4 ms·

A minimalist lifestyle can have many legitimate motivations. Sanctimonious anti-consumerism isn't one of these, nor is saving money. Why not? A minimalist lif

by jfager 16y ago

A minimalist lifestyle can have many legitimate motivations. Sanctimonious anti-consumerism isn't one of these, nor is saving money. Why not? A minimalist lifestyle can save a ton of money. I have a year-long runway to work on whatever I want full-time because I kept a pretty minimalist lifestyle for the last 3 years.

Kliment 16y ago
From what I understood, the point of that bit of the article is that having less stuff (for the same functionality) often costs more, and he justifies it by the digitalization of his library and media library. Therefore if your only motivation was saving money, the author argues you'd be better off doing something other than reducing the amount of stuff you have.
- access_denied 16y ago
  Well, I think he is wrong in regards to beeing a better person. "Costs less" can mean "costs less" environmental desctruction or social unjustice.
qntm 16y ago
It depends on the type of thing you're trying to minimise. A low-cost lifestyle is not synonymous with a minimalist one, they are related goals but different on a practical level. Some kinds of minimalism can be very expensive. Replacing your car with a bike and a set of walking shoes will save you a tonne of money. But it might incur more effort and planning. There'll be times when the weather is rough or the distance is too great or time is too short, when having a car would have been (more money but) much less hassle. Replacing all your books with a Kindle will probably cost you because you have to buy your books all over again (you'll probably wind up in the red even if you sell all your physical books second-hand). Does going to restaurants instead of keeping food at home count as "minimalism"?
- futuremint 16y ago
  I think this article (and some of your points too) are conflating minimalism with simplicity. Minimalist is buying 1 Kindle and putting all of your books on it and then selling them. This is more expensive. Simple is keeping your books you want to read again and getting rid of books you've read and aren't going to read to reduce your bookshelf space. Then get a library card and check out books to read from there. Less $ and simpler, though not necessarily the most minimalist you can be. I think minimalism is one aspect of simplicity, but not the only one. Simplicity also involves practicality, economics, sustainability, etc.
  - qntm 16y ago
    In a nutshell, I aim for a life with the fewest variables. I'll admit that "minimalist" doesn't fully cover this. Possibly "simplicity" doesn't either.
- jfager 16y ago
  All of that is fine, I agree, but his statement was stronger than "minimalism might cost more if you do it a certain way", it was "saving money is not a legitimate motivation for minimalism". The latter is what I disagree with. This is running the risk of turning into semantic wanking over the meaning of "minimalism", so I'm going to shut up now.
dagw 16y ago
Are you sure you're not mixing together minimalist and frugal? I have an acquaintance whom I'd consider very minimalist, however everything she does buy is top of the line and very expensive. When she goes out to eat, it's Michelin star restaurants. When she travels she considers 4 start hotels slumming it. At the end of the day minimalist and frugal or pretty orthogonal.
- city41 16y ago
  Frugal implies you are sacrificing quality or desire in the name of money. Minimalist implies you find joy in simpler things and a simpler life and therefore don't need or even want outlandish luxury. I'm just as content sleeping at a Best Western as I am at a 5 star hotel. My Scion gets me to the grocery store just as well as a BMW would, etc. I'm not sacrificing anything, I simply don't feel a need for excessive luxury. And I agree with the OP of this thread. Thanks to my minimalist lifestyle I too have plenty of leeway to do whatever I want for quite some time. It's a great feeling.
  - gaius 16y ago
    OK but minimalist could also be a Patek Phillippe Calatrava instead of an all-singing all-dancing Casio Pathfinder...
    - tome 16y ago
      Very good point. Sometimes minimalism is a lot more expensive.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      In other words, if you feel like congratulating yourself on your minimalism, you can pretty much justify anything as minimalist. Personally I'd say that the minimalist wristwatch option is none at all. I don't think I'd be happier with no wristwatches, though. While my wristwatches bring me only a minimal amount of pleasure, congratulating myself on my lack of wristwatches wouldn't bring me much pleasure either. I prefer "vaguely appropriate scale"-ism to minimalism. No wristwatches is too few, ten is too many. Pick something in between and stop fretting.
alnayyir 16y ago
While I am doing the same exact thing, I think you're running sideways of the point being made here. The point isn't that minimalism can't help you achieve a particular set of goals, but rather that it isn't superior to anything else. The implied alternative to minimalism is not egregious prodigality but rather measured enjoyment of life that doesn't strip you bare but doesn't attempt to max out your financial high score. I'm a minimalist, but I try very very hard not to come off as the aforementioned "sanctimonious anti-consumerist" type. I'm a minimalist because I really really care about my work, and I don't want much. Well that's just dandy for me, but my values are not other peoples' values, and I can see how other people would prefer to make use of their time in a manner that makes them more immediately happy. Don't mistake the apparent fiscal conservatism and "safety" of minimalism as somehow being superior or safer than enjoying and consuming things as they are now. I would in fact argue, that as a minimalism I am taking a very great risk with my life compared to someone who gets out more and has more fun. I am taking a risk with my time and my life, because if I get hit by a bus tomorrow before I've had the time to amass the money->time necessary to work on the projects I'd like to pursue, I'm going to die screaming in anger at my self. Someone who's taken a less concentrated approach to being happy with their lives probably isn't going to be nearly as upset as they lay bleeding under that bus that ran them over. You and I are risk takers of a different kind. Our values are not their values, and those values are not inferior nor superior to anyones'. It's all case specific. If you value money more than most other things in life, then of course minimalism will be a "superior" means to the end you seek, but it's not somehow morally superior. The man that puts aside his career/continued financial growth to spend time with his children, is in my eyes, the greater person than the one who manages to become a CTO by 40 at the expense of said family. But those are my values and perspective, and they're still not the choices I would make at this point in my life. I'm sad that a hackerne.ws user would be so myopically acquisitive without understanding the greater implications in terms of risk and how you spend your time. I'll probably make a proper blog post on this at some point.

by jfager 16y ago

Kliment 16y ago

From what I understood, the point of that bit of the article is that having less stuff (for the same functionality) often costs more, and he justifies it by the digitalization of his library and media library. Therefore if your only motivation was saving money, the author argues you'd be better off doing something other than reducing the amount of stuff you have.

access_denied 16y ago
Well, I think he is wrong in regards to beeing a better person. "Costs less" can mean "costs less" environmental desctruction or social unjustice.

qntm 16y ago

It depends on the type of thing you're trying to minimise. A low-cost lifestyle is not synonymous with a minimalist one, they are related goals but different on a practical level. Some kinds of minimalism can be very expensive. Replacing your car with a bike and a set of walking shoes will save you a tonne of money. But it might incur more effort and planning. There'll be times when the weather is rough or the distance is too great or time is too short, when having a car would have been (more money but) much less hassle. Replacing all your books with a Kindle will probably cost you because you have to buy your books all over again (you'll probably wind up in the red even if you sell all your physical books second-hand). Does going to restaurants instead of keeping food at home count as "minimalism"?

futuremint 16y ago
I think this article (and some of your points too) are conflating minimalism with simplicity. Minimalist is buying 1 Kindle and putting all of your books on it and then selling them. This is more expensive. Simple is keeping your books you want to read again and getting rid of books you've read and aren't going to read to reduce your bookshelf space. Then get a library card and check out books to read from there. Less $ and simpler, though not necessarily the most minimalist you can be. I think minimalism is one aspect of simplicity, but not the only one. Simplicity also involves practicality, economics, sustainability, etc.
- qntm 16y ago
  In a nutshell, I aim for a life with the fewest variables. I'll admit that "minimalist" doesn't fully cover this. Possibly "simplicity" doesn't either.
jfager 16y ago
All of that is fine, I agree, but his statement was stronger than "minimalism might cost more if you do it a certain way", it was "saving money is not a legitimate motivation for minimalism". The latter is what I disagree with. This is running the risk of turning into semantic wanking over the meaning of "minimalism", so I'm going to shut up now.

dagw 16y ago

Are you sure you're not mixing together minimalist and frugal? I have an acquaintance whom I'd consider very minimalist, however everything she does buy is top of the line and very expensive. When she goes out to eat, it's Michelin star restaurants. When she travels she considers 4 start hotels slumming it. At the end of the day minimalist and frugal or pretty orthogonal.

city41 16y ago
Frugal implies you are sacrificing quality or desire in the name of money. Minimalist implies you find joy in simpler things and a simpler life and therefore don't need or even want outlandish luxury. I'm just as content sleeping at a Best Western as I am at a 5 star hotel. My Scion gets me to the grocery store just as well as a BMW would, etc. I'm not sacrificing anything, I simply don't feel a need for excessive luxury. And I agree with the OP of this thread. Thanks to my minimalist lifestyle I too have plenty of leeway to do whatever I want for quite some time. It's a great feeling.
- gaius 16y ago
  OK but minimalist could also be a Patek Phillippe Calatrava instead of an all-singing all-dancing Casio Pathfinder...
  - tome 16y ago
    Very good point. Sometimes minimalism is a lot more expensive.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    In other words, if you feel like congratulating yourself on your minimalism, you can pretty much justify anything as minimalist. Personally I'd say that the minimalist wristwatch option is none at all. I don't think I'd be happier with no wristwatches, though. While my wristwatches bring me only a minimal amount of pleasure, congratulating myself on my lack of wristwatches wouldn't bring me much pleasure either. I prefer "vaguely appropriate scale"-ism to minimalism. No wristwatches is too few, ten is too many. Pick something in between and stop fretting.

alnayyir 16y ago

While I am doing the same exact thing, I think you're running sideways of the point being made here. The point isn't that minimalism can't help you achieve a particular set of goals, but rather that it isn't superior to anything else. The implied alternative to minimalism is not egregious prodigality but rather measured enjoyment of life that doesn't strip you bare but doesn't attempt to max out your financial high score. I'm a minimalist, but I try very very hard not to come off as the aforementioned "sanctimonious anti-consumerist" type. I'm a minimalist because I really really care about my work, and I don't want much. Well that's just dandy for me, but my values are not other peoples' values, and I can see how other people would prefer to make use of their time in a manner that makes them more immediately happy. Don't mistake the apparent fiscal conservatism and "safety" of minimalism as somehow being superior or safer than enjoying and consuming things as they are now. I would in fact argue, that as a minimalism I am taking a very great risk with my life compared to someone who gets out more and has more fun. I am taking a risk with my time and my life, because if I get hit by a bus tomorrow before I've had the time to amass the money->time necessary to work on the projects I'd like to pursue, I'm going to die screaming in anger at my self. Someone who's taken a less concentrated approach to being happy with their lives probably isn't going to be nearly as upset as they lay bleeding under that bus that ran them over. You and I are risk takers of a different kind. Our values are not their values, and those values are not inferior nor superior to anyones'. It's all case specific. If you value money more than most other things in life, then of course minimalism will be a "superior" means to the end you seek, but it's not somehow morally superior. The man that puts aside his career/continued financial growth to spend time with his children, is in my eyes, the greater person than the one who manages to become a CTO by 40 at the expense of said family. But those are my values and perspective, and they're still not the choices I would make at this point in my life. I'm sad that a hackerne.ws user would be so myopically acquisitive without understanding the greater implications in terms of risk and how you spend your time. I'll probably make a proper blog post on this at some point.