mellow yellow wrote: Merry Andrew wrote:
On the face of it, it's a vast generalization, therefore highly suspect as a premise. On the other hand, I can see where a pro argument could be made. But you have to make the argument before it can be rebutted.
I concur on the last statement, though sweeping generalisations as premises are not at risk (of losing their validity) due to their scope alone; it would depend on the conclusion etc.
Of course, as a conclusion, 'You can't change the world without bloodshed.' is not such a heavy claim on the nature of man- political man. As is, the conclusion is vague; with some qualification, a good inductive argument could be made.
The conclusion has been disproven
Beyond major (bloodless) changers of the world, Edison, etc,
the numbers of men who have bloodlessly changed the world
n subtle ways cannot be counted.
Well, the statement does not constitute a theorem, and it can be false depending on its context etc; which is to say that it can be the cl. to an invalid argument and so on. But what it refers to specifies a context- albeit lightly and "through" the words, as it were.
My opinion is that the author of it is referring to a general conception of our state "in" life- or socio-politically- and brings up the sentiment that social and political "change" (in man) may be a function of heavy-handed authority driven to demand
it rather than request it through an electorate. "Man is man," it is suggesting, "...and little seems to be done for the better without a force to bring it out."
The Leviathan by Hobbes considers this sentiment.