Neither extreme makes sense as an absolute, however I think there is more truth in "the worst" or maybe "the ok" or "the threshold after which diminishing returns take a nosedive", we certainly shouldn't be owned by our possessions and the vast majority of people can't afford the best of everything.
However for select items it is worth taking "the best" route - the key is to not be owned by them even then, find the best item (for a usually more subjective definition of "best") and use the fuck out of it, because that's what it's for. Identifying when it's worth getting "the best" is the trick to learn, but it should be a low number of items.
I think the problems comes when "best" is distorted into something highly biased towards aesthetics, taste or status - which is a consumerism trick - I'm not a brutalist, I understand aesthetics are important to the human experience, but when those attributes become the main focus people start behaving weirdly, and not necessarily in a healthy way.
However for select items it is worth taking "the best" route - the key is to not be owned by them even then, find the best item (for a usually more subjective definition of "best") and use the fuck out of it, because that's what it's for. Identifying when it's worth getting "the best" is the trick to learn, but it should be a low number of items.
I think the problems comes when "best" is distorted into something highly biased towards aesthetics, taste or status - which is a consumerism trick - I'm not a brutalist, I understand aesthetics are important to the human experience, but when those attributes become the main focus people start behaving weirdly, and not necessarily in a healthy way.