I found this particular quote from the movie quite interesting. “The things you own end up owning you”.

http://manvsdebt.com/tyler-durdens-guide-to-personal-finance/

@Simple in France – I used toothbrushes as a way to deflect overeager gift givers. What do you want? Toothbrushes and floss! At one point I had a 5+ year supply. Very convenient.

I’m finding it best to simply stop acquiring things I don’t really need to have. Over the past five years, I gave away all my guest bedroom furniture and an extra bed frame, all the extra lamps, extra dishes, etc, to people who lost everything in a fire. That’s kind of how I want to do it: have a situation come up that engages me. I expect to give away all my nice suits soon, to an agency that helps women recovering from abusive situations. It just makes it all make more sense to me.

*Of course, he doesn’t count underwear or socks as separate items and doesn’t count household items, or shared family items. Actually I think the caveats in his list are as numerous as the list itself. It is really silly and self-promoting.

I have never put a number to the things I own but the philosophy and as you say the point of getting people to look at their belongings is great.

I have been working hard not to accumulate things and get rid of older stuff.

Because most Americans have gone the other extreme, even just imagining this extreme is probably good for us. I like it as part of that philosophy of reaching for the stars and catching the moon. And having a specific number makes it clear just how little people really can live with.

@Rooster, good one! I’m pretty sure those aren’t the two digits he wishes people didn’t have, though.

But come on! I don’t want to count my stuff. Yes, I can count to 100, but it seems so tedious.

Plus, sometimes I like to keep a few ‘extras’ of some things around (neatly organized and put away) because I find them cheap and buy them in advance. I saw a post recently by someone who found really cheap toothbrushes and bought ahead. What a good idea–the last time I waited until I *needed* a toothbrush, I ended up forking over 3 euros. Never again!

Separately, I love the idea that people can have a few tons of stuff each. What a cool world. I want my ton!

It will make you appreciate how useful 10 fingers really are. Plus, 24 (as in hours) is divisible by 2, 4, and 8.

To me, the usefulness of an item is the acid test. Over the course of a couple years, I realized that I favored certain items of clothing or kitchen utensils or reference books and rarely wore/used/read others. So, I unburden myself of the latter. I am also more confident in asserting my personal aesthetic, which favors fewer items of simple but extraordinary quality [ala the Japanese notion of wabi sabi] as opposed to collections of the sort that fuel Ebay’s devouring maw.

Then, too, there is a part of me — and this is no doubt at the back of many minimalists’ minds — that wants to experiment with the threshold between necessity and luxury. For example, I find myself wondering just how small a space I would consider minimally adequate. At present, I live in an 894 square foot house that is much larger than I need. But at the other end of the spectrum, the Tumbleweed tiny house (< 100 square feet) seems appallingly small to me.

Like any "ism" minimalism can become a competition subject to an orthodoxy, which I find unattractive. If it remains a means of personal exploration and expression, then choosing "100" as a starting point seems as valid as any other.