4 ms·
One problem I have with this article is that it treats minimalism as something new. Minimalism has recurred throughout history, from Buddhist philosophy, to the
by LordHumungous 10y ago
One problem I have with this article is that it treats minimalism as something new. Minimalism has recurred throughout history, from Buddhist philosophy, to the Roman stoics, to medieval Christian monks, to Japanese culture, to Islamic art, to modernist art. Taste seems to oscillate between baroque and minimalist. It's not surprising that minimalism is in vogue during the current age of internet driven over-stimulation.
- hosh 10y agoThis is the wrong frame to look at it. If you are conceiving of minimalism as aesthetic taste, you miss the whole point of the Buddhist and Stoics, or any of the ascetic practices. The contents of your living area is a reflection of the contents of your mind. Memories inside of you are attached to the external objects. A disorganized room tends to be a reflection of a disorganized mind. I've seen myself and others leave trash on the floor for months, because it is anchored to some piece of trash internally that one is reluctant to get rid of. This stuff has more to do with your experience as a consciousness rather than social signaling. The article here, and many of the comments here discusses minimalism as social signaling. Yet the people who originated the ascetic practices got rid of stuff not as a response to social trends, but as part of their personal practice to pare away the wrapping in their _consciousness_ and find their true selves. Going against the social grain is a powerful way to detach your identification. Yet if you blindly follow minimalism or boroque as a social trend because other people are, then you're still jumping from one attachment to the next.
- api 10y agoYour last point is one I don't see mentioned often enough: minimalism as rebellion against over-stimulation and cognitive overload.