5 ms·

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, mean

by 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 : )

dionidium 4y ago
I'm not sure why you'd insist on an eccentric interpretation of "strong" in the context of this quote. It's a common English word that means, "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks" or "able to withstand great force or pressure." 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. The meaning here is not opaque.
hhjinks 4y ago
It's not even an oversimplification, it's axiomatic. We have easy and tough times, and we have people who lead us into easy and tough times. If we define those who lead a nation out of tough times as "strong men," they are necessarily a product of the tough times they lived through, and vice versa. Without saying exactly what kind of person a "strong man" or a "weak man" is, the saying says literally nothing.
- V-2 4y ago
  Yeah well, of course it's a bit like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because if strong men fail to create easy times, you can always say that apparently they weren't truly strong, and so on, circular logic ;)
simiones 4y ago
> 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". The problem in that case is that I don't think it is true that these types of strong men tend to create easy times - if anything, they tend to create worse times for everyone around them, unless they are actually already extremely powerful. Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now.
- V-2 4y ago
  > Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now. Yeah - if they fail (or are arguably failing, in Putin's case). Not really the case of, say, Charlemagne or Alexander The Great.
  - simiones 4y ago
    Sure - but there are far more warmongers who failed than those who succeeded - at least out of those who weren't already very powerful (for example, America's recent warmongering has tended to have either almost no effect or a positive effect on itself, since it has been extremely powerful compared to the countries it invaded).
    - V-2 4y ago
      If you won, say, 5 wars (which - yes - will put you in a small minority, because some countries had to be losing these wars, and obviously the losers outnumber you), then you can afford losing another 2. But if you only ever lost 1 or 2 wars, you're no longer on the world map.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Alexander The Great was leading expansive war, it is pretty much guaranteed that a lot of people had very bad times due to him. Especially since at the time, armies fed themselves entirely from looting - while farming was t subsistence level without much surplus. Plus, after he died, civil wars broke up, which does not suggest happy people either.
    - simiones 4y ago
      I think it's fair to say that, however you look at it, the quote is using "hard times" and "good times" from the perspective of the in-group, not any out-group. So, whatever destruction Alexander visited on those he conquered is kind of irrelevant to this quote - the only thing that would matter for checking whether the quote applies is whether Alexander improved the lot of his own people. That is, was he a strong man who was created by the hard times of his youth/parents' generation, and did he create good times for his own people? Per the quote, the people Alexander conquered should themselves be considered weak men who will leave hard times for their children (being conquered/looted by Alexander, who they couldn't win against because of their weakness); but whose children, or grandchildren, will be stronger than them and create good times anew.

by V-2 4y ago

dionidium 4y ago

I'm not sure why you'd insist on an eccentric interpretation of "strong" in the context of this quote. It's a common English word that means, "having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks" or "able to withstand great force or pressure." 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. The meaning here is not opaque.

hhjinks 4y ago

It's not even an oversimplification, it's axiomatic. We have easy and tough times, and we have people who lead us into easy and tough times. If we define those who lead a nation out of tough times as "strong men," they are necessarily a product of the tough times they lived through, and vice versa. Without saying exactly what kind of person a "strong man" or a "weak man" is, the saying says literally nothing.

V-2 4y ago
Yeah well, of course it's a bit like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because if strong men fail to create easy times, you can always say that apparently they weren't truly strong, and so on, circular logic ;)

simiones 4y ago

> 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". The problem in that case is that I don't think it is true that these types of strong men tend to create easy times - if anything, they tend to create worse times for everyone around them, unless they are actually already extremely powerful. Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now.

V-2 4y ago
> Warmongering leaders (whether we are discussing economic or open war), especially ones leading currently weak countries, tend to create even worse times for their people. Just look at Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or, perhaps more arguably, Putin right now. Yeah - if they fail (or are arguably failing, in Putin's case). Not really the case of, say, Charlemagne or Alexander The Great.
- simiones 4y ago
  Sure - but there are far more warmongers who failed than those who succeeded - at least out of those who weren't already very powerful (for example, America's recent warmongering has tended to have either almost no effect or a positive effect on itself, since it has been extremely powerful compared to the countries it invaded).
  - V-2 4y ago
    If you won, say, 5 wars (which - yes - will put you in a small minority, because some countries had to be losing these wars, and obviously the losers outnumber you), then you can afford losing another 2. But if you only ever lost 1 or 2 wars, you're no longer on the world map.
- watwut 4y ago
  Alexander The Great was leading expansive war, it is pretty much guaranteed that a lot of people had very bad times due to him. Especially since at the time, armies fed themselves entirely from looting - while farming was t subsistence level without much surplus. Plus, after he died, civil wars broke up, which does not suggest happy people either.
  - simiones 4y ago
    I think it's fair to say that, however you look at it, the quote is using "hard times" and "good times" from the perspective of the in-group, not any out-group. So, whatever destruction Alexander visited on those he conquered is kind of irrelevant to this quote - the only thing that would matter for checking whether the quote applies is whether Alexander improved the lot of his own people. That is, was he a strong man who was created by the hard times of his youth/parents' generation, and did he create good times for his own people? Per the quote, the people Alexander conquered should themselves be considered weak men who will leave hard times for their children (being conquered/looted by Alexander, who they couldn't win against because of their weakness); but whose children, or grandchildren, will be stronger than them and create good times anew.