Is Sun Tzu even a philosopher? I thought he was a general.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;48136712]Is Sun Tzu even a philosopher? I thought he was a general.[/QUOTE]
The Art of War was essentially tactical philosophy.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48136715]The Art of War was essentially tactical philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Strategic philosophy, technically
[QUOTE=Svinnik;48136712]Is Sun Tzu even a philosopher? I thought he was a general.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the Sun Tzu who "wrote" the art of war doesn't exist, as it is more a compilation of knowledge from many sources rather than from one person.
[QUOTE=richard9311;48137086]I'm pretty sure the Sun Tzu who "wrote" the art of war doesn't exist, as it is more a compilation of knowledge from many sources rather than from one person.[/QUOTE]
There's a lot of historical debate about how much believed about him is true, or if he did exist at all, but for the majority of history he has been attributed as the author on the most comprehensive text ever created on military command, war and battle strategy. It doesn't really matter so much if he actually existed or not to the layman because the book attributed to him does and is of considerable significance.
I remember in my AP World history class I chose the Art of War as my summer reading, in my essay summarizing its historical context and significance I said "the Art of War is not about history, but rather an instruction manual on how to make history".
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48136715]The Art of War was essentially tactical philosophy.[/QUOTE]
literally no such thing
[editline]6th July 2015[/editline]
if you had said the philosophy of war i'd say okay but tactical philosophy? think about that.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48137204]There's a lot of historical debate about how much believed about him is true, or if he did exist at all, but for the majority of history he has been attributed as the author on the most comprehensive text ever created on military command, war and battle strategy. It doesn't really matter so much if he actually existed or not to the layman because the book attributed to him does and is of considerable significance.
I remember in my AP World history class I chose the Art of War as my summer reading, in my essay summarizing its historical context and significance I said "the Art of War is not about history, but rather an instruction manual on how to make history".[/QUOTE]
I don't think Sun Tzu can be considered the author of the most comprehensive military text ever. I'd argue more modern authors such as Clausewitz and his book [I]On War[/I] laid the groundwork for post-Napoleonic military theory. The idea of total war, destruction of the opponent's ability to wage war, and realpolitik permeated practically every war since [I]On War[/I]'s penning. Sun Tzu, while good for metaphorical philosophy, is out-dated and falls short on both the strategic and tactical scope. Finally, I don't think Sun Tzu was ever truly used as the basis for combat theory in combat, at least in the West, while Clausewitz was.
What a lot of people forget about Sun Tzu is that his advice was for a sovereign is mostly common sense. It actually goes into detail about ways to prevent a conflict and gain an advantage without even having to do battle, and it's a very short work indeed.
The book of Lord Shang is similar and goes into detail about how to reform and run a state with the intention of building a powerful and mighty empire, although the country described as ideal in it resembles Oceania in 1984. It's no wonder that the Qin Dynasty collapsed.
"What is winning?" got me good.
I wasn't really liking it until the second Eastern verse, after that the flow seemed much better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
