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

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#21

Post by mcv »

speeder wrote: post #10
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.…

Now can you explain to me how the same idea apply to semen? Because it was also considered "unclean", in the same manner menstrual blood was.

They probably didn't want you spewing that near the water source in the center of the camp either. You know the type exists.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#22

Post by reggieband »

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.…

> you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people

It is interesting that we hate cynicism when expressed by others yet we feel entitled to express it ourselves. Sometimes it is a good idea, when judging the behaviour of others, to consider options other than malice.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#23

Post by mcv »

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…

My experience exactly. I've been trying to read the bible with an eye for historical context (rather than the "biblical literalism" that has been so harmful over the past two centuries or so). It helps a lot in making sense of things.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#25

Post by Trombone12 »

speeder wrote: post #10
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.…

Now can you explain to me how the same idea apply to semen? Because it was also considered "unclean", in the same manner menstrual blood was.

An obvious difference is that it's the semen that makes things unclean, while for menstruation it's the woman herself that is the unclean agent.

For semen, there is a clear distinction that it is anything it touches becomes dirty and needs washing. But for menstruation its whatever the woman touches that becomes unclean (and for seven days it seems!), not merely what the blood touches.

The original comment thus provides an explanation for why these two cases are treated separately, which is basically what you asked for.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#27

Post by mcv »

earthboundkid wrote: post #2

Who was Chairman Mao's Julius Caesar? Who was Sun Yat-sen's Alexander the Great? Who was Laozi's Descartes?

I can't help but think you completely missed the point of the article with a response like that. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu both reacted to the ideas of other generals. Napoleon, in the case of Clausewitz, and apparently this duke of Song for Sun Tzu. Understanding this can help us understand his writings better.

So according to you, who responded to Julius Caesar in a way that's relevant to what Mao did? What did Sun Yat-sen do that requires a comparison to Alexander in order to better understand him? Or are you just listing random names without having read the article?

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#28

Post by heavenlyblue »

vertig0h wrote: post #13
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.…

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.

However that was regularly used to prove that women are more wicked than men.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#29

Post by rmah »

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…

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 people, but is, IMO, a valuable approach.

Thus, "project[ing] their own ideas into an authoritative source" is perfectly fine if phrased a bit more nicely. Perhaps more like "adapt our understanding of the source material in light of contemporary thinking". Not to say that context doesn't matter at all, especially with translations. But in the end, when analyzing works such as "Art of War", it's unavoidable that we project our current context onto its text. As post-modernists point out, we cannot escape our biases, so why pretend to do so?

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#30

Post by rehasu »

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 elements where they act like the character would coincidentally slip into a situation but actually was probably stupid on purpose to create a much better outcome for himself. My favorite example being when Caocao fails to kill Dong Zhuo who is laying in front of him sleeping. If you are a mass murderer like either of these two there is almost no chance to fail to assassinate someone laying in front of you sleeping. And yet Caocao did.

What happened due to this failure? The rebels took him in and started to listen to his ideas, when before they ignored him due to his low background. Also one of his biggest competitors, Wang Yun, who coincidentally is the owner of the knife used in the attempted murder.

What would have happened if he had successfully killed Dong Zhuo? Lu Bu probably would have killed him on the spot. Maybe he would go in history as a small hero but he would have never become emperor.

Post reply on HN