[simiones]

> 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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[watwut]

> 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.

That is not inherent in that quote at all. Quote is very general and also is used generally to imply superiority of strong man. Putin and his army does qualify even from our perspective.

Also, if you say it is only from in-group perspective and create such quote, then we are looking at genocide approving philosophy. In that case, arguing by fundamental immorality of both quote and underlying filosophy becomes requirement. Because if it is used approvingly,it will make us more likely to commit genocide or other similarly bad act.

Also, whether he created good times should be judged by whether people in in-group had good times. Large conquered territory is not the same thing.