps you are simply anxious. How this attitude began to be associated with the minimalist design movement I have no clue.
If that seems tautological, you're already bought in. For others it is very much not.
...bought in to what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's funny, ordering takeaway all the time is also one of the plenty of alternatives to lighting money on fire.
So, I eat out and order takeaway a lot. The average cost for this is roughly $8-$14. I could cook, I suppose, spending an hour or two every day, and cut that cost to.. $3-$5? But just for the heck of it, say I save the whole damn cost, because I grow my own rice on the windowsill or whatever. So, by spending an hour every day (excluding going to the store to buy ingredients, which we all know takes no time, or browsi…
Of course there is a time cost in shopping, but the broccoli and rice made up a small part of the shopping runs that included them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimal techno had a big moment in EDM circles in the '00s as the bombastic productions of the '90s started to be seen as cheesy and overcooked. See for example: https://youtu.be/daSid6Lh9Vs
I'm personally more of a fan of things like OG DJ Distance for minimalism. this track hits me where it feels: https://youtu.be/3AT8szyLD0k Turns out, two "movements" (repeated?), and little bit of variation is enough to dance to, and generally make for a pretty good song.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is. Unless you have an explanation of why not without getting into no true Scotsman territory.
Minimalism is about maintaining useful purpose behind the things you own and not retaining unnecessary objects. If you're a DIY person, and you have a good reason for a backyard of junk cars, that's explainable. If you buy a new iPhone every year but you don't actually use the majority of the new features (if ever at all), that's frivolity. Minimalism isn't the ideology that (less is more)==(less things). That comes…
And frivolity isn't a relevant category to minimalism. You could be minimalist in achieving frivolous ends. Clearly you're carrying too much in the term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is. Unless you have an explanation of why not without getting into no true Scotsman territory.
It is hard to avoid no true Scotsman territory for a term that in not very well defined and used slightly differently depending on context (what medium, which aspect of life, geographically). Also I haven't read any of the linked books/articles the newrepublic piece links. Wikipedia has it as: "The term minimalist often colloquially refers to anything that is spare or stripped to its essentials." Oxford Dictionary as…
The first is minimalist because it involves less physical material to store and organize. The second is self reliant because you can do for yourself without needing to draw on outside systems as much.
The example you gave is just moving the goal posts completely. The large many car garage case is both less minimalist and less self reliant, so not to the point.