Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

thestrategybridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#41

Post by kazinator »

the_af wrote: post #38
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.

Like "print" really means to make hardcopy output on paper, and not some generalities about output that can go anywhere. We shouldn't cacsually untether that from the original context and use it in a terminal emulator, let alone for generating part of a web page.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#42

Post by the_af »

rmah wrote: post #29
torben-friis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As eru tersely pointed out, most contemporary literary analysis and criticism is no longer based on what the author meant, but instead based on how the work itself, irrespective of the author's intent or the context within which it was written. Thus, instead of a search for "the truth" as expressed by the author's inner thinking, the question instead becomes how work affects readers. This, obviously, bothers many peo…

You're right. And this projection is both inevitable and welcome.

But you must admit it's at least a bit funny if when you read Sun Tzu's "attack your enemy's allies" you understand "work to undermine the alliance, maybe sow discontent so that they turn against each other" but wise old Sun Tzu actually meant "physically stab your enemy's ally with your sword. Right through the heart. That's what 'attacking' means, right? What do you mean 'undermine', anyway?".

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#43

Post by Psyladine »

philwelch wrote: post #36
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…

> 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.”

Alexander would just marry off tribal chieftain's daughters to his generals and move on to the next trouble spot, seems like a hard sell with today's mores & norms.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#44

Post by the_af »

kazinator wrote: post #41
the_af wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like "print" really means to make hardcopy output on paper, and not some generalities about output that can go anywhere. We shouldn't cacsually untether that from the original context and use it in a terminal emulator, let alone for generating part of a web page.

People tend to consider philosophy/strategy in way more generalizable terms than tech words like "print". But what if Sun Tzu wasn't really all that generalizable?

What if he was literally telling you how to put an arrow through the eye of the enemy general? How do you write a self-help book "based on The Art of War" out of that? (You can still derive general meaning that wasn't put there by Sun Tzu, but it's a lot harder!)

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#45

Post by rehasu »

east2west wrote: post #40
ConfusedDog wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

The fable of the scorpion and the frog is also unreal. Yet you can learn something from it.

PS: And yes, good catch. Cao cao actually wasn't emperor officially. His son became emperor. Totally forgot that point for some reason.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#46

Post by EthanHeilman »

Seenso wrote: post #37
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 r…

>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.

Strong agree. Clausewitz has a whole Chapter on billeting armies. The advice presented is mostly of use to historians. Not everything he wrote was timeless. Applying a work in a modern context involves understanding its limitations and the context in which it was written.

Why did Clausewitz think X? If X is still relevant today, is it relevant for the same reasons that it was 200 years ago?

Does this idea X truly transcend time, or are there just many important similarities between our time and the time of Clausewitz?

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#47

Post by codingaround »

Psyladine wrote: post #43
philwelch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.” Alexander would just marry off tribal chieftain's daughters to his generals and move on to the next trouble spot, seems like a hard sell with today's mores & norms.

today, it would be bribes. Same method different "goods" passing around.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#48

Post by cbanek »

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…

And of course, my other favorite Zhuge Liang story is when he passed away, and there was the Battle of Wuzhang Plains:

"A dead Zhuge scares away a living Zhongda (Sima Yi)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wuzhang_Plains

Then of course there's the gathering of arrows, but there are too many good stories to talk about. Just look in one of my brocade sacks, each has a useful story! (Chapter 54)

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#49

Post by claudiawerner »

diryawish wrote: post #12
thechao wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's hardly "mind reading" when their actions are visible. Misogyny is not only a state of mind, can consist in a set of actions. From what we know about these ancient societies, they were heavily misogynistic.

If you were to look at American in the 1950s, what would it take for me to convice you that society was a racist one? Would you say that any such claim means I am reading the minds of the people who enforced the Jim Crow laws?

Let's say there were a civilization of which we have no written records other than the list of the rules by which that society was governed. The rules state that women are unclean and inferior to men, they must keep silent in places of worship, and they are not allowed to hold public offices or own houses. Would interpreting that as a misogynistic society be a "fucking joke"?

If we knew that the Romans had slaves, but we didn't know why slavery existed, would it be a "fucking joke" to call that society classist?

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#50

Post by azurezyq »

Zuo Zhuan is an awesome book with lots of stories about strategic thinking. The writing style is also very succinct and quite pleasant to read (require knowledge about classic Chinese for sure). One good example is the following piece which I read from my high school textbook.

English translation:

https://oastarod.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/zhu-zhiwu-causes-t...

It describes how an excellent diplomat manipulated vulnerabilities between countries to turn down a conflict. It happened in 630BC, but still applies to today.

Post reply on HN