10 ms·

Sounds somewhat related to the "tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times" adage. (Me

by V-2 4y ago

Sounds somewhat related to the "tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times" adage. (Men and women, of course!)

HWR_14 4y ago
Only superficially. Adams is a standard "I want my kids to have the opportunities I never had". The other one is, well, there's a whole lot of other responses that go more into what the other one is.
rawgabbit 4y ago
My guess is the quote is a variant of Friedrich Nietzsche's "What doesn't kill you" quote. I also believe Nietzsche is wrong. What doesn't kill you, leaves you traumatized and incapable of making objective decisions because the trauma will taint your thinking from now on.
czhu12 4y ago
I use every opportunity I can find to shill for Bret Devereaux's blog, I think its one of the most wonderful things on the internet. He discussed and challenged that common adage that is often portrayed in films. https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
steveylang 4y ago
Can we just all be universally lukewarm from here on out?
simiones 4y ago
It's important to remind everyone that this common adage is very wrong, looking at history (at least as long as we take "strong men" to mean "powerful armies"). Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies. War requires huge investments of resources, so only prosperous societies can have powerful armies. War also requires strong leadership that can't be corrupted or divided - only politically stable societies can ensure their war leaders will not turn cloak or start fighting among themselves.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies." I believe a counterpoint to this are armies such as the Viet Cong, and especially the Taliban.
  - simiones 4y ago
    I don't necessarily agree even there. The Viet Cong was a well supplied and well organized army, with significant logistical support from North Vietnam, and would likely had failed miserably if North Vietnam hadn't waited to consolidate its power and accrue supplies (and international support) after the revolution and previous civil war. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban received ample support from the USA, including training, arms and logistics; again, they would have very likely failed in the absence of this support. In the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban quickly lost the military war, but ultimately retained their cultural advantage; the regime that the USA tried to install was simply unpopular, and instantly folded the moment it stopped being propped up. Either way, the last few decades of war have not led to some flourishing of Afghanistan as the theory predicts: it remains poor and by all likelihood will remain poor for the forseeable future, as all other war zones do. Also, in both cases, the advantage of fighting in their own territory was a significant part of what ultimately defeated their opponents.
- pfraze 4y ago
  That adage is honestly just a way to call somebody soft.
- V-2 4y ago
  It's a huge oversimplification, and as such it's borderline useless of course; not much more than a meme of sorts. Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already". When it comes down to such vague and ambiguous terms, the whole thing becomes as open to interpretation as a horoscope - basically unfalsifiable : )
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I don’t think it is related. John Adam’s is describing a goal where one’s standard of living (in terms of ability to dedicate time to recreation) strictly increases per generation. This quote actually implies a completely different speculation, where aiming to create strictly better lifestyles for one’s future generations actually leads to worse outcomes.
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  John Adams is stuck in Paris, writing a letter to his wife, lamenting that there is so much amazing culture and beauty and he would love to visit it all and write a description for his wife, but his duty prevents him from enjoying his surroundings. He recognizes that a nation needs stability, then prosperity, and finally culture and that (at that time) the United States doesn't even have stability. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258 > Since my Arrival this time I have driven about Paris, more than I did before. The rural Scenes around this Town are charming. The public Walks, Gardens, &c. are extreamly beautifull. The Gardens of the Palais Royal, the Gardens of the Tuilleries, are very fine. The Place de Louis 15, the Place Vendome or Place de Louis 14, the Place victoire, the Place royal, are fine Squares, ornamented with very magnificent statues. I wish I had time to describe these objects to you in a manner, that I should have done, 25 Years ago, but my Head is too full of Schemes and my Heart of Anxiety to use Expressions borrowed from you know whom. >To take a Walk in the Gardens of the Palace of the Tuilleries, and describe the Statues there, all in marble, in which the ancient Divinities and Heroes are represented with exquisite Art, would be a very pleasant Amusement, and instructive Entertainment, improving in History, Mythology, Poetry, as well as in Statuary. Another Walk in the Gardens of Versailles, would be usefull and agreable.—But to observe these Objects with Taste and describe them so as to be understood, would require more time and thought than I can possibly Spare. It is not indeed the fine Arts, which our Country requires. The Usefull, the mechanic Arts, are those which We have occasion for in a young Country, as yet simple and not far advanced in Luxury, altho perhaps much too far for her Age and Character. >I could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty.—The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts.—I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.
oblio 4y ago
> "tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times" I always have a problem with this quote. What are "strong men/women"? (Really) tough times generally create broken people that dig themselves an early grave with alcohol, more than anything.
- dionidium 4y ago
  Synonyms include: powerful, muscular, sturdy, robust, tough, rugged, stalwart, hardy. In ordinary English these terms can be applied to mental as well as physical fortitude. I'm a bit nonplussed by the confusion.
- michaelrpeskin 4y ago
  This is why I love HN. This thread including sibling comments gave me a new way to to think about this quote. The way I always read it was that "strong men" are your "protectors" the kind of folks who run into the burning building, who risk themselves for others and the greater good. When you have a lot of those types in society, society will prosper. I think of it as literally a "strong" person, physically and psychologically. As the strong people make the world better we have good times and end up not paying attention to building (or valuing) strength which makes people weaker, things get crappy and then we need to build more strong people to pull us out. Think of the early 20th century. In the lead-up to the depression, the 20s were all about partying and buying stuff of on credit and watching the market boom (at least at the broad scale narrative that we're taught, I'm sure there are nuances about it). Then we get the depression and WWII which required men to become strong and fight which lead to the post war boom. I'm sure there were many smaller cycles in history too, but I'm not really a scholar of history. I look at today, we have an epidemic of weakness around us. Everyone needs a safe space, needs the government to take care of them and provide them with things, everyone gets offended by everyone else and has to go lie in bed because they "just can't even". At least that's what the grand narrative on social media is. And even from that, I see the cycle beginning. We're entering a tough time with famine and such, and people who decide to get strong and face the challenge are the ones who will do well and provide the next round of good times (The irony is that they probably won't be participating in the good times). Long rant, sorry. But one of my mental models that I've been refining is that problems are caused by weakness and fear. If you are strong and confident, you are more likely fixing problems or taking care of people, not causing problems.

by V-2 4y ago

Sounds somewhat related to the "tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times" adage. (Men and women, of course!)

HWR_14 4y ago

Only superficially. Adams is a standard "I want my kids to have the opportunities I never had". The other one is, well, there's a whole lot of other responses that go more into what the other one is.

rawgabbit 4y ago

My guess is the quote is a variant of Friedrich Nietzsche's "What doesn't kill you" quote. I also believe Nietzsche is wrong. What doesn't kill you, leaves you traumatized and incapable of making objective decisions because the trauma will taint your thinking from now on.

czhu12 4y ago

I use every opportunity I can find to shill for Bret Devereaux's blog, I think its one of the most wonderful things on the internet. He discussed and challenged that common adage that is often portrayed in films. https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

steveylang 4y ago

Can we just all be universally lukewarm from here on out?

simiones 4y ago

It's important to remind everyone that this common adage is very wrong, looking at history (at least as long as we take "strong men" to mean "powerful armies"). Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies. War requires huge investments of resources, so only prosperous societies can have powerful armies. War also requires strong leadership that can't be corrupted or divided - only politically stable societies can ensure their war leaders will not turn cloak or start fighting among themselves.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"Tough times mean brittle impoverished societies with weak armies that crumble easily. Easy times (prosperous, politically stable societies) are what creates strong armies." I believe a counterpoint to this are armies such as the Viet Cong, and especially the Taliban.
- simiones 4y ago
  I don't necessarily agree even there. The Viet Cong was a well supplied and well organized army, with significant logistical support from North Vietnam, and would likely had failed miserably if North Vietnam hadn't waited to consolidate its power and accrue supplies (and international support) after the revolution and previous civil war. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban received ample support from the USA, including training, arms and logistics; again, they would have very likely failed in the absence of this support. In the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, the taliban quickly lost the military war, but ultimately retained their cultural advantage; the regime that the USA tried to install was simply unpopular, and instantly folded the moment it stopped being propped up. Either way, the last few decades of war have not led to some flourishing of Afghanistan as the theory predicts: it remains poor and by all likelihood will remain poor for the forseeable future, as all other war zones do. Also, in both cases, the advantage of fighting in their own territory was a significant part of what ultimately defeated their opponents.
pfraze 4y ago
That adage is honestly just a way to call somebody soft.
V-2 4y ago
It's a huge oversimplification, and as such it's borderline useless of course; not much more than a meme of sorts. Still, "strong men", the way I read it, means "adamantly striving for the increase of power" (not just military power) rather than "being powerful already". When it comes down to such vague and ambiguous terms, the whole thing becomes as open to interpretation as a horoscope - basically unfalsifiable : )

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago

I don’t think it is related. John Adam’s is describing a goal where one’s standard of living (in terms of ability to dedicate time to recreation) strictly increases per generation. This quote actually implies a completely different speculation, where aiming to create strictly better lifestyles for one’s future generations actually leads to worse outcomes.

Kon-Peki 4y ago
John Adams is stuck in Paris, writing a letter to his wife, lamenting that there is so much amazing culture and beauty and he would love to visit it all and write a description for his wife, but his duty prevents him from enjoying his surroundings. He recognizes that a nation needs stability, then prosperity, and finally culture and that (at that time) the United States doesn't even have stability. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258 > Since my Arrival this time I have driven about Paris, more than I did before. The rural Scenes around this Town are charming. The public Walks, Gardens, &c. are extreamly beautifull. The Gardens of the Palais Royal, the Gardens of the Tuilleries, are very fine. The Place de Louis 15, the Place Vendome or Place de Louis 14, the Place victoire, the Place royal, are fine Squares, ornamented with very magnificent statues. I wish I had time to describe these objects to you in a manner, that I should have done, 25 Years ago, but my Head is too full of Schemes and my Heart of Anxiety to use Expressions borrowed from you know whom. >To take a Walk in the Gardens of the Palace of the Tuilleries, and describe the Statues there, all in marble, in which the ancient Divinities and Heroes are represented with exquisite Art, would be a very pleasant Amusement, and instructive Entertainment, improving in History, Mythology, Poetry, as well as in Statuary. Another Walk in the Gardens of Versailles, would be usefull and agreable.—But to observe these Objects with Taste and describe them so as to be understood, would require more time and thought than I can possibly Spare. It is not indeed the fine Arts, which our Country requires. The Usefull, the mechanic Arts, are those which We have occasion for in a young Country, as yet simple and not far advanced in Luxury, altho perhaps much too far for her Age and Character. >I could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty.—The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts.—I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.

oblio 4y ago

> "tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times" I always have a problem with this quote. What are "strong men/women"? (Really) tough times generally create broken people that dig themselves an early grave with alcohol, more than anything.

dionidium 4y ago
Synonyms include: powerful, muscular, sturdy, robust, tough, rugged, stalwart, hardy. In ordinary English these terms can be applied to mental as well as physical fortitude. I'm a bit nonplussed by the confusion.
michaelrpeskin 4y ago
This is why I love HN. This thread including sibling comments gave me a new way to to think about this quote. The way I always read it was that "strong men" are your "protectors" the kind of folks who run into the burning building, who risk themselves for others and the greater good. When you have a lot of those types in society, society will prosper. I think of it as literally a "strong" person, physically and psychologically. As the strong people make the world better we have good times and end up not paying attention to building (or valuing) strength which makes people weaker, things get crappy and then we need to build more strong people to pull us out. Think of the early 20th century. In the lead-up to the depression, the 20s were all about partying and buying stuff of on credit and watching the market boom (at least at the broad scale narrative that we're taught, I'm sure there are nuances about it). Then we get the depression and WWII which required men to become strong and fight which lead to the post war boom. I'm sure there were many smaller cycles in history too, but I'm not really a scholar of history. I look at today, we have an epidemic of weakness around us. Everyone needs a safe space, needs the government to take care of them and provide them with things, everyone gets offended by everyone else and has to go lie in bed because they "just can't even". At least that's what the grand narrative on social media is. And even from that, I see the cycle beginning. We're entering a tough time with famine and such, and people who decide to get strong and face the challenge are the ones who will do well and provide the next round of good times (The irony is that they probably won't be participating in the good times). Long rant, sorry. But one of my mental models that I've been refining is that problems are caused by weakness and fear. If you are strong and confident, you are more likely fixing problems or taking care of people, not causing problems.