Final answer:
The bricklayer might blame weak walls on poor quality materials, improper construction methods, or flawed foundational principles. Historical comparisons suggest that changes, even those initially resisted, can lead to improved durability and safety, as seen in past construction practices evolving from wood to brick and steel.
Step-by-step explanation:
The bricklayer may blame the weakness of the wall on a variety of factors, such as the quality of materials used, the construction method, or exposure to destructive environmental elements. When examining historical construction practices, we find that various materials like wood, brick, stone, or mud bricks were used. However, wood does not last as long as stone and can rot away or be damaged by fire. Architectural strategies, such as the post and lintel system seen in places like the Palace of Karnak, were built to last but had limitations regarding span and distance.
In metaphorical terms, as with Wang Anshi's view on the state, the bricklayer might believe the foundation or principles upon which the wall was built were not solid enough and required significant change, even at the cost of temporary dysfunctionality. Such changes, while initially opposed by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, could potentially lead to stronger and more enduring structures, both literally and figuratively. This idea suggests a blame that goes beyond the physical wall to the underlying philosophy and practice of its construction.
History has shown that catastrophes can lead to better building practices, as seen when cities replaced wooden structures with those made of brick and steel, to prevent the easy spread of fire. Thus, the bricklayer may also blame weak building regulations and standards which failed to anticipate or prevent such weaknesses.