4 ms·

I've always thought at its extreme minimalism is for those who are rich enough they can buy two/three of everything (including houses and cars). So if anything

I've always thought at its extreme minimalism is for those who are rich enough they can buy two/three of everything (including houses and cars). So if anything goes bad you just have a replacement ready. Everyone else better have a soldering iron, a good set of mechanic tools and boxes of spare parts

DubiousPusher 7y ago
Yes, that or a high amount of liquid wealth that you can use to pay for other people to use their tools for you.
hanniabu 7y ago
There's plenty you can get done with a basic variety of tools. There's also different levels of minimalism, but yes at it's extreme I'd agree.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  I'd say there a lot you can get by with using a basic variety of tools. The minute you delve into really fixing modern equipment back to factory standards the need absolutely explodes.
smoe 7y ago
I guess I'd fall in the category of being minimalist[1]. A good part of the few things I own, are actually tools to fix the other things with or build them in the first place. Also buying fewer things, means I can optimize more easily for quality and longevity, and that there are just fewer things that can break. Arguably, taken minimalism to the extreme, the basic tools is what you should be left with. In my opinion, the biggest problem with minimalism is, that it should be highly individualistic, whereas most societies have a big group-think component to it about how you should behave, what you should own, etc. E.g. I don't have any specific tools or spare parts related to fixing a car, because I don't have a car, because it wouldn't add more value than cost to my life. But just because that is true for myself, doesn't make it so for someone else. And on the other hand, I own things that I value highly, but that would just gather dust in another household. [1] I identify more with the Swedish term "Lagom", which roughly translates to "just the right amount", and is more about appreciation of what you have, not about pushing for reduction.

DubiousPusher 7y ago

Yes, that or a high amount of liquid wealth that you can use to pay for other people to use their tools for you.

hanniabu 7y ago

There's plenty you can get done with a basic variety of tools. There's also different levels of minimalism, but yes at it's extreme I'd agree.

DubiousPusher 7y ago
I'd say there a lot you can get by with using a basic variety of tools. The minute you delve into really fixing modern equipment back to factory standards the need absolutely explodes.

smoe 7y ago

I guess I'd fall in the category of being minimalist[1]. A good part of the few things I own, are actually tools to fix the other things with or build them in the first place. Also buying fewer things, means I can optimize more easily for quality and longevity, and that there are just fewer things that can break. Arguably, taken minimalism to the extreme, the basic tools is what you should be left with. In my opinion, the biggest problem with minimalism is, that it should be highly individualistic, whereas most societies have a big group-think component to it about how you should behave, what you should own, etc. E.g. I don't have any specific tools or spare parts related to fixing a car, because I don't have a car, because it wouldn't add more value than cost to my life. But just because that is true for myself, doesn't make it so for someone else. And on the other hand, I own things that I value highly, but that would just gather dust in another household. [1] I identify more with the Swedish term "Lagom", which roughly translates to "just the right amount", and is more about appreciation of what you have, not about pushing for reduction.