Good times make soft men, bad times make hard men. I never quite understood what the implication was and I always questioned the historical accuracy because no part of history is so easily defined as "good time" or "bad time."
From the Wikipedia summary:
"The work is based around Ibn Khaldun's central concept of aṣabiyyah, translated as "group cohesiveness" or "solidarity".[41] This social cohesion arises spontaneously in tribes and other small kinship groups; it can be intensified and enlarged by a religious ideology. Ibn Khaldun's analysis looks at how this cohesion carries groups to power but contains within itself the seeds – psychological, sociological, economic, political – of the group's downfall, to be replaced by a new group, dynasty or empire bound by a stronger (or at least younger and more vigorous) cohesion."
I'm not sure how it's supposed to work out. The US is arguably currently under the control of the baby boomers, who were brought up in good times. And those good times were brought on by the two generations before them who were brought up in tough times (two world wars, depression, etc)? But that feels tenuous at best
Yeah, I rather doubt that the direction of history can so easily be summarized by good/bad times and soft/hard men.
This obviously means "human" in this context.
But of course this saying is just a meme at best, it doesn't work like that in reality. In fact, good times make strong men just like good childhood makes strong adults.
In the abstract yes. In practice I mainly hear this meme spouted by trad-masculine-sparta types.
I disagree, people who say this often are "great men of history" types that genuinely ascribe much of the significant events in human history to the activities of men alone.
I think the phrasing can come across as a bit macho, which I don't think is the point. It's about resilience.
I think to an extent the mental impact of it is a necessary evil. The future resilience manifests as a drive to not find yourself in the same (or an equally difficult) position again — because it’s so emotionally devastating — so you fight harder to not allow it to happen again. This makes a person more driven in general.
Another aspect is that you’ve seen how ‘deep’ an emotion can be (traumatic) and so more ‘everyday’ emotional events can seem much more trivial, making them easier to deal with. Although, it can sometimes leave the person seeming ‘cold’ emotionally. One thing I found was I was less tolerant of people without the level of resilience I had, which I had to work on.
Of course, there will be some people that can’t endure the initial hardship and don’t develop that resilience. My impression is that most people do endure and find a way to come out of the other side, like a basic survival instinct, although that’s purely anecdotal.
Hell I guess you can describe them as "hard men" but I wouldn't want to be that way and it doesn't seem to make you more successful in modern society.
Not sure what else you’re expecting? I’m not advocating imposed hardship, just trying to give some context for why it can often lead to a more robust and driven person. It’s clearly not universally true.
I imagine there are lots of veterans that are able to cope and have become more robust. But there will always be mental health aftershocks, because that’s why it was a hardship in the first place.
Abused kids domt grow stronger either. They grow weaker and less capable of navigating life too.