(no subject)

[ewx]

Apropos of this thread, I think that both beauty and fun are subsets of useful (especially in a Maslowian kind of way). Listing a thing useful only for its beauty under 'useful' would be subverting the question, fairly obviously, but given the absence of explicit mention of fun I think that I'd have put fun things under 'useful' if anywhere, were I to answer my own question.

Comments

[saraphale.livejournal.com]

Maslowian?

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM).

[simont]

The trouble is that fiddling with the definitions in this way causes the original quotation to boil down to "Have nothing in your house which doesn't have some good reason to be in your house", and at that point it's not nearly so, well, useful. Or beautiful! :-)

[gerald_duck]

"Think before letting something enter your house; once in a while take a look around and throw out stuff that should no longer be there" is a more general version of the precept. It looks like a self-evidently good idea, but I, for one, don't heed it. (-8

I agree it could still be phrased more elegantly, though.

[taimatsu]

I'm having trouble with the large quantity of things I have which are here to *make* things which are beautiful. Bits of thread and boxes and ribbons are not really useful or beautiful in themselves.

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

They're useful in that they make beautiful things. Or at least, that's my theory.