Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Engle's avatar

I would translate it as "not knowing how to attack, how do you know to defend"

This is more cautious and closer to Sun Tzu than your translation which (as so often is the case) interposes western war ways onto China. Sun Tzu teaches that we cannot secure victory, but we can always avoid defeat. That is, the defeat of the enemy arises from our enemies error, not our own excellence. Our own excellence only preserves our continued capacity to fight. This, this aphorism "if you don't yet know how to attack how do you know to defend?" means: You must know how you attack in order to correctly defend. How you attack is through dissmulation and awaiting the enemy's error. To defend then you must avoid error. That is, you must study your own position carefully to see it as your enemy would so that you may strengthen your defense accordingly.

This, the usual Western misapprehension of Sun Tzu explains once again the Western defeat by Sun Tzu's thinking. The author of the piece I am now criticizing is essentially, probably unknowingly, replicating the Japanese banzai style bushido mentality and Clausewitz. If Clausewitz were right, Germany would have one either or even both world wars. Germany lost both. If Bushido were right Japan would have won the second world war. It did not.

We must see Sun Tzu as he really is, not as how he is interpolated by Westerners such as Giles who at every turn impose Western military thought into Sun Tzus masterpiece.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts