Spendypants or Spiritual

[cool7hand]

Does anyone else have certain areas of their lives that are more spiritual and where you don't worry as much about being a spendypants?

Here's one of our examples. We love the outdoors. We hike, forage, fish, bike, cross-country ski, etc. Nature is our church. I will wear worn blue jeans that are 10-plus-years old to meet friends later today. But tomorrow, I'll wear one of three $200 Fjallraven pants that I live in when enjoying nature.

Does anyone else think this way? Where do you draw the line between when you'll be frugal to a fault v. when you'll spend to express your spirit?

[NotJen]

I don't understand how $200 pants are spiritual?

The goal is to spend where it is most important to you.  I also tend to focus on outdoor activities.  To date, I've spent the most on footwear - well-fitting hiking boots and running shoes, which I replace when they are no longer supportive.  I try to get last-year's model when it's on sale if I can.

But no, I don't spend on "the look" for my hiking gear.  I'm all discount pants and race shirts.  The trees don't seem to notice.

[Extramedium]

Do the Fjällräven fancy hiking pants offer more value than others? I’ve wondered about that for some time.  I have a wool sweater of theirs that is absolutely warm and durable, and feels worth it.  But $200 for pants is a lot.

[Freedomin5]

Sure. We spend on what’s important to us. We won’t turn on the heat or AC unless absolutely necessary, don’t own a car, shop grocery sales, wear thrift store clothes until they’re worn through, but then will go and drop $2000 a month (more than our current monthly expenses) on charity because it’s part of our beliefs/value system.

Another example, we also love nature, and don’t love roughing it, so we bought a $200k unMustachian cottage, but we did it in a Mustachian fashion. Being thrifty is not about not having nice or expensive things. It’s about optimizing spending so that you can get what you want while spending the least amount possible. So you can have three pairs of your fancy hiking pants, but wear them until they’re threadbare, don’t get the newest style in the newest color every year. Only have the pants you need - don’t buy them in every color. Get them when they’re on sale. Buy used. Etc.

[Weisass]

I tend to define "Spiritual" expenses as things that align closely with universal values. So spending that makes the world a better, kinder place, that attends to my responsibility to care for the earth and everything in it, those are things I don't hesitate to spend on. I happen to be Christian, and I have dropped money and time towards helping resettle refugees of war, bringing peacemakers to the US to talk about their work, supporting friends in crisis, tithing to the church. All of these things are part of getting outside myself, and being generous. so yes, I suppose.

[Dreamer40]

I’m not following what “spiritual” means here. Or how expensive pants are related to connecting with nature. Material things are the opposite of spiritual. I spend a lot on certain things that make me happy or make me feel like I’m living my best life, but don’t call it spiritual. Unless it’s literally a bottle of spirits… I keep my liquor cabinet well stocked.

[JAYSLOL]

Well, DW calls garage sales “my churches”, so maybe the money I spend at those is spiritual, haha.

[Paper Chaser]

Spendypants. Both literally and figuratively.

[Sibley]

You are allowed to buy $200 pants just to wear them while hiking. I don't hike so I can't comment on if these pants are substantially better than other, cheaper pants, but thank you for wearing pants at least.

You may not try to excuse it as "spiritual". It is not. It is a massive expense when a less expensive pair of pants work just fine. You own 3 pairs of pants that collectively cost $600, and you reserve their wearing for specific purposes. You should now proceed to wear these same 3 pairs of pants while hiking for at least the next 30 years, which will at least make the per use costs reasonable.

[FINate]

At its core, religion is simply what one believes is the meaning and purpose of life, and spirituality is the outworking of this belief in everyday life. In this sense everyone is religious/spiritual because we all live as if life has a purpose, even if we believe the purpose is that there is no purpose (though I doubt there are very many true nihilists).

So yes, nature can be your "church" [Although the Greek word for church, ekklēsia, really means "assembly" - as in a corporate gathering, but language changes.]  And hiking can be a "spiritual" activity if this is an outward expression of nature worship or perhaps hedonism (i.e. hiking brings you joy).

To be honest, it's refreshing to see otherwise secular society acknowledge that a lot of what people do and believe is essentially religious. This is true for "nature is my chruch" but also in things like the "In this house we believe..." yard signs that are essentially religious creeds.

I do worry somewhat that our treatment of nature as therapeutic/spiritual may be contributing to the destruction of the Earth. Not you specifically, OP, but rather the desire to live in nature instead of cities (which per capita are much better for the environment), and even cities that resist higher density because residents want to preserve their view of nature. But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.

[jiimmy]

fwiw, I thru hiked the AZT and PCT in 2022 (3400+ miles) in a pair of $3 goodwill shorts. The lack of a designer brand didn’t impede my enjoyment of nature.

[jnw]

The outdoors are spiritual.. very calming and worth. But I agree I don't think brand names are at all.  I think of them as anti-spiritual.  Ways for corporations to take all your hard earned money. I like to buy things which are as good as brand names and pay pennies on the dollar. 

[Extramedium]

The outdoors are spiritual.. very calming and worth. But I agree I don't think brand names are at all.  I think of them as anti-spiritual.  Ways for corporations to take all your hard earned money. I like to buy things which are as good as brand names and pay pennies on the dollar.

Brand names are simply the name of the manufacturer. Some (Fjällräven) are displayed prominently. Others (Kirkland/off-brand/generic) less so.  They’re all made by someone.  There truly are differences in quality, whether in fit, comfort, durability, or just style. Demonizing any use of brand names (which can also be found secondhand) seems arbitrary.

[Villanelle]

At its core, religion is simply what one believes is the meaning and purpose of life, and spirituality is the outworking of this belief in everyday life. In this sense everyone is religious/spiritual because we all live as if life has a purpose, even if we believe the purpose is that there is no purpose (though I doubt there are very many true nihilists).

So yes, nature can be your "church" [Although the Greek word for church, ekklēsia, really means "assembly" - as in a corporate gathering, but language changes.]  And hiking can be a "spiritual" activity if this is an outward expression of nature worship or perhaps hedonism (i.e. hiking brings you joy).

To be honest, it's refreshing to see otherwise secular society acknowledge that a lot of what people do and believe is essentially religious. This is true for "nature is my chruch" but also in things like the "In this house we believe..." yard signs that are essentially religious creeds.

I do worry somewhat that our treatment of nature as therapeutic/spiritual may be contributing to the destruction of the Earth. Not you specifically, OP, but rather the desire to live in nature instead of cities (which per capita are much better for the environment), and even cities that resist higher density because residents want to preserve their view of nature. But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.

I agree with your take, but it doesn't seem to me like that's how OP was using the term.  Does wearing a $500 dress to church make it a "spiritual" expenditure?  Not in my book.  And wearing $200 pants for hiking doesn't seem to make that a spiritual expense, just because it is something worn to a spiritual undertaking.  Do $200 pants help "express your spirit" more than $50 pants?  I'm skeptical, but willing to listen to an explanation of how the spendypants help him better enjoy nature than much less expense but still quality pants. 

[JupiterGreen]

I wouldn't call it spiritual either but I'm not bothered if that's how the OP sees it. I will pay more for something if it is worth it. Usually that has to do with the fabrics used (for instance I don't buy acrylic anymore) and/or the craftsmanship. A highly crafted thing is often worth it for the quality (it lasts) or simply for the experience and/or aesthetics (like a hand made table, a painting, bowl etc). I am discerning in this area, but will spend money on artist/artisan made versus machine made sometimes. Occasionally I do this simply to support the local community.

[kay02]

The outdoors are spiritual.. very calming and worth. But I agree I don't think brand names are at all.  I think of them as anti-spiritual.  Ways for corporations to take all your hard earned money. I like to buy things which are as good as brand names and pay pennies on the dollar.

Yeah sorry for the facepunch but to me it sounds like payments to the religion of consumerism more than spirituality.

[eyesonthehorizon]

Does anyone else have certain areas of their lives that are more spiritual ...
... spend to express your spirit?

I absolutely understand being out in nature as spiritual. That's the closest this atheist gets to a church. I have had some costly outdoor gear.

"Expressing your spirit" does not require any expense, however. This is where you're drawing criticism - that language is pulled straight from ad copy, the idea that your identity is for sale & you won't - can't - live it out properly without the right accoutrements.

It is very worth internalizing that you cannot "spend to express your spirit" because your spirit has nothing to do with the economy that humans have in the last dozen centuries mapped onto the natural world by carving it up to say each owns this much. You can spend to improve your sensory experiences, you can spend to access resources like environments that have been fenced off from free human use or which are distant from you geographically, you can give to others & causes according to your values, but you cannot "spend to express your spirit." Banish the idea from your mental vocabulary & become free.

After all, the most natural experience would be hiking entirely naked, & making your pilgrimages on foot, wouldn't it?

With that out of the way - there may & probably ideally would be areas of any person's life where they choose to dispense freely of resources, of course. Finding joy in things is worthwhile. Picking out the things which to you are most meaningful to spend lavishly on, & eschewing the rest, is usually the best way to get the most out of your money. Unseasoned food & plain water will sustain a body, but I delight in saffron & cardamom, bright coffee & fine tea. We all know someone who would go to the ends of the earth for their preferred music (& has.)

If you use the term "spiritual" in reference to material luxuries, because of the meaning of the term in prevailing (consumer marketing) culture, I think you will alienate those I suspect you're seeking community with, & inadvertently surround yourself with consumerists instead.

[JupiterGreen]

Does anyone else have certain areas of their lives that are more spiritual ...
... spend to express your spirit?

I absolutely understand being out in nature as spiritual. That's the closest this atheist gets to a church. I have had some costly outdoor gear.

"Expressing your spirit" does not require any expense, however. This is where you're drawing criticism - that language is pulled straight from ad copy, the idea that your identity is for sale & you won't - can't - live it out properly without the right accoutrements.

It is very worth internalizing that you cannot "spend to express your spirit" because your spirit has nothing to do with the economy that humans have in the last dozen centuries mapped onto the natural world by carving it up to say each owns this much. You can spend to improve your sensory experiences, you can spend to access resources like environments that have been fenced off from free human use or which are distant from you geographically, you can give to others & causes according to your values, but you cannot "spend to express your spirit." Banish the idea from your mental vocabulary & become free.

After all, the most natural experience would be hiking entirely naked, & making your pilgrimages on foot, wouldn't it?

With that out of the way - there may & probably ideally would be areas of any person's life where they choose to dispense freely of resources, of course. Finding joy in things is worthwhile. Picking out the things which to you are most meaningful to spend lavishly on, & eschewing the rest, is usually the best way to get the most out of your money. Unseasoned food & plain water will sustain a body, but I delight in saffron & cardamom, bright coffee & fine tea. We all know someone who would go to the ends of the earth for their preferred music (& has.)

If you use the term "spiritual" in reference to material luxuries, because of the meaning of the term in prevailing (consumer marketing) culture, I think you will alienate those I suspect you're seeking community with, & inadvertently surround yourself with consumerists instead.

Yeah you nailed it, this is very well said.

[billygoatjohnson]

Your life sounds identical to mine. I don't consider buying good quality outdoor gear being a spendy pants. You are buying it because it fits well, comfortable, breathable, light, quality, warm, durable, probably awesome warranty, etc. On top of that, you can usually buy this gear for 30%-50% off. The gear you are describing will last 5-10 years.

Spendy pants would be buying a 40k+ vehicle because you "need" it. Or buying a side by side atv, insurance, gas, maintenance, tabs. Going shopping because you feel like it.

Rock climbers used to tell me it was an expensive hobbies. I'd laugh in their face because it's nothing compared to anything else in life. On top of that you are getting exercise.

A few hundred here and there is not spendy pants

[Log]

At its core, religion is simply what one believes is the meaning and purpose of life, and spirituality is the outworking of this belief in everyday life. In this sense everyone is religious/spiritual because we all live as if life has a purpose…

I do worry somewhat that our treatment of nature as therapeutic/spiritual may be contributing to the destruction of the Earth. Not you specifically, OP, but rather the desire to live in nature instead of cities (which per capita are much better for the environment), and even cities that resist higher density because residents want to preserve their view of nature. But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.

First point beautifully put. In this sense, I subscribe to the classical philosophical thought that pursuit of wisdom is a fundamental source of meaning, and intend to, as my financial situation allows, allow myself disproportionate spending on expert teachers and instruction. Over the last 10 years or so that’s been my music teachers and my degrees, but for the next 10 years I intend for it to be more focused on therapists and instruction in meditation. The next 10 years may be yoga and personal trainers. Maybe mushroom foraging—who knows? But looking at developing a new skill as a 10-year project to some level of “mastery” seems like a good way to live a life of continual growth and learning.

One of the crucial phrases of the famous “10,000 hour rule” is deliberate practice, which definitionally involves receiving expert feedback. Giving yourself over to an expert teacher is crucial for improving skills snd breaking through your own biases and maladaptive habits. Of course, identifying a truly qualified “expert teacher” is the core decision that can make or break your efforts at learning a new skill, but is at its hardest when you’re a novice and are least qualified to identify what makes a teacher qualified.

———

Also love the second point—I’ve noticed this to a huge degree contrasting eastern and western US cities. People in SF who “love nature” drive their big clowny SUVs around the city every day because they just can’t live without their weekend trips to Tahoe. Meanwhile the culture in NYC or DC is far less outdoorsy, and is consequentially far more environmentally friendly. People feel attached to their cars as a way to get to the slopes and the trailheads, and so outdoorsiness and “loving nature” become a huge obstacle to making the city more pedestrian/transit-oriented. It’s very similar to the contradiction of “progressive” NIMBYs.

[Villanelle]

At its core, religion is simply what one believes is the meaning and purpose of life, and spirituality is the outworking of this belief in everyday life. In this sense everyone is religious/spiritual because we all live as if life has a purpose…

I do worry somewhat that our treatment of nature as therapeutic/spiritual may be contributing to the destruction of the Earth. Not you specifically, OP, but rather the desire to live in nature instead of cities (which per capita are much better for the environment), and even cities that resist higher density because residents want to preserve their view of nature. But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.

First point beautifully put. In this sense, I subscribe to the classical philosophical thought that pursuit of wisdom is a fundamental source of meaning, and intend to, as my financial situation allows, allow myself disproportionate spending on expert teachers and instruction. Over the last 10 years or so that’s been my music teachers and my degrees, but for the next 10 years I intend for it to be more focused on therapists and instruction in meditation. The next 10 years may be yoga and personal trainers. Maybe mushroom foraging—who knows? But looking at developing a new skill as a 10-year project to some level of “mastery” seems like a good way to live a life of continual growth and learning.

One of the crucial phrases of the famous “10,000 hour rule” is deliberate practice, which definitionally involves receiving expert feedback. Giving yourself over to an expert teacher is crucial for improving skills snd breaking through your own biases and maladaptive habits. Of course, identifying a truly qualified “expert teacher” is the core decision that can make or break your efforts at learning a new skill, but is at its hardest when you’re a novice and are least qualified to identify what makes a teacher qualified.

———

Also love the second point—I’ve noticed this to a huge degree contrasting eastern and western US cities. People in SF who “love nature” drive their big clowny SUVs around the city every day because they just can’t live without their weekend trips to Tahoe. Meanwhile the culture in NYC or DC is far less outdoorsy, and is consequentially far more environmentally friendly. People feel attached to their cars as a way to get to the slopes and the trailheads, and so outdoorsiness and “loving nature” become a huge obstacle to making the city more pedestrian/transit-oriented. It’s very similar to the contradiction of “progressive” NIMBYs.

I'm not so sure about point 2.  So many New Yorkers seem to "escape" to the Hamptons or Connecticut, or wherever, often in a rented SUV, for the weekends.  It's not like they are staying in the city while the San Franciscan is headed to Tahoe.  And while they are renting instead of owning, they are still driving so I'm not sure there's a significant ecological difference. 

[Log]

At its core, religion is simply what one believes is the meaning and purpose of life, and spirituality is the outworking of this belief in everyday life. In this sense everyone is religious/spiritual because we all live as if life has a purpose…

I do worry somewhat that our treatment of nature as therapeutic/spiritual may be contributing to the destruction of the Earth. Not you specifically, OP, but rather the desire to live in nature instead of cities (which per capita are much better for the environment), and even cities that resist higher density because residents want to preserve their view of nature. But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.

First point beautifully put. In this sense, I subscribe to the classical philosophical thought that pursuit of wisdom is a fundamental source of meaning, and intend to, as my financial situation allows, allow myself disproportionate spending on expert teachers and instruction. Over the last 10 years or so that’s been my music teachers and my degrees, but for the next 10 years I intend for it to be more focused on therapists and instruction in meditation. The next 10 years may be yoga and personal trainers. Maybe mushroom foraging—who knows? But looking at developing a new skill as a 10-year project to some level of “mastery” seems like a good way to live a life of continual growth and learning.

One of the crucial phrases of the famous “10,000 hour rule” is deliberate practice, which definitionally involves receiving expert feedback. Giving yourself over to an expert teacher is crucial for improving skills snd breaking through your own biases and maladaptive habits. Of course, identifying a truly qualified “expert teacher” is the core decision that can make or break your efforts at learning a new skill, but is at its hardest when you’re a novice and are least qualified to identify what makes a teacher qualified.

———

Also love the second point—I’ve noticed this to a huge degree contrasting eastern and western US cities. People in SF who “love nature” drive their big clowny SUVs around the city every day because they just can’t live without their weekend trips to Tahoe. Meanwhile the culture in NYC or DC is far less outdoorsy, and is consequentially far more environmentally friendly. People feel attached to their cars as a way to get to the slopes and the trailheads, and so outdoorsiness and “loving nature” become a huge obstacle to making the city more pedestrian/transit-oriented. It’s very similar to the contradiction of “progressive” NIMBYs.

I'm not so sure about point 2.  So many New Yorkers seem to "escape" to the Hamptons or Connecticut, or wherever, often in a rented SUV, for the weekends.  It's not like they are staying in the city while the San Franciscan is headed to Tahoe.  And while they are renting instead of owning, they are still driving so I'm not sure there's a significant ecological difference.

While the weekend getaways are comparable for the rich in both cities, the difference in normal-people day-to-day driving around the city is pretty noticeable to me. Multiple people in my peer group in SF have cars and drive regularly, while those same people would agree with me that having a car in New York City is stupid. San Francisco is obviously pretty excellent at rejecting the "convenience for cars above all else" orthodoxy that pervades most of the US outside of the northeast, but access to outdoorsy is a convenient excuse for a lot of environmentally friendly people to justify having a car instead of not having a car... and for having a big four-wheel-drive SUV that can make it up the mountain in the snow instead of a small city car that gets better mileage.

While I agree that the kinds of rich SF people who go to Tahoe probably are comparable to the New York people who go to the Hamptons all the time, there are also the less extravagantly wealthy SF people making all kinds of other weekend trips by car, where the equivalent people in NYC are probably staying in the city far more often. And when they stay in the city for the weekend, they're taking the subway to brunch or wherever instead of driving.

Maybe talking about cities that aren't as extravagantly wealthy will make the point clearer better than comparing the extreme consumption of the uber-wealthy: Portland is a famously progressive, eco-conscious city with a big biking culture... and yet has a significantly lower population density and more cars per household than Philly, which is obviously a blue city full of people who care about the environment, but the city as a whole isn't self-congratulatory about being eco-friendly and "loving nature." Obviously there are a lot of historical explanations behind car-dependency and the changing urban form between older and younger cities, but it is ironic that the cities that base way more of their identity around environmentalism (see also: Seattle, Denver) usually don't live up to those ideals when it comes to their transportation systems.

[LightStache]

fwiw, I thru hiked the AZT and PCT in 2022 (3400+ miles) in a pair of $3 goodwill shorts. The lack of a designer brand didn’t impede my enjoyment of nature.

Lol what an awesome flex.

[sonofsven]

I just look at outdoor gear as tools, sometimes you need a specific tool to accomplish the "job" at hand, be it hiking, biking, fishing, etc.
Of course you can accomplish the task without that specific tool but having the right gear tends to increase enjoyment (for example: good waders that don't leak vs cheap waders that do) and, possibly, increase safety.
I have a soft spot for Filson (tin cloth and wool). I recently bought another tin cloth work jacket: $350 for a work coat I will wear in the rain and mud and spray off with a garden hose. They last one I wore heavily over seven years, my Filson oil cloth tin pants I've worn over 25 years (only a few times per year, though).
I bought a hundred dollar Grundens hoodie ten years ago. It's faded and worn but I only wear it fishing so I don't really care how it looks.

"Buy once, cry once".

[jeromedawg]

I'm a fishing nut and fishing gear nut. Sure, I could use a harpoon that I whittled myself to hunt for fish primitively and I'm sure it would be an enjoyable experience...maybe one day. Until then, I use setups ranging from anywhere from probably $50 at the lowest to upwards of $500 if not more. Ironically, I don't use the more expensive setups as much as I'd like to either because A) it involves longer trips out on chartered/open-party boats which I don't want to pay for [rising trip prices attributed to inflation and greed] and I'm not in the best health for [persistent issues with left wrist - ganglion cyst, torn ligaments, etc] and/or B) I feel bad "messing" something up that's worth so much. But certain situations call for certain gear - there's no way I'd ever bring one of my $50 setups on a multi-day boat trip - that's like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight and asking for trouble.

There are "levels" to everything - guys fancier than me will bring their $1000 setups (and multiple of them) and wear all the branded gear with logos (Shimano, Daiwa, XtraTuf, Huk, Grundens, etc) looking really tricked out and like they're sponsored (maybe they are but probably most of them pay to be poster boys). If it makes them feel good, and as long as they don't cross my line and make me lose my fish (if anything, it's the other way around), I'm fine with it... lol. FWIW: I have a pair of Xtratufs (from when they were still made in the US) and love them. I heard bad things about the quality going down after they started manufacturing them in China, so I will avoid buying a replacement pair... Grundens would probably be next. I have a bunch of Columbia sun-hoodies which are great - not exactly poster boy material but I really don't care lol

Sometimes it's worth paying a lot for things that are actually high quality and will last you a long time with repeated use.

Anyway, not sure if any of what I was talking about relates but I think maybe some aspects of it does? Hahahahahaha

[jeromedawg]

You are allowed to buy $200 pants just to wear them while hiking. I don't hike so I can't comment on if these pants are substantially better than other, cheaper pants, but thank you for wearing pants at least.

You may not try to excuse it as "spiritual". It is not. It is a massive expense when a less expensive pair of pants work just fine. You own 3 pairs of pants that collectively cost $600, and you reserve their wearing for specific purposes. You should now proceed to wear these same 3 pairs of pants while hiking for at least the next 30 years, which will at least make the per use costs reasonable.

Hey, if they prevent accidents and wear and tear of my lower extremities, I'm all for spending $200 on pants... no scratches, no scuffs, no broken ankles, no knee injuries, no arthritis, etc... now that would be the ultimate pair of pants. :P