Jantelaw

[Tecolote]

I see that Godwin's Law is still alive and well.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes.



Because nominalism has things right.

Aside from Occam's razor being simply a convention, much like a particular way of wearing suits, say, nominalism is necessary, because type realism extramental abstract realism, etc. has things wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

oops, missed a comma there (between "realism" and "extramental") and that probably should have been "have things wrong" instead of "has"

[Wossname]

Angel Trismegistus » Today, 10:43 am

Would you say your balance is achieved in any contemporary instance?
What connection do you see, if any, between "personal independence" and "overweening arrogance, greed and selfishness"?
What don't you like about conformity?

Some balance is achieved, and I think probably best achieved, in liberal democracies (though my knowledge of other cultures is limited, and my notions of what constitutes a good balance likely idiosyncratic and biased). But I would venture that a good balance makes for a society that can be a bit messy, argumentative, with disagreements, multiple points of view and a democratic system to thrash it out. People will likely demand a certain degree of independence and require elected officials deliver it. Too much social disagreement may be a problem though, or perhaps more accurately, reflect a problem. The current unrest in the USA may illustrate that. Does the BLM movement sit well within Jante Law? If protest brings about positive change then that will be good. We will wait and see.


Unbridled freedom may result in the tyranny of the powerful. And if you feel free to do whatever you wish, kill or oppress people, or be extraordinarily greedy or selfish perhaps, (or even celebrate successful examples of such), then this may discourage concern for others, which I do not see as a good thing. The USA seems a world leader in promoting ideas concerning the freedom of the individual. But it may be these ideas are most effectively promoted by the powerful who are doing nicely from the system. They will probably seek to define who “we” are and what “we” believe in. I think more appreciation for the welfare of others might be good, but I am arguing for balance, not the wholesale rejection of individual liberties. Democracies will make up their own minds if the powerful will allow and enable them to. If they won’t, then it may not be a true democracy.


Conformity is not in itself bad. Some is necessary or desirable. It would be problematic if we decide to drive on whichever side of the road we like on grounds of being independent. But if you feel compelled to be like everyone else, look like, act like, express the same values as everyone else, where is the scope for innovation, new ideas, fresh thinking etc.? Individuals and cultures often must adapt to survive. Given the pace of technological change that adaptability may be increasingly tested. But the ability to be flexible and adapt will likely be harder to do if thinking or the social system is too rigid.

[Terrapin Station]

Angel Trismegistus » Today, 10:43 am

Would you say your balance is achieved in any contemporary instance?
What connection do you see, if any, between "personal independence" and "overweening arrogance, greed and selfishness"?
What don't you like about conformity?

Some balance is achieved, and I think probably best achieved, in liberal democracies (though my knowledge of other cultures is limited, and my notions of what constitutes a good balance likely idiosyncratic and biased). But I would venture that a good balance makes for a society that can be a bit messy, argumentative, with disagreements, multiple points of view and a democratic system to thrash it out. People will likely demand a certain degree of independence and require elected officials deliver it. Too much social disagreement may be a problem though, or perhaps more accurately, reflect a problem. The current unrest in the USA may illustrate that. Does the BLM movement sit well within Jante Law? If protest brings about positive change then that will be good. We will wait and see.


Unbridled freedom may result in the tyranny of the powerful. And if you feel free to do whatever you wish, kill or oppress people, or be extraordinarily greedy or selfish perhaps, (or even celebrate successful examples of such), then this may discourage concern for others, which I do not see as a good thing. The USA seems a world leader in promoting ideas concerning the freedom of the individual. But it may be these ideas are most effectively promoted by the powerful who are doing nicely from the system. They will probably seek to define who “we” are and what “we” believe in. I think more appreciation for the welfare of others might be good, but I am arguing for balance, not the wholesale rejection of individual liberties. Democracies will make up their own minds if the powerful will allow and enable them to. If they won’t, then it may not be a true democracy.


Conformity is not in itself bad. Some is necessary or desirable. It would be problematic if we decide to drive on whichever side of the road we like on grounds of being independent. But if you feel compelled to be like everyone else, look like, act like, express the same values as everyone else, where is the scope for innovation, new ideas, fresh thinking etc.? Individuals and cultures often must adapt to survive. Given the pace of technological change that adaptability may be increasingly tested. But the ability to be flexible and adapt will likely be harder to do if thinking or the social system is too rigid.

I think that conformity for the sake of conformity is bad, as is anticonformity for the sake of anticonformity.

In other words, the deciding factor for something shouldn't be that other people are doing or thinking whatever.

"Let's all drive on this side of the road" is a good idea because it speeds up the flow of traffic, decreases accidents, etc. There's a practical upshot to it. If something else would speed up the flow of traffic, decrease accidents, etc. instead than we should go with that instead.

Likewise, dressing similarly sometimes has a practical benefit--if we need to be able to quickly and reliably identify police officers, for example. But there's no practical benefit to it in most situations.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Sounds a bit grotesque to me. Reminds me of the early communist parties of the USSR and China.

I think you've picked up on the spirit of Jantelaw, Mr Edwards. Why do you find it "grotesque"? This is a question, not a challenge. I'm sincerely interested in your reaction.

Two things are equally wrong: 1) the upper class treating the lower class as slave labor, 2) the lower class treating the upper class as slave labor. I seem to recall that during Mao's cultural revolution in China, doctors and lawyers and engineers were sent to work on the farms.

Laws must serve all people equally. The Jantelaw codifies the opposite, where one group has all of the power and the other group is powerless. That's morally grotesque.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Aside from Occam's razor being simply a convention, much like a particular way of wearing suits, say, nominalism is necessary, because type realism extramental abstract realism, etc. has things wrong.

In philosophical circles (such as ours) Ockham is arguably the most famous exponent of nominalism, and the principle associated with his ontological parsimony is known as Ockham's Razor. Thus, my homemade meme, made especially for you.

[Terrapin Station]

Aside from Occam's razor being simply a convention, much like a particular way of wearing suits, say, nominalism is necessary, because type realism extramental abstract realism, etc. has things wrong.

In philosophical circles (such as ours) Ockham is arguably the most famous exponent of nominalism, and the principle associated with his ontological parsimony is known as Ockham's Razor. Thus, my homemade meme, made especially for you.

Ah--yes, Occam was a nominalist. I thought you were suggesting that Occam's razor would actually suggest type realism (which I can see someone arguing), because.

[Pattern-chaser]

The, as it were, 10 Commandments of Jante are listed above. They demand thoughtful consideration from those who, like your disaffected host, are fed up to the gills with Millennial Egoism.

To me this topic illustrates a (the?) primary dichotomy in politics. Your JanteLaw is a loose equivalent of extreme Communism, where the individual is suppressed by, and in favour of, the community. It contrasts with the globally-all-pervading American Predatory Capitalism, where the community is denied and reviled, in favour of the individual. Both extremes are wrong, of course, as sane politics can only emerge from a middle way that values both the individual and the community. But that veers off your chosen topic here, which is JanteLaw, so I'll stop here.

[Terrapin Station]

The, as it were, 10 Commandments of Jante are listed above. They demand thoughtful consideration from those who, like your disaffected host, are fed up to the gills with Millennial Egoism.

To me this topic illustrates a (the?) primary dichotomy in politics. Your JanteLaw is a loose equivalent of extreme Communism, where the individual is suppressed by, and in favour of, the community. It contrasts with the globally-all-pervading American Predatory Capitalism, where the community is denied and reviled, in favour of the individual. Both extremes are wrong, of course, as sane politics can only emerge from a middle way that values both the individual and the community. But that veers off your chosen topic here, which is JanteLaw, so I'll stop here.

Hence why I'm a "libertarian socialist."

[Angel Trismegistus]

Scandinavia has done well from it.

Hear, hear.
Our colleagues appear to be oblivious to the real-world success story.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Angel Trismegistus » Today, 10:43 am

Would you say your balance is achieved in any contemporary instance?
What connection do you see, if any, between "personal independence" and "overweening arrogance, greed and selfishness"?
What don't you like about conformity?

Some balance is achieved, and I think probably best achieved, in liberal democracies (though my knowledge of other cultures is limited, and my notions of what constitutes a good balance likely idiosyncratic and biased). But I would venture that a good balance makes for a society that can be a bit messy, argumentative, with disagreements, multiple points of view and a democratic system to thrash it out. People will likely demand a certain degree of independence and require elected officials deliver it. Too much social disagreement may be a problem though, or perhaps more accurately, reflect a problem. The current unrest in the USA may illustrate that. Does the BLM movement sit well within Jante Law? If protest brings about positive change then that will be good. We will wait and see.


Unbridled freedom may result in the tyranny of the powerful. And if you feel free to do whatever you wish, kill or oppress people, or be extraordinarily greedy or selfish perhaps, (or even celebrate successful examples of such), then this may discourage concern for others, which I do not see as a good thing. The USA seems a world leader in promoting ideas concerning the freedom of the individual. But it may be these ideas are most effectively promoted by the powerful who are doing nicely from the system. They will probably seek to define who “we” are and what “we” believe in. I think more appreciation for the welfare of others might be good, but I am arguing for balance, not the wholesale rejection of individual liberties. Democracies will make up their own minds if the powerful will allow and enable them to. If they won’t, then it may not be a true democracy.


Conformity is not in itself bad. Some is necessary or desirable. It would be problematic if we decide to drive on whichever side of the road we like on grounds of being independent. But if you feel compelled to be like everyone else, look like, act like, express the same values as everyone else, where is the scope for innovation, new ideas, fresh thinking etc.? Individuals and cultures often must adapt to survive. Given the pace of technological change that adaptability may be increasingly tested. But the ability to be flexible and adapt will likely be harder to do if thinking or the social system is too rigid.

A nicely balanced response on the question of balance, W.
Unlike most of the respondents, I don't see this as a political question at all -- I see it as a cultural question. Here in the West all the nations in which Jantelaw has been exemplified are liberal democracies. Like you, I don't know enough about Eastern or Mideastern societies to talk about the extent to which some equivalent of Jantelaw has succeeded or failed, but I suspect there are some.

To my mind Jantelaw is about humility, and the question raised in the OP is whether individualism or collectivism is the more philosophically cogent means to that end.

[Sculptor1]

The, as it were, 10 Commandments of Jante are listed above. They demand thoughtful consideration from those who, like your disaffected host, are fed up to the gills with Millennial Egoism.

To me this topic illustrates a (the?) primary dichotomy in politics. Your JanteLaw is a loose equivalent of extreme Communism, where the individual is suppressed by, and in favour of, the community. It contrasts with the globally-all-pervading American Predatory Capitalism, where the community is denied and reviled, in favour of the individual. Both extremes are wrong, of course, as sane politics can only emerge from a middle way that values both the individual and the community. But that veers off your chosen topic here, which is JanteLaw, so I'll stop here.

Jante is about respect for others, if that's what you think communism is then fine.
You are to say it does not value individuals, since we are all individuals.
It's somewhat republican too. None are better than you and you are no better than anyone else. Bow to no one and accept no bow from another.

[Angel Trismegistus]

I see that Godwin's Law is still alive and well.

Written by Godwin himself!

Op-Ed: Do we need to update Godwin’s Law about the probability of comparison to Nazis?
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

[Sculptor1]

Some balance is achieved, and I think probably best achieved, in liberal democracies (though my knowledge of other cultures is limited, and my notions of what constitutes a good balance likely idiosyncratic and biased). But I would venture that a good balance makes for a society that can be a bit messy, argumentative, with disagreements, multiple points of view and a democratic system to thrash it out. People will likely demand a certain degree of independence and require elected officials deliver it. Too much social disagreement may be a problem though, or perhaps more accurately, reflect a problem. The current unrest in the USA may illustrate that. Does the BLM movement sit well within Jante Law? If protest brings about positive change then that will be good. We will wait and see.


Unbridled freedom may result in the tyranny of the powerful. And if you feel free to do whatever you wish, kill or oppress people, or be extraordinarily greedy or selfish perhaps, (or even celebrate successful examples of such), then this may discourage concern for others, which I do not see as a good thing. The USA seems a world leader in promoting ideas concerning the freedom of the individual. But it may be these ideas are most effectively promoted by the powerful who are doing nicely from the system. They will probably seek to define who “we” are and what “we” believe in. I think more appreciation for the welfare of others might be good, but I am arguing for balance, not the wholesale rejection of individual liberties. Democracies will make up their own minds if the powerful will allow and enable them to. If they won’t, then it may not be a true democracy.


Conformity is not in itself bad. Some is necessary or desirable. It would be problematic if we decide to drive on whichever side of the road we like on grounds of being independent. But if you feel compelled to be like everyone else, look like, act like, express the same values as everyone else, where is the scope for innovation, new ideas, fresh thinking etc.? Individuals and cultures often must adapt to survive. Given the pace of technological change that adaptability may be increasingly tested. But the ability to be flexible and adapt will likely be harder to do if thinking or the social system is too rigid.

A nicely balanced response on the question of balance, W.
Unlike most of the respondents, I don't see this as a political question at all -- I see it as a cultural question. .

It is highly political.
It is anti-conservative in the extreme.