I think where the confusion comes in is that, at least in the English translation of the book, there is a lot of mixed messaging. The general narrative arc of the chapter on books was, "Sure, if you really love books, I guess you can own a lot of them, but let me now spend 5 pages browbeating you with exposition on how you can't really love more than a handful of books at a time, and talk at length about how how my life was greatly improved by throwing my favorite book, the one book that has brought me the most happiness in life, into the trash."

That said, I'm pretty sure there's nowhere in the book where it said that a 4,096Hz tuning fork - that's the perfect frequency for sparking joy - can't possibly spark joy.

On the other hand, that laptop computer brush. . . I imagine the woman who wrote The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, the book that argues forcefully that the only good container is either made of cheap clear plastic or an old shoebox, would have advocated for dusting your laptop off with a cleaning rag.

On the other other hand, the woman who wrote that book wasn't a world-famous figure with her own popular series on Netflix.

There is also the way that, in a capitalist system, every message eventually gets swallowed up and transformed into a way to sell products. It's just the nature of the beast. The hippies started out preaching the importance of love over material wealth, and their message ended up getting twisted into a sales pitch for Coca-Cola (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM).

So in the end, it doesn't really matter much what Marie Kondo's message is; once it became popular the system was inevitably going to fold, spindle and mutilate it until it could be used to sell products, because that's what the system does. It deflects critique by absorbing and redirecting it, and it is really damn good at doing so.

Exactly so. And by the same token, every sensory impulse capable of grabbing human attention will eventually be filled to the brim with ads until we can't experience anything without expecting, nay wanting, accompanying banners, jingles, (and no doubt soon; smells) that entice us to buy.

Homo Consumens: https://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Homo%20Consume...

This was perfectly said and articulated, thanks

The key is to not make it popular. Have a barrier to entry.

Capitalism vores everything.

On the other hand, a $14 empty bottle for hand soap, or $180 for a cheese knife... I mean, come on.

There is mindfulness about what you own, and then there is selling overpriced junk using your brand just like everyone else. Sure, you can be mindful and enjoy your MK $220 fruit bowl, but really what you are buying is the brand, not the bowl.

I think there is an implicit "don't buy things just because you want other people to see you bought it", which is contradictory with the idea of selling overpriced knickknacks that only serve to show other people that you bought into some kitchy fad.

I can understand the soap bottle¹. A dedicated reusable glass container instead of a bunch of single-use plastic ones is less wasteful, and looks better, in my opinion. $14 ain't bad for that, price-wise, assuming they're good quality (which is a big "if", in fairness, but still).

$180 for a cheese knife, or $75 for a tuning fork and a crystal the sum of which costs half that on Amazon (let alone Alibaba), is on the other hand quite absurd.

----

¹: Disclaimer: my employer sells (among many other things) glass bottles pretty similar to the ones on shop.konmari.com. something something these are my opinions something something not representative of my employer something something

> or $180 for a cheese knife...

If it costs more, you'll, um, buy fewer of them?

In fairness, her answer to “ it what if I need it later?” is “then you can just buy it again!”

Her shtick has always been “get rid of stuff you don’t need” layered on top of rabid consumerism. This doesn’t seem the slightest bit out of character.

She isn't telling you to buy it brand new from retail. That's the absolute worst way to buy products. Buy it again means turn cash into utility, and if you buy used and sell once you are done with that utility, you can end up at zero net loss.

I moved into an apartment where I had to cut my own grass. I bought a mower for $50 and cut grass all summer. The next spring, I moved to a different apartment without a lawn and sold that mower for $50. If I ever need to cut grass again, I'll be back in the $50 mower market.

Net cost is zero to me and I have only just enough utility as I ever need, which is exactly what kondo envisions. No rabid corporate machine has been fed with my transient lawn care needs, just more circulation around the hyperlocal economy that is removed from globalism.

What she knows is that you often don't need it later.

I agree. It seems perfectly in line to get rid of all the things you actually don't like (but failed to notice in daily life) and replace them with things that make you happy.

Do the items in this store come with a guarantee they'll make you happy?

If they don't, how can anyone be sure they won't end up in the "Random crap I bought for no good reason and never really wanted or needed" pile?

They don't "make you happy", they "spark joy" :P

In all serioursness, after having "studied" the Minimalists, Marie Kondo, and having read plenty of Stoics' works, they all (more or less) point to the same direction (in my interpretation): lead the life YOU want. Don't get carried away in owning what others mandate, but what you need, don't do what others want you do but only what fulfills you, etc.

I tell my friends that I avoid things (items) that change my state. I want ME to change my state. I want people to change my state (to the positive preferably). A laptop won't make me happy. Skyping with friends via the laptop will.

A pile of books is only useful as one uses it. Having a bookcase filled with books I will never read again won't make me happy. Giving them away and keeping a one-in-one-out system will. (at least for me). Piles can be as good as non-piles can be. It's all with what we do with them :)

For the people that derive joy from throwing out junk...

I get what you're saying, but it also seems like a bit of a stretch to describe her "philosophy" as nothing more than "own anything that you like."

It would be odd if a popular advocate of healthy dieting opened a store selling a bunch of addictive junk food, and people jumped in and claimed that the person's philosophy is really just "mindful eating" and that if you think about what diet will make you happy, the answer might be a bunch of addictive junk food, and maybe that's fine!

> it also seems like a bit of a stretch to describe her "philosophy" as nothing more than "own anything that you like."

That's not really what he said. Mindful ownership isn't "anything you like".

I've decided to limit myself to one bookcase full of books, for similar reasons. Similarly, I'm trying to get rid of any technology that I can readily go buy another one at a reasonably cost anywhere.

A room full of books sparks joy in me.

I've always thought about whether I really need any given thing every time I move.

Kondo summarized: "If it doesn't bring you joy, throw it out."