Minimalism

There is a contrast struggle within me. I sway between choosing a life of minimalism and a life rich in material possessions. Ironically, however, is that to live both lifestyles you need a substantial amount of disposable income.
Look at pic related. This room has the minimalist aesthetic, yet building a house like this must cost a lot of money.

who reads Lolita with pants on?

expanding on this hypothetical scenario, if I did own enough money to build a house like this, I would also build a completely white empty room with no windows and artificial lighting. It would look like those sets you see in the movies where a "spiritual" character can be seen meditating or reading a book, because the room is devoid of any distractions

I used to live a minimalist lifestyle when I was a teenager. No TV, everything very orderly, few possessions, a general lack of desire for things or experiences. I was into Buddhism and practicing it as I could, attempting to squeeze out selfish desires as a way of moderating the rest of me.

I didn't have many books at the time, so I just re-read the ones I had. I was pretty much silent at school and at home. Turns out cutting yourself off from the world as a teenager is very isolating, and means you miss out on a lot of experiences. I could use that kind of control now that I'm older, but fuck it I deprived myself once I'm not doing it again.

women

Well I do live in a tiny room (I mean tiny) with almost no shit anywhere. I only take books from the library and return them when I'm done.

But that's because I have no money.

I should add this was the days before social media or smartphones, as well. And I didn't have a personal phone. Or internet service. It was like living in the 1970s.

I've thrown most of my superfluous stuff away 10 years ago or so and go over my stuff once in a while to remove any new residue. I made an inventory of everything I own, which seems (or is) obsessive but that really gives you a good idea of the shit you drag around with you if you have to acknowledge all of it.

I've found that the desire to own stuff quickly goes away when you find what a relief it is to have so little of it. It also brings piece of mind to have so few things of value that you have the financial buffer to immediately replace anything necessary. All my possessions could burn down and I could find adequate replacements tomorrow. I don't own anything of emotional significance, so there's no attachment there.

The aesthetic sensibility shown in pic related scrambles my marbles and pickles my dildos. Bourgeouis minimalism is just so aggravating: premium furniture, stuck into a premium house, built into a premium patch of land. This is the ultimate insult unto the world. Nuke every house like that.

my workshop aint minimalist. i got a ton of tools.

my bedroom is pretty minimalist tho

>insult unto the world

more like, u jelly.

resentful toad.

>which props define me as a person :)
you shouldn't have skipped fight club as a teenager

>piece of mind
I apologise.

great poast.

That's a lot of wasted space.

>define
>reflect

get a dictionary

...

except most people living a minimalist lifestyle aren't poor

I do but not really consciously. I don't bother with a lot of things that I don't need which is why I don't even have a car or cell phone despite having money in the bank. I get by just fine without them.

...

Burn it down

It's about as bad.

Most of the criticisms I've seen are arguing the opposite: That's it's the privilege of the rich to have beautiful empty spaces (it is) and that it's also the privilege of the rich to own very little because you can always outsource things to services. You can not have a toolbox because you just call a guy, you can have live on the go because you can afford eating out and staying in hotels all the time, et cetera.

you cant truly reduce any of your needs or wants by a purely conscious effort, for they were never the result of such an endeavor. they are the result of an unconscious process of adaption, and it is only like that, that they could be changed.

only by finding yourself in a position where you will be forced to live deprived of all the old habit-acquired needs will you be able to truly leave them behind. anything else will just fuel them even more.

i discussed his in /trv/ a few days back, and some interesting discussion enabled to clear some ideas about it.

Are you NEET?

its not about money it’s about space. If you live in the city you’re “minimalist” because your apartment is 100sqft and if you held on to anything you would have no space

>only by finding yourself in a position where you will be forced to live deprived of all the old habit-acquired needs will you be able to truly leave them behind.
so dumping your gf doesn't count, only if you're the one who got dumped are you without a gf?

i don't understand this line of reasoning.

you use material goods to express yourself? There's so many things wrong with that

i can say the same about yours... seems like your feels are clouding your vision. try another analogy

Why think you need to be forced by external circumstances to lessen your needs? You can deliberately train this if you have some discipline.

No I have a job

>discipline

read again the original comment. our habits are the result of adaptation. only a new adaptation will be the source of new habits that can leave the old ones behind. anything else will be just new forms of manifestation for the old habits.

Sounds like a needlessly vague way to say something incredibly banal.

why do you need a home like that? a chicken coop would shield you from the rain just as well

it is indeed. but what matters is not the phrase but the experience behind it.
the banal can be the most difficult thing to see, for it has no contrast, we take it as given. we only notice that which could be otherwise, but all that takes place on a ground that was not originally there, i was somehow put before anything could take place.

it*

I really wish I could but my wife is a hoarder, not even joking. Her work desk is cluttered with mountains of stuff. Papers, trinkets, make-up, dishes, etc. Even her closet is overflowing with things.

Wrong.

I’m a poorfag, does that count?

You practiced isolationism not minimalism.

Most hoarders are poorfags so no.

What was the turning point for you? When did you leave this lifestyle behind?

>take a simple concept relating to freeing yourself from material possessions and bastardize and commoditize it then sell it at absorbent cost to wealthy people in the first world who already have no problems in life
Wonder why people get so upset over it, must be jelly.

minimalism is a terrible aesthetic. it's nice to have less stuff, but that stuff should be baroque as fuck

>tfw applied minimalism to possessions, hobbies, work, diet and relationships.

La creatura pseudointelectual...

God, now I want to read his biography.

Not OP, but appreciate it and will look for him

boipuccy

he looks like me may have a comfy life but fuck me he does not have clue what he is taking about when it comes to "philosophy"

>that image
Fucking kek

This is a good, positive definition of minimalism.

It's awful, it has nothing in it, you won't feel at peace there for more than half an hour, you will just dive deep into whatever screen you have near you. This comic is absolutely right . And it must be a pain in the ass to clean that up, of course the rich pay for it, but in real life you'd have to take a bunch of time to wipe all that glass which would be greasy in no time, sweep the leaves from the porch, take the dust out of all that nothing (and it's extremely visible in nothingness), rub stains from that perfect white cushions and so on.

This. Most poor folk are hoarders. I remember my dad and grandma used to collect basically anything, because "you never knew when you'd need it". House was full of shit, everything you could imagine.
Now I have a more than decent income and I can afford to live as minimally as possible. I can change adress if need it be and change whatever may break (laptop, phone, the little furniture i have etc ) without drilling a hole in my budget.
Minimalism is mostly being content with as little as possible, no matter your income.

How is an empty room minimalist? It seems excessive to have an empty room, not minimalist.

Yes, if the room is empty for emptiness' sake. The point of minimalism isn't to get rid of everything; no one is asking you to become a Buddha.

Yeh I suppose you're right. But my isolation was minimalist. I lived like uhh, Jean Reno in The Professional. Except instead of milk I drank water and instead of guns I had my dick in my hand.

When I realized it was self-destructive.

Why would the middle class pretend to be poor? These people must be very bored.

Dude, the rich pretend to be poor for a day FOR FUN.

Again, it's not about wealth.

We need to go deeper.

What if minimalism is for the middle class and up, they are full of guilt and shame about being materialistic or narcisistic, "wanting things" and being "self-centered" are considered taboo -- in this mileu you're never supposed to complain -- thus they resort to minimalism or western buddhism in an attempt to feel less guilty. The cherry on top is neuroticism, very common among women, but especially richer ones. The result is throwing out things you don't need, but the guilt that a well-off woman feels is still there because they're unfulfilled.

That's how the world works

this is to deny mannerism and affectation, which is to be beguiled by signs and a symptom of psychosis

I feel it's impossible with the internet around. There is always an endless sea of distractions right at hand.

the fuck has this got to do with literature?

Well there is a huge movement related to the style, several books written about the movement at large, and the OP specifically asked about the use of e-readers.

>minimalism means moderation

Normies always try to make everything lukewarm, middle of the road and uninteresting.

the literary lifestyle is either bare minimalism or cluttered excess. it's very relevant.

didn't get it

A beautifully decorated place is also the privilege of the wealthy. A full book shelf is not a cheap expense, 15 books/shelf at $15 a pop (shut up used fags, you buy two hardcovers the average is destroyed), and 5 shelves per, so 15*15*5=$1,125 per shelf of books, not to mention the time to read them

>15 books/shelf at $15

This is why I buy books by the foot.

Sure, having a lot of fancy shit is also generally a sign of wealth. But minimalism as a sort of strange hobby is generally middle class and up.

Actual poorfags tend to hoard stuff 'just in case' and are obsessed with also being able to own a lot of fancy shit, generally speaking. Proles don't get into lifestyle stuff like minimalism or simple living or downsizing or lowering your 'footprint' or tiny houses or anything like that. These are all hobbies of well off white folks and the occasional female Westernised Asian vlogger.

I'm a poorfag and I don't hoard anything. I just don't bother with things I don't need. Why would you think that minimalism is only a rich person philosophy? That seems like a blind generalization.

It's becoming a cliche now but a lot can be said for the Swedish ethos of lagom which I've been unknowingly following.

I think finding a large amount of joy in a few single items is better than finding small amounts of joy in lots of items.

Since when did utilitarianism become a dumb meme. Explain how saving money, reducing environmental damage and saving space is worse than "muh fancy book collection, look how smart i think i am"

because most poor people hoard things because they can't afford to be wasteful. They accumulate whatever might be useful.

>reads marie kondo once

To quote Orwell

"A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t…When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’"

All I have is a japanese futon (similar to pic), a laptop, and my books. It's an incredibly comfy existence.

I think what he's trying to get at is that being ostentatious and having lots of fancy stuff is now considered in bad taste, and minimalism is very in among rich white people atm

Just because you can't afford to waste things doesn't mean you're a hoarder or that you collect things you don't need. The one doesn't follow from the other.

Just because you're an exception it doesn't make the generalisation blind.

It's a 'rich' person philosophy because every philosophy is. Most poorfags don't deliberately think about stuff like this at all.

you know what's a great way of becoming a poorfag? buy shit you don't need. Besides, as another poster said, in the contemporary world, excessive displays of wealth are generally seen as tacky and Nouveau Riche. The Old Money now opts for a more simple but opulent aesthetic. But good for you, you're one step closer to not being poor

A generalization is blind because you have a reason to believe it's true. Everybody has a philosophy whether they can articulate it or not. You may be thinking of the term in its academic sense but I'm using it more colloquially, as in a persons word view which is something that every body has.

You're the god i wish i believed in
racist and bad
A book shelf full of expensive and or hard to understand books has, and ALWAYS will be, a sign of being cultured, because it indicates three things: Money, time, and intelligence. The most worthwhile things us humans have
If you think intelligence isn't valuable, how much does the average government subsidise plastic surgery?

>A generalization is blind when you don't have a reason to believe it's true

I only proffread after I post

smae

I'm very conflicted about minimalism. I'm totally onboard with getting rid of "clutter" and unnecessary possessions, but I struggle to define "unnecessary". As an example, I enjoy hand writing things and have several different inks I use in my fountain pen depending on my mood, the season, etc. I *could* get rid of most of them and use one ink, but that would just take joy out of my activity. So I suppose my issue is that minimalism's logical conclusion is asceticism, which is not a position I agree with.

I wouldn't call a vague, incoherent unutterable worldview a philosophy, that would be too generous. Most poor people are neither culturally inclined nor intelligent enough to even clearly think about this type of stuff.

I've spent time with enough menial labourers and welfare recipients to know that most of them are barely sentient. People who consistently live below the poverty line in the West and come from parents who have done so before them do so because they simply lack the capacities to get their shit together in any way. They can't figure out how to eat. They can't figure out how to manage their finances. They lack the impulse control to manage their own procreation rates. They live mostly on their dimwitted impulses and stumble through baby-proofed societies just long enough to see their teen children get pregnant before dying of heart disease.

Poor people in first world societies are generally poor because they can't think and therefore can't act sensibly either.

>This is the ultimate insult unto the world
Wrong. This is an insult unto your inferiority complex. Calling something bourgeois is simply name-calling and not an argument.