Discussion “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must”.

[CrazyDiamond04]

This was a quote said by Ancient Greek philosopher and political scientist Thucydides. I believe it to be a very poignant and realistic quote about how the world fundamentally works. Despite how society has improved between Thucydides time and now, the same fundamental rules of nature stay true. Unfortunately, the weak are doomed and shall always be. Do you agree with this quote and sentiment? If not, why not?

 

[whywere]

Overall, no, please let me explain. At the age of 67, I have been in the business world for over 40 years and have seen a lot. First aspect that comes to mind for/to me is the word: Karma. I have seen "strong" people, one's who had money and/or power and either make complete fools of themselves and/or have something bad happen to them either in business or personal world.

I have also seen through the decades where the old maximum of money does not buy happiness comes into play. Yes, some can afford the fancy car, boat, etc, BUT then why do some use drugs, cheat on their partners, have drinking issues, the list goes on.

Having money/power does not mean that someone will go off the rails in life, but it happens to some, and money did not help make them happy.

I read every once in a while, where a musician, movie person, and the like OD or along those lines and they had/have so much power/money/strong.

I will take a so called "weak" person/family whoever in an instant over a "strong" person. I know where the Weaks" heart is and I have to guess if, sometimes, then "strong" even have a heart.

Walter

 

[CrazyDiamond04]

Overall, no, please let me explain. At the age of 67, I have been in the business world for over 40 years and have seen a lot. First aspect that comes to mind for/to me is the word: Karma. I have seen "strong" people, one's who had money and/or power and either make complete fools of themselves and/or have something bad happen to them either in business or personal world.

I have also seen through the decades where the old maximum of money does not buy happiness comes into play. Yes, some can afford the fancy car, boat, etc, BUT then why do some use drugs, cheat on their partners, have drinking issues, the list goes on.

Having money/power does not mean that someone will go off the rails in life, but it happens to some, and money did not help make them happy.

I read every once in a while, where a musician, movie person, and the like OD or along those lines and they had/have so much power/money/strong.

I will take a so called "weak" person/family whoever in an instant over a "strong" person. I know where the Weaks" heart is and I have to guess if, sometimes, then "strong" even have a heart.

Walter

Definitely a unique perspective. I guess a lot of it rests on what you would define as "weak" or "strong". I do think that money and general social status correlates a lot with power, though there are definitely exceptions. I look at the world around me and see this as generally true; the unequal distribution of power creates both the haves and the have-nots. This is mostly an unsolvable problem as there will likely always be those with and those without.

 

[SexyIncél]

Yeah, geopolitical analysts point out Thucydides's maxim is a common principle in world affairs

But there's others: "to mention merely one example, almost half the population consider the phrase 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' to be such an obvious truth that they attribute it to the U.S. Constitution, a text taken to be akin to Holy Writ."

Social movements can activate & nullify these principles. At any given moment, a culture reflects the movements that were more or less successful in implementing them

I do think that money and general social status correlates a lot with power, though there are definitely exceptions. I look at the world around me and see this as generally true; the unequal distribution of power creates both the haves and the have-nots. This is mostly an unsolvable problem as there will likely always be those with and those without.

An archaeologist & anthropologist teamed up to write a book. They started researching "the origins of social inequality". Then they realized that's the wrong question: "If there is a particular story we should be telling, a big question we should be asking of human history (instead of the 'origins of social inequality'), is it precisely this: how did we find ourselves stuck in just one form of social reality, and how did relations based ultimately on violence and domination come to be normalized within it?"

So we can imagine me having more stuff than you. I'm a big hoarder & you want to live light. And we could have roughly the same freedoms. Unless I can leverage my stuff into political power & dominate you

 

[CrazyDiamond04]

Yeah, geopolitical analysts point out Thucydides's maxim is a common principle in world affairs

But there's others: "to mention merely one example, almost half the population consider the phrase 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' to be such an obvious truth that they attribute it to the U.S. Constitution, a text taken to be akin to Holy Writ."

Social movements can activate & nullify these principles. At any given moment, a culture reflects the movements that were more or less successful in implementing them


An archaeologist & anthropologist teamed up to write a book. They started researching "the origins of social inequality". Then they realized that's the wrong question: "If there is a particular story we should be telling, a big question we should be asking of human history (instead of the 'origins of social inequality'), is it precisely this: how did we find ourselves stuck in just one form of social reality, and how did relations based ultimately on violence and domination come to be normalized within it?"

So we can imagine me having more stuff than you. I'm a big hoarder & you want to live light. And we could have roughly the same freedoms. Unless I can leverage my stuff into political power & dominate you

That's the thing though. Most people who have power leverage that power in order to benefit them, even if it comes at the expense of others. I don't believe the powerful are purely maleficent in their actions, simply self interested. It just so happens that their self interest coincides with harming others.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yes, I think there's truth in that. I suppose suicide is a refusal to accept suffering anymore. We realise that it isn't a 'must' that we accept suffering- we do have a choice. Irony is- I'd argue you have to be strong in order to risk killing yourself. Despite people labelling it as cowardly- 'the easy way out', it isn't. Plenty can go wrong during any attempt which can very well lead to more intense suffering. It's a gamble at best but people will do it if their current situation is extreme enough.

 

[sserafim]

I think life is a cruel game of survival of the fittest, and of winners and losers. The "winners" are "strong" and the "losers" are "weak". Nature has always been like this, and I hate it. In our current society, the ones with money, power and influence are "strong" and the ones who aren't (usually the working class) are "weak".

The "weak" are slaves to capitalism and the corporations, and the "strong" are the ruling class who exploit the workers and the masses. Unfortunately the "weak" have no power or agency to fight back, so they're stuck in this exploitative system of a late stage capitalistic society, working for and being exploited by corporate overlords. Furthermore, the "weak" have been brainwashed into accepting this, and think that just by "working hard" you will become rich and successful. But it's not that simple. There are so many factors at play, like luck and opportunities (which the "strong" naturally have more of already). The strong and weak just aren't on equal footing to begin with.

That's why it's so hard for the weak to advance to become strong, because the strong are naturally advantaged (money/ wealth, social standing/status/ prestige, connections) and they've conditioned the weak into accepting their place without questioning it.

Hopefully one day there can be a revolution so that capitalism can be overthrown. This is the only way for the "weak" to regain their power. Workers of the world unite

 

[EpistemicSloth]

Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard this quote before, but it sounds spot on. The only thing I would add is some complexity that looks past this dichotomy. The strong can become weak, and do from sickness, accidents, old age, etc. The weak can become strong, though with many contingencies of course. Everyone is born weak. Everyone will weaken with age. Furthermore, one can be weak but be better off than someone strong, if for example the weak one is being taken care of by others, and the strong one is alone and in a dangerous environment.

So generally speaking the quote is true, but it's important at times to try to see more than just the general patterns, and to not be blinded by notions of dichotomous absolutism. Especially if you want to minimize the extent to which you suffer in this life.

 

[Tobacco]

It's a sad reality of life. It's so horrible. The only answer is to not play this game (not being born).

There's also other quote: Might makes right.

This seems to be true in international relations.

 

[sserafim]

It's a sad reality of life. It's so horrible. The only answer is to not play this game (not being born).

There's also other quote: Might makes right.

This seems to be true in international relations.

The saddest thing though is that none of us had a choice to consent or not to being born. We were all brought into existence without our consent.

 

[SmollMushroom]

Beautiful quote. I 100% agree.
Even tho, sometimes it's hard to define who is the strong and who is the weak.

Many strong people have failed at some point in their lives and could not do what they will.
So what does that mean? That they were weak?
And many of the weak have improved to become strong.

I guess only the ending of one's story matters, to be able to firmly say if they were weak or strong.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I'm gonna be a prick here real quick.

Doesn't there seem to be a bit of a definitional issue here? What does it even mean to be strong (or weak)?

Do wealth and control equate to strength? Personal power and physical might? Intellect and self control? It's kinda hard to define, as all of these things could equate to strength and yet also could entirely fail to be strength. There has to be a better way to define it.

To me, the problem with the quote is that it's sort of inherent. To me, being strong means having the ability to impose one's will onto the world, and thus on others. To be weak is to be at the mercy of the world and others. So the quote is basically saying water is wet.

Being able to do what you will makes you strong, suffering what you must makes you weak. How else would one define strength and weakness?

Double prick time.

But what does it mean to impose your will onto the world? To do what you will? What determines what you want in the first place?

You're born in a time and place you didn't choose, you're given genetics you didn't choose. You go through life encountering countless circumstances you didn't choose. Forming memories of things you didn't choose to experience. In response, you form your desires, your personality, and act as you do. All your wants are entirely determined by circumstance. In other words, you're automatically at the mercy of the world around you by existing.

After all, what could you even want if the world didn't present at least some bits of information to you? But you didn't choose that information, nor did you choose your inherent disposition for how you respond to it. What strength is there in that?

At the end of the day, all of us are at the mercy of the world and suffer what we must. Some of that suffering comes in the form of the actions of others, sure, but their actions were themselves at the mercy of the world.

To imply that there are the strong who do what they will and that there are the weak who will suffer what they must, seems to imply a belief in evil. After all, what suffering would there be if the strong were all good and kind?

But the truth, at least to me, is that we're all weak. We're all at the mercy of the world.

 

[real person]

Thucydides was spitting