What Sun Tzu's Art of War is and what it's not

5/4/2019

Contrary to what people think they know, Sun Tzu's Art of War doesn't promote war. It doesn't promote violence. It is a work of great wisdom and humanity. If you can hold on to these indisputable concepts in your mind, you will not go wrong.

Recently I see writings in academic circles that try to promote the notion that The Art of War isn't a work of humaneness. That's rather unfortunate and misguided. These academics should pick up their phone. The year 1987 is calling. They are making the same mistakes that others have made before 1988 when Dr. Thomas Cleary wrote his groundbreaking introduction in his translation of The Art of War. He was the first major Western scholar to have gotten our Chinese classic correct.

So with this blog entry I am trying to set the record straight once again. Education is a never-ending endeavor.

Sun Tzu's Art of War is one of the most useful books you can read to stop and prevent conflict. The politicians who read and understand it are less likely to advocate wars. Military generals who read and understand it are more prudent in launching attacks. The everyday civilians who read and understand it are less prone to anger and rash behavior. Sun Tzu's Art of War can help anyone because there is nobody who doesn't have to deal with conflict in his or her life. Our book doesn't simply advise measured actions but quick, powerful, and creative actions to ensure victory and return to harmony. This difference seems subtle but substantial in practice.

May all individuals see things from a wise and mature perspective in the future, one of effective education and peace. ☮

P.S. If you want to discuss more about this, feel free to post your comment below and we'll discuss further.

18 Comments

GTG

5/4/2019 06:43:15 pm

I agree--The Art of War is all about using Wisdom
One of its Greatest Principles "Is taking things whole".
Not trying to gain by singling out and attacking people.
If any thing the Art of War is a manual of how to prevent war.

Thomas Huynh link

5/5/2019 08:41:03 am

That's why we call it the Department of Defense, not the Department of War. But too many view war as a solution instead of a last option. People who glorify wars are the least to be fighting in them. They are invariably chickenhawks.

Richard Lenerz

5/5/2019 10:01:48 am

I'm not sure if you knew, but that picture is a japanese wood block print of a famous hero saga.

5/11/2019 06:02:52 pm

Thank you Richard.

Dean

5/5/2019 02:33:30 pm

Sun Tzu can be corrupted and perverted for ones on use like any other Strategy Guide. Look at Clausewitz's On War.
"War is a continuation of politics by other means"

5/11/2019 06:03:30 pm

Not sure what you are trying to convey here. Please clarify.

John Sullivan

5/7/2019 06:40:52 pm

While I agree completely with your view that Sun Tzu neither promoted war or violence, I diverge from your corollary that Sun Tzu therefore advocated peace and non-violence in his text. Lest we forget, in Chapter 12 Sun Tzu not only declares burning enemy personnel to death as a legitimate use of military force, but also suggests that if wind conditions are favorable, one should simultaneously launch an attack to further inflict damage on the enemy forces.

In Chapter 3, when one discovers that one’s own army is five times the size of the enemy’s, Sun Tzu doesn’t recommend that one try to convince the enemy of the futility in continuing to resist. He instead gives one simple piece of advice: ATTACK. In fact, the term “attack” gets 56 mentions within the text, “defense” a mere 14, and “peace” only 1 (“If [the enemy] suffers no setback and yet sues for peace, he is plotting” Chapter 9).

Sun Tzu recommends plundering the enemy’s food supply six times within the text, and in Chapter 7 advises one to “invade and plunder like a rapidly spreading fire.” While Sun Tzu’s main impetus is to prevent hardship back in his own territory while his army invades its neighbor, we have to at least admit that he shows a callous disregard for how much pain and suffering this will cause to the women, children and elderly living in that plundered region who also desperately relied on that same food supply for survival. Today this strategy would be considered a war crime.

The problem is that ancient Chinese texts are highly susceptible to being interpreted (or misrepresented) in ways that are designed to conform to our own personal preference, but are not necessarily in line with the original arguments. Take, for example, the Xunzi (Hsun-tzu) quote you use in your blog entry “Who was Sun Tzu?” which appears to favorably reference The Art of War from an esteemed Confucian philosopher (and near-peer of Sun Tzu). What you may or may not know, though, is that while this quote comes from the Xunzi text, it does not come from Xunzi himself. In the chapter “A Debate on Military Affairs,” Lord Linwu first presents the quote you reference--that all one needs to do in military affairs is to follow the advice of Sun [Wu] and Wu [Qi]. Xunzi then goes into a lengthy discussion as to why this is terrible advice and while you might realize ephemeral tactical gains, you will inevitably suffer strategic defeat. He states that relying on Sun Tzu’s counsel is equivalent to “stirring a pot of boiling water with your bare finger.”

Now one could certainly make counter-arguments to many of Xunzi’s points, but the main take-away is that if one of the greatest thinkers in Chinese history did not consider it blasphemous to find fault in Sun Tzu’s theory and critically examine it, neither should we. As E. Bruce and A. Taeko Brooks, two scholars of writings from the Warring States period helpfully remind us, “the ancient texts were not speaking to us, they were arguing with each other.” The value in reflecting on these ancient texts lies not in the answers they provide us, but rather in the questions they grappled with. The moment we declare one interpretation as providing the “correct” answer, and labelling anyone challenging that interpretation as heretics, we will find that we have long wandered off of the path leading towards better understanding.

5/11/2019 07:08:46 pm

There is a correct answer. When Sun Tzu speaks about the five factors of victory in war, the center of it all is the general. Sun Tzu said the general must be wise, trustworthy, benevolent, brave, and disciplined. The character for benevolence is 仁, which can also be rendered as humanity or humane. What philosopher who is amoral about violence would list humanity, much less making it a key factor to success in war?

5/15/2019 03:41:41 am

Thomas,

You asked what philosopher would list benevolence or humaneness as a vital component to success in war but not truly mean it. I will throw out two examples:

- Hitler extolled the "benevolence" of the German people in Mein Kampf

- Machiavelli listed "humaneness" as a necessary quality of the Prince

Now I'm not comparing Sun Tzu to Hitler (although I do think he shares many similarities in his writings with Machiavelli), but we can't just rely on a philosopher's paean to an ideal trait as indisputable proof that the entire text therefore follows the dictates of that ideal trait. I still tend to agree with Xunzi's observation that many of the precepts found in the AoW fall well short of this ideal goal.

Truthseeker

5/12/2019 07:03:02 am

Very thoughtful post John - an element I have sincere appreciation for considering the number of posts relative to the AoW that are bankrupt of that quality. It is rare indeed (or rarer than I would like it to be rather) to see an AoW related post that has a backbone.

Yes, while the text does point to aggressive offensive tactics (not sure how a military treatise could go without it) the underlying central message is peace. It is a book of peace. Frankly, I find impossible that any practitioner of this its wisdom could come away with any other conclusion. The AoW, for the most part, cannot be read as a straightforward piece of literature. To be sure, a true comprehension of its insights is derived beyond reading to a full-on study of the text. Furthermore, one cannot gain its intended perspective through a "piecemeal" study. If one is to strive for a complete understanding of its wisdom and take advantage of its prodigious lessons, one cannot, must not, pluck various verses out of the text and use them as a basis for an overarching thesis. It must be consumed whole, in its entirety. It must be viewed as a cohesive, interlocking mechanism whereby all of its parts operate in conjunction with one another. Thus we see why so many take certain verses out of context. They are not attributing proper respect, time and effort to the study of the AoW's wisdom.

Thank you for your post John. And actually taking serious consideration of what the AoW war is and its reason for existing.

5/12/2019 01:18:47 pm

Everyone has a responsibility to present Sun Tzu's Art of War well for those uninitiated. When someone presents it as a war manual that is amoral, then it's a disservice to the education that was gained since 1988.

5/15/2019 02:41:07 am

Truthseeker, I appreciate the feedback. I agree with you completely that we need to do our best to refrain from simply choosing verses that support our preferred interpretation and instead ground all of our assumptions with textual evidence, not emotional attachment. Too much analysis of Sun Tzu falls short of this goal. For my part, I have been trying to improve the level of discussion on this topic and provide others who are interested more tools to spot where various translations disagree. I have built a database that tracks 42 English language translations (and many partial translations) so people can more easily compare and contrast them on their own. It is available for anyone to either access or download at:

https://usarmy.academia.edu/JohnSullivan

But another major challenge is that too many contemporary commentators prefer to view AoW as an ahistorical work of conflict resolution, not a a military manual deeply intertwined with the historical and cultural milieu of the Warring States period in China. To properly assess the text, we also need to possess a deep understanding of the historical factors which influenced the author(s) of the work. This is a daunting challenge, but not insurmountable. At a minimum, I would argue that unless you have spent significant time and effort studying the Zuozhuan, the historical record of the Spring and Autumn period from 722-486 BC, you will miss many of the nuances found within the text.

For starters, you will have difficulty understanding the momentous import of the very first verse of the first chapter in AoW unless you also understand the significance of Duke Kang’s pronouncement of 578 BC in the Zuozhuan that “The great affairs of state are sacrifice and war.” This summarizes the foundation of the elite’s legitimacy under the Zhou system. Later, once the Zhou system collapsed, Confucius would refine this formula, delegitimizing war and elevating sacrifice (ritual) as the sole form of elite legitimacy. Sun Tzu, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach and designates only war (but not sacrifice) as the “great affair of state.” This was a major philosophical split that later became the basis for Xunzi’s rejection of Sun Tzu’s thinking.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for clues found in the Zuozhuan that are necessary to gain a greater understanding of Sun Tzu’s text. When Sun Tzu mentions one should wait until the enemy gets half its army across the river before attacking (Chapter 9), this is a direct repudiation of Duke Xiang of Song’s disastrous decision to let the entire Chu army ford the river before launching his attack in 637 BC. Duke Xiang’s military advisor’s subsequent rebuke of his sovereign’s commitment to honor-bound modes of warfare mirrors much of what Sun Tzu later recommends in his later text. To understand why Sun Tzu argues that a commander can simply ignore a sovereign’s order not to attack, one can look to the example of Fugai’s disregarding his own king’s order and thereby staving off disaster at the Battle of Boju.

There are many more examples (and many other texts needed for gaining the proper context), but I will stop here. Bottom line is that this is an endlessly fascinating, but also incredibly difficult and frustrating text. It defies easy and simplistic answers.

5/16/2019 04:38:20 pm

"... this is an endlessly fascinating, but also incredibly difficult and frustrating text. It defies easy and simplistic answers."

Very true. The text demands our unmitigated attention with many hours of study.

I would not pretend in the least to possess near the extensive Waring States knowledge as you John. Quite impressive. But viewing the text as it stands alone - and I get your point that we miss the true intent by doing so - the overwhelming message is peace and the preservation of life.

The reason for the Art of War derives from the understanding that conflict is an integral part of human life. Some circumstances allow us to avoid conflict, while at other times we are challenged to confront it directly. Sun Tzu teaches that making better decisions quickly, while under competitive pressure, is the means by which we conquer these challenges. The conventional theory in competition, according to today’s standards, is that success goes to the strongest or most aggressive. Sun Tzu’s theory differs. Those who possess an in-depth understanding of the present situation, as well as alternatives to normal methods, win the day. “Win all without fighting” is one of the pillars of the Art of War. Using strong positioning we are able to create problems for our opponent in a way that may cause him to refrain from entering into conflict at all. In the midst of battle, however, our strategy proffers foreknowledge about our enemy’s potential plan which allows us to create a more than proportionate response to his attacks. In essence we are painting a picture where the risks far outweigh the gains, making it unreasonable for our opponent to continue in the fray. This ideally the aim of the AoW. True, it does not work out that way at times, which is the purpose of the aggressive sections of the text. But by and large the preference is peaceful resolutions.

Above all the AoW teaches an awareness and understanding of the elements around you; an understanding deep enough to configure those elements to your advantage. It is about positioning. The AoW is very direct about the importance of Shih and Node. They are two of the center pieces of this wisdom classic. Shih is the power inherent in a configuration. As you will remember from your studies of Lao Tzu, water is the softest thing in the world, yet it has the power to toss rocks about as it cascades through a ravine. The Node as described by Denma "... is that small juncture between the sections of bamboo. It indicates the abrupt moment at which something occurs- the present, between past and future." The power of shih comes from combining, these two elements. When you pull the trigger of a crossbow, its gradually accumulated energy is released all at once, in one spot.

And sure the Sun Tzu is a military manual. Its original intent was not meant as a "work of conflict resolution". But that fact is simply irrelevant when considering that as a military manual it does in fact advise in conflict resolution terms if one is willing to see the lessons.

5/16/2019 06:43:23 pm

Great Points made by all---Not to go too far off on a tangent--It reminds me of the Enchridion by Epictetus---It allows you to break away from set procedures and be creative.
As a long as we are alive there will always be conflict.
Sun Tzu does state that his manual is about winning.
Winning does not necessarily have to be violent bloodshed .
Gandhi won without using violent Weapons-He showed it was possible to harmonize opposing parties while neutralizing man's most natural inherent instinct of Aggression.
"The Spirit of Non-Violence arose from an inner realization of Unity from within--the whole Gandhian Concept of Satyagraha is incomprehensible as a means of achieving unity, rather than as the Fruit of an inner unity already realized" Gandhi on Non-Violence Thomas Merton

5/17/2019 01:23:52 am

John,

Why do you believe in some of Sun Tzu's words but not his other words. You then use secondary interpretative sources as if they have equal authority to what Sun Tzu was thinking. Go to the source and try to understand him directly and wholly.

5/17/2019 03:33:49 am

Because I still don’t believe we should label a philosophical text as fundamentally “benevolent” or “humane” when it also expressly endorses burning other human beings alive and then launching an attack against them while they are still on fire, summarily executing any living being who had the misfortune of prematurely hearing a secret, or subjecting non-combatants to the horrors of starvation all because plundering would be cheaper and easier than bringing your own logistical train in support of an offensive invasion. I don’t think we can just rationalize this away by saying paragons of benevolence are sometimes allowed to do horrible things simply because they would have preferred you submitted to their will without a fight.

Now this doesn’t necessarily make Sun Tzu an irredeemable warmonger, but it also really doesn’t distinguish him all that much from every other strategic military thinker throughout the ages, such as Machiavelli, Jomini or Clausewitz. All of them also preferred that the enemy would simply submit without engaging in battle, but then went on to recommend one be prepared to do whatever is necessary to achieve victory.

When the Mongol warlord Tamerlane besieged the Turkish town of Sivas, he informed the defending garrison that if they immediately surrendered, then no blood would be shed. Upon capitulation Tamerlane made good on his promise by burying them alive. I am not convinced that Sun Tzu would find anything fundamentally problematic with this tactic.

And this is what Xunzi was criticizing. Now as I wrote in my original reply, I don’t believe all of Xunzi’s criticisms are valid, but I do find persuasive the notion that Chinese philosophers writing 2,400 years ago did not necessarily view Sun Tzu’s text as fundamentally humane or benevolent, given the Confucian definition of these terms at the time. For me, this is more of an authoritative secondary interpretation than Thomas Cleary’s opinion written only four decades ago.

But I never quite understood why those who so ardently defend The Art of War as being primarily a pacifist text don’t spend more time and energy making the same case, but using the Mozi as their yardstick. Master Mo’s text was much more in line with your original post, arguing against any type of offensive operation, advocating the construction of impenetrable defenses and promoting the concept of “Universal Love” as a method to reduce conflict amongst groups and establish harmony. Had your original post been directed to the Mozi, you wouldn’t have heard a single word of dissent from me.

5/18/2019 09:56:11 am

You also compared Sun Tzu to Hitler.

Jerry Jenkins link

10/10/2022 07:10:53 pm

Soon thus win woman difficult rule serve team. Budget beyond door same part there as. Provide try fast within social follow minute. Guess news time southern forward task.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

What Sun Tzu's Art of War is and what it's not

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories