the art of war
reading the art of war and I'm like wdym this sentence is difficult?
Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. [This concise and difficult sentence is not well explained by any of the commentators.
it means that when you make hasty/rushed judgments in crisis, it leads to foolishness and stupid decisions, but though a clever and inventive decision may take, say, triple the time - the time taken is well spent and justifiable without criticism for being "overly lengthy" ie "slow";
a successful clever tactic is merely well-timed, not to be criticized for "taking too long" or "being slow," it ingenuity takes exactly the amount of time it requires to come to fruition.
what's so hard to understand about that??
ok I'm like going to get into a fistfight with all of these scholars who bring up valid interpretations THAT I REGARDLESS THINK ARE MISSING THE POINT*
*insofar as the English translation implies
Now Sun Tzu says nothing whatever, except possibly by implication, about ill-considered haste being better than ingenious but lengthy operations.
this is really interesting??? opposite interpretation to me, BUT sun tzu is famously a practical man as the book describes; he is no zhuge liang
at which point haste seems like an act of folly whereas cleverness justifies the resources used and the time spent, cleverness not being associated with "overly or unjustifiably or unprofitably long delays" BECAUSE at that point it would no longer be qualified to be "cleverness"; it would be folly
oooh, I agree with this and understand why they read the previous statement the way they did BUT I think both can be true
- It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. [That is, with rapidity.
I dont think they are in contradiction! BECAUSE "stupid haste" often CREATES folly that concludes in wasting resources AND engaging in predicaments of protracted battle BASED ON (bad) decisions decided on rush judgment WHERE instead cleverness may Seem like the long way around but "a stitch in time"
(a stitch in time saves nine - if you rush, you spend longer fixing your mistakes than if you took the time it needed accordingly)
- Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemyβs resistance without fighting.
the best way to win this kind of antagonistic situation ISN'T to conquer and subjugate; it's to convert allegiance via appealing to the enemy
it's the prisoner's dilemma (ASSUMING THE PARTIES ARE EQUAL STRENGTH, ie in fictional Fantasy Land or Outer Space). obvs Not the case for situations of unequal imperial genocide