4 ms·

"if repeated often enough, this process leads to a house full of crap" So unless you buy the absolute "best" of a given product, it's just crap and couldn't po

"if repeated often enough, this process leads to a house full of crap" So unless you buy the absolute "best" of a given product, it's just crap and couldn't possibly be satisfying? There's no middle ground there at all?

freshhawk 14y ago
The idea here is the choice between: easy/disposable/cheap combined with a wide selection of possessions and requires research/lasts a long time/expensive combined with a minimal aesthetic about what you need to own. Don't get stuck on the semantic argument of if "best" means absolute single best, it's that idea that is the interesting and potentially powerful part.
- ShirtlessRod 14y ago
  That's a false dichotomy, though. There's no reason I can't have a minimal aesthetic about what I need to own while also getting some things that are "good enough" (maybe even "crappy"), and getting other things that may be considered the "best". The parent seemed to be saying that this state (i.e., between the two extremes) was "not very satisfying", and that without strictly adhering to "The Best" philosophy you'd end up with all crap. That's primarily what I'm objecting to.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    Ah, I may have misinterpreted. I was assuming it was a given that one would choose either "the best" or "the worst" for each area of your life based on what's important to you. I took the "not very satisfying" part to refer to what happens when you regularly buy a specific thing that lives in the middle of those philosophies. I agree that it would make perfect sense to have your choice about clothes differ from your choice about laptops or cars. A commitment to one philosophy for everything you own seems strict for no reason, although I have personally found that the minimalist aesthetic ends up spreading to seemingly unrelated parts of your life once you start enjoying it.

freshhawk 14y ago

The idea here is the choice between: easy/disposable/cheap combined with a wide selection of possessions and requires research/lasts a long time/expensive combined with a minimal aesthetic about what you need to own. Don't get stuck on the semantic argument of if "best" means absolute single best, it's that idea that is the interesting and potentially powerful part.

ShirtlessRod 14y ago
That's a false dichotomy, though. There's no reason I can't have a minimal aesthetic about what I need to own while also getting some things that are "good enough" (maybe even "crappy"), and getting other things that may be considered the "best". The parent seemed to be saying that this state (i.e., between the two extremes) was "not very satisfying", and that without strictly adhering to "The Best" philosophy you'd end up with all crap. That's primarily what I'm objecting to.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  Ah, I may have misinterpreted. I was assuming it was a given that one would choose either "the best" or "the worst" for each area of your life based on what's important to you. I took the "not very satisfying" part to refer to what happens when you regularly buy a specific thing that lives in the middle of those philosophies. I agree that it would make perfect sense to have your choice about clothes differ from your choice about laptops or cars. A commitment to one philosophy for everything you own seems strict for no reason, although I have personally found that the minimalist aesthetic ends up spreading to seemingly unrelated parts of your life once you start enjoying it.