My unrealistically smart friend Anita Lobo pointed me to The Law of Jante:
In the imaginary small town of Jante there is an informal, oppressive law that forbids anyone from standing out from the crowd:
The Law of Jante
1. Thou shalt not believe thou art something.
2. Thou shalt not believe thou art as good as we.
3. Thou shalt not believe thou art more wise than we.
4. Thou shalt not fancy thyself better than we.
5. Thou shalt not believe thou knowest more than we.
6. Thou shalt not believe thou art greater than we.
7. Thou shalt not believe thou amountest to anything.
8. Thou shalt not laugh at us.
9. Thou shalt not believe that anyone is concerned with thee.
10. Thou shalt not believe thou canst teach us anything.
We are now living in Jante.
Better has died.
There are many reasons behind this, such as the need for empowered individuals that can consume stuff and an exaggerated fascination with democracy, to name a few. However, I want to focus on the fear of violence.
The horror of wars and recent dictatorships have made us afraid of the consequences that fighting for an idea may have. We worry that trying to impose objectivity will inevitably lead to some sort of authoritarianism and physical retaliation. Past (and still fresh) violence has left a bad reputation in people’s ability to handle disagreements. We prefer to say “to each its own” because we believe that a new Hitler can be just around the corner.
Terrorists prove everyday that this possibility is very real. Their blind and retarded belief in a “better scenario” lets them justify any atrocity to humanity. And this is why we need to learn from the past, not ignore it. We need to embrace the intensity of a war and apply it exclusively in an intellectual setting. It’s the year 2010, we have to be able to separate our ideas from our bodies.
Everyone should live with their needs covered in a peaceful society that respects every individual, I’m all for equality in every aspect of life. We can’t let any kind of moral debate overrun human rights.
But when it comes to debating, let’s beat the shit out of each other. We can’t keep putting our emotional fragility before intellectual objectivity either. Let’s stop respecting each others’ feelings so much.
Like Philip Pullman says, no one has the right not to be offended (h/t to Tyler for sharing):
In a world where feelings are a priority, quality of life, ideas and morals drop.
In a world where feelings are a priority, conflict and improvement become taboo.
In a world where feelings are a priority, mediocrity rules.
Here’s to a world that values rationality, logic, quality and growth before fear, feelings and ignorance.
Here’s to the end of Jante.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Why ARE we so afraid of physical violence? It seldom happens in civilized settings and even when it does, no one really wins. I’d rather have someone punch me in the face than silently loathe me for a year.
That being said, we must also possess both the vocabulary and some power of persuasion to enter into any sort of debate or confrontation. Most of us do not. Insults are easy, retorts are not.
The cult of the amateur is upon us and the only way out is to destroy it. Not hold it down, not make fun of it, but tear it apart to show the shallowness that it holds. Movies like Fight Club make more sense in times like these.
I would love to meet the person that has the best ideas and no vocabulary. I’m pretty sure they go together. Regardless of that, the debater that expresses himself through insults would quickly lose in the game of logic and rationality. They don’t worry me in this ideal scenario.
Like always Carlos, your word, your wisdom, your truth shines.
Made me think of a great quote book…
“What does it mean to be yourself?” he asked. “If it
means to do what you think you ought to do, then you’re
doing that already. If it means to act like you’re exempt
from society’s influence, that’s the worst advice in the
world; you would probably stop bathing and wearing clothes.
The advice to ‘be yourself’ is obviously nonsense. But our
brains accept this tripe as wisdom because it is more comfortable
to believe we have a strategy for life than to believe
we have no idea how to behave.”
— Scott Adams
One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given: fuck your feelings. And while I am not a violent person by nature (and usually abhor the idea of war on a national level), I still carry a knife.
We can carry concealed weapons without a permit here in AZ. Bill just passed. Not sure why. Thinking of exercising my right to look like a dumbass.
Florida still requires a concealed permit for handguns (knives are fine), but it’s a 4 hour course to get it. I actually had it for a while, but never renewed it. I’ve got kids now, no guns in the house.
Feelings matter. Just not as much as we like to pretend.
That’s all that matters…
Your goal is not to appease every ego. Truth to power. Okay, sure. Well then what? Are you going to go tip over other bloggers’ fruit stands? That’s not constructive. Will this be your new battle cry? As others shout, “Authenticity!” you’ll shout back about honesty?
Correction for its own sake is pedantry. It’s about showing others that you are smarter. It is a play for affirmation just as surely as the back-slapping on other sites that you hate.
You’ve learned that popularity is a shallow reward, and you seem to have a passion for doing something important with your life. Don’t be merely an iconoclast. It’s just as shallow, only more bitter.
Decide what matters to you apart from having interesting conversations, apart from proving to yourself and others that you are smart. What do you want to having interesting conversations about? If you win an argument, what were the stakes?
In some ways, this feels like another passive-aggressive attack against Matt’s blog. If you think he’s really wrong, ask him to let you post a guest post at his site. Let him approve it, and be polite, but try to show his audience (and him) that there is a problem there. Then move on.
Move on to questions that challenge you. What don’t you know the answers to? That’s where you should apply your intelligence and open up conversations inside of your uncertainty. If your goal is not to get approval or popularity, then why be the guru?
Winning arguments only matters when it matters. Socrates spent time refuting sophists, but he spent more of his time in pursuit of understanding about virtue. Disproving others was a side effect of the passionate and honest examination of a perplexing question.
If someone had come to Athens and won the argument against Socrates, no one would have been happier than Socrates to have found an answer. That’s a good litmus test for what’s worth being smart about.
At the very least, this comment is in the spirit of your current post, and from what I can tell, I think the kind of thing you welcome. If I’m wrong about that, feel free to ignore me and just do whatever is fun for you.
-Chuck
It was an interesting comment until the Matt part. I will reply anyway ignoring your ridiculous assumption, because it has some value (except for that part).
Did you know there’s life and things to read outside blogs? This is a criticism to society, not to the blogosphere. I don’t read blogs.
“You seem to have a passion for doing something important with your life”
Exactly, I just didn’t know that had to be my blog. Maybe, just maybe, my important goals are not about OwlSparks. Maybe this is where I just talk about what bothers me, interests me, and I feel knowledgeable enough to talk about. I wouldn’t want to sound ignorant either.
As I keep reading your comment, I realize that there are too many false assumptions, besides the one about the blogger that we all know I don’t like:
1) You assume that my life’s ambitions revolves around my blog and what happens in social media.
2) You assume that the conversations and arguments that I want to have happen here.
This is where I think out loud and, of course, welcome people to disagree. But that’s about it. Don’t think you know me that well.
Also, anonymous comment? Hard to take you seriously.
There’s nothing about my comment that’s anonymous. You have my personal email and my full name.
Your response here is awfully defensive and dismissive. That’s not what I was going for nor what I would expect when someone is talking about wanting to get at objectivity.
I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to WP, didn’t know I had access to your email, I’m sorry.
I was forced to be dismissive because of your assumptions, which are way off. I’m more than open to debating anything, but we need to start from the same point. Feel free to comment again from a more general perspective and not a social media focused one, and we will have a rich conversation.
I appreciate that. I’ve got to go for now. I’ll try to remember to come back and respond more fully.
I guess your passive aggressiveness comes from the ressentiment of beeing born in a shitty stucked country like yours. The one that you hate so much and can´t escape from.
YEAH! Love it!!!!! You go Chuckie!
I hope ignorance never dies, it makes life funnier.
Just in case it wasn’t obvious, this troll above, though they seem to be aping my name, is not me.
I know, don’t worry.
I Find credibility in the fact that you don’t care about blogging. You just do it. Thanks.
I should “OH” that on Twitter.
hehehe you like to stir the pot dont you Carlos. Dont worry, I love it. down with that sissy emotional crap. Lets do shit!
Glad to have you on board Vinay.
Feelings only matter when the matter is personal. Really truly completely personal. We assign this label to interactions with other people, but the personal matter is in how you are responding to yourself and how you feel about that. How you feel about what someone else said or did is generally irrelevant.
I’m not a fan of physical violence, I think the main cause of violence in debate is when people take matters personally that aren’t and feelings get involved. Let’s just open up the conversation for some real debate. Let’s seek answers not right and wrongs.
Perfect.
Guilty as charged Carlos!
I’m intrigued that you chose violence as the lens to examine the Law of Jante.
Violence overrides objectivity. Extreme violence/ acts of terror strangely are executed in a cold, clinical and horribly objective fashion. I’ve seen this living in a city that has had its share of terrorist attacks.
So my view is:
Our system delivers best when rationality, logic, quality and growth are balanced with feeling, which is a powerful and primal emotion. You just can’t cut it out.
Why? Fact is objective. Truth is subjective. When two version of truth collide, there is an escalating scale of violence … and that’s just one symptom.
The Law of Jante exemplifies that extreme rationality without feeling, as well as overriding feelings without the balance of logic and opposing perspectives, both lead to failure for society and the individual.
The middle path is not one of mediocrity or following the herd. It is one of asking questions and finding answers, testing ourselves and each of our beliefs. Not accepting anything ‘given’ as the truth unless we test the concept and ourselves.
Cheers,
Anita
I’m not suggesting to cut out feelings. I’m suggesting to stop making it a priority. Of course feelings are going to be involved, and of course truth is subjective, but by debating without worrying so much about the emotional effect of our words, by using logic and rationality as the way to decide our actions, we’ll reach a more objective society.
You suggest a middle ground that’s impossible with feelings being considered sacred as they are today. Again, let’s not forget about them, but let’s get tougher so they don’t decide for us.
I really enjoyed this one, thanks for sharing with us this in-depth article.
We can deny all we want, but feelings do matter — a lot.