Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#11

Post by pazimzadeh » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #9

speeder wrote: post #5

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived…

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny.…

I think it's a little bit of both. Scientific-type thinking is not restricted to modern times and a lot can be deduced simply from observation, given a large enough sample size.

On the other hand, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#12

Post by diryawish » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #9

speeder wrote: post #5

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived…

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny.…

Calling reasonable inference pseudoscience while assuming to read the minds of men 2000 years ago and claim misogynic inspiration for their actions is such a fucking joke.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#13

Post by vertig0h » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #9

speeder wrote: post #5

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived…

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny.…

Menstrual blood is pretty gross though. It's not misogynistic to recognize that. Plenty of gender neutral bodily fluids are gross too. Another person's bodily fluids in general are gross.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#14

Post by torben-friis » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #7

> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination". Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they…

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not?

I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#15

Post by blackearl » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #9

speeder wrote: post #5

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived…

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny.…

I generally don't want anyone's bodily fluids near me, regardless of gender.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#16

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #14

leftyted wrote: post #7

> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination". Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they…

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only…

[deleted]

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#17

Post by DiddledByPriest » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #5

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived…

A certain issue involving priests and children is controversial today. Would you say that this can be understood if you consider that historically powerful men have been doing whatever they wanted and gotten away with it and organized religion has been a safe haven for them?

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#18

Post by captain_price7 » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #7

> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination". Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they…

I think this line, and in fact the entire essay, isn't meant for general people, rather fellow academics. In the very next sentences author writes- "The Art of War’s brevity and malleability will ensure it remains a popular and frequently quoted classic in the West. But for those seeking deeper insight into the evolution of Chinese strategic thinking, it remains an important but insufficient means to that end."

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#19

Post by eru » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #14

leftyted wrote: post #7

> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination". Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they…

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only…

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#20

Post by leftyted » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #14

leftyted wrote: post #7

> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination". Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they…

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only…

> I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige.

What I've found is that, in critiques of an earlier philosopher, the most common attitude is an acceptance of key insights, but debate over their implications and the extent of their application. So, whether or not you see The Prince as satire, it is valued for its skepticism of abstract ideas and insistence on realpolitik. That is the transcendent perspective of The Prince, and that isn't really debated, as far as I know.

When I read Machievelli in school, we learned that he was a republican but that The Prince was really, truly advice for autocrats. There's no contradiction here because Machievlli is a realist and he understands that autocracies happen and sometimes they might even be necessary (hey, we in the US have martial law for a reason).