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

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#31

Post by Trombone12 » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 6:59 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…

Another expression for "eternally true" is often "bloody obvious" though. And even in cases where it isn't, the first source is not usually the one we go back to; it's certainly not true that we all keep reading Euclid's Elements to learn about the deep mysteries of maths.

No, just being right is an insufficient explanation for why textbooks will obtain the mythical status of the works you reference.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#32

Post by nyolfen » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

Trombone12 wrote: post #31

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…

Another expression for "eternally true" is often "bloody obvious" though. And even in cases where it isn't, the first source is not usually the one we go back to; it's certainly not true that we all keep reading Euclid's Elements to learn about the deep mysteries of maths. No, just being right is an insufficient explanation for why textbooks will obtain the mythical status of the works you reference.

it’s obvious because it has already percolated into mainstream thought

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#33

Post by ConfusedDog » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

rehasu wrote: post #30

A point that was also enlightening to me: Chinese literature has two components. One is the theoretical analysis like Sunzi Bingfa, Hanfeizi etc. The other examples of application in different contexts, given in form of stories. It's impressive how much more you can understand and learn if you combine Sunzi Bingfa with Sanguo Yanyi for instance. Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story e…

Same goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show "JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story - KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew. Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han, and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strategist who has won people's heart - SiMa Yi would surely be killed. It's a great modern TV show.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#34

Post by the_af » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

My understanding about the article, which makes it interesting to me, is that (according to TFA) a lot of what is generally understood about The Art of War as general strategic concerns applied in very large scales or long timeframes was actually way more literal than people think. Always according to TFA, when Sun Tzu recommends "attacking allies" he literally means attacking them on the battlefield, because they are more likely to flee -- not undermining alliances prior to a war, as many people understand it. Likewise, when he means "attacking the enemy's strategy" he didn't mean "undermining the long term grand strategy of the enemy" but actually "acting to neutralize the immediate battlefield plan" (as in "if the enemy tries to lay a siege, provoke him into attacking"). Here strategy means "immediate battlefield plan", not "long term nation-wide strategy".

Overall, always according to TFA, Sun Tzu's Art of Way is way more practical and literal, and less "hand-wavey overall strategy" than generally understood. I think I actually like this because it more or less destroys its appropriation by self-help/business gurus. After all, if Sun Tzu is literally talking about killing your enemies while they are crossing the river, it's less useful as a metaphor for startups -- a welcome side-effect.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#35

Post by lowdose » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:35 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…

The same families that where in power in Florence at the time of writing of the Prince are still in power today.

That is also for Shakespeare and the families in GB. Maybe satire was necessary to disguise criticism. But the underlying meaning is crystal clear.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3618720/amp/...

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#36

Post by philwelch » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:37 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 the author here somewhat poisoned the well by starting with Clausewitz’s annoyance at the trope of invoking ancient history. The fact is, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Thucydides, and the rest are simultaneously both best understood within their historical context while simultaneously being timeless. How can that be? In the words of a devoted student of military history, James Mattis:

“Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face NOTHING new under the sun. For all the “4th Generation of War” intellectuals running around today saying that the nature of war has fundamentally changed, the tactics are wholly new, etc, I must respectfully say. “Not really”. Alexander the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy that we face right now in Iraq, and our leaders going into this fight do their troops a disservice by not studying (studying, vice just reading) the men who have gone before us.”

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#37

Post by Seenso » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:37 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…

>> 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".

Yes and no. IIRC, Sun Tzu strongly advises against attacking walled cities. The edition of Sun Tzu that I read made the point that reason for that was because, at his time, siege engine technology was not up to the task. In Sun Pin, written a few hundred years later, the advice changed.

There's a core there that does transcend "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination," but you kinda need to tether the text to its milieu to find it.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#38

Post by the_af » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:42 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 a key point of the article is that The Art of War is actually way more literal and immediate than most people think it is. So if Sun Tzu wasn't talking in strategic generalities, but actually giving practical advice for the realities of his time (social, technological, etc) it's mistaken to "untether" it from its milieu, and also mistaken to consider it as a template for modern-day advice.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#39

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:43 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…

[deleted]

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#40

Post by east2west » Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

ConfusedDog wrote: post #33

rehasu wrote: post #30

A point that was also enlightening to me: Chinese literature has two components. One is the theoretical analysis like Sunzi Bingfa, Hanfeizi etc. The other examples of application in different contexts, given in form of stories. It's impressive how much more you can understand and learn if you combine Sunzi Bingfa with Sanguo Yanyi for instance. Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story e…

Same goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show "JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story - KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew. Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han, and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strate…

First of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of "Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative "truth" that drama speculated.

Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for a long time. Sima Yi represented powerful large land-owners who would gain monopoly on official positions during Cao Pi's reign, Cao Cao's son. It is a recipe for weakening imperial authority and endangering emperors. Historians argue that Cao Cao passed up the chance to become emperor because he would not countenance such policy.

Third, that TV show is like so much of Chinese TV that is a wasteland. It is melodramatic, ludicrous, and laughably bad acting. I am sorry, but it is unwatchable, not just the show, even the trailer. Compare the stylized combat and bloodletting to the realism of "Game of Throne" (yes, I am ware of the irony of calling historical drama fake and fantasy real); there is no comparison. Nothing there is believable, much like every word out of CCP's mouth. It is sad, really.