Thus, those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle. They capture his cities without assaulting them and overthrow his state without protracted operations.
Your aim must be to take All-under-Heaven intact. Thus your troops are not worn out and your gains will be complete. This is the art of offensive strategy.
Consequently, the art of using troops is this: When ten to the enemy's one, surround him.
When five times his strength, attack him.
If double his strength, divide him.
If equally matched you may engage him.
If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing.
And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him, for a small force is but booty for one more powerful.
Now the general is the protector of the state. If this protection is all-embracing, the state will surely be strong; if defective, the state will certainly be weak.
Now there are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:
When ignorant that the army should not advance, to order an advance or ignorant that it should not retire, to order a retirement. This is described as "hobbling the army."
When ignorant of military affairs, to participate in their administration. This causes the officers to be perplexed.
When ignorant of command problems to share in the exercise of responsibilities. This engenders doubts in the minds of the officers.
If the army is confused and suspicious, neighbouring rulers will cause trouble. This is what is meant by the saying: "A confused army leads to victory."
Now there are five circumstances in which victory may be predicted:
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
He who understands how to use both large and small forces will be victorious.
He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.
He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not will be victorious.
He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious.
It is in these five matters that the way to victory is known.
Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant of both your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
Why does Sun Tzu structure his advice on war as a series of short epigrams with no expansion or development? What is the rhetorical effect of this structure? Is it more or less effective than a traditional essay format?
What does "subdue the enemy without fighting" mean? How is it possible to achieve victory without conflict? Why would a peaceful victory be considered superior to winning an armed conflict?
Why did Sun Tzu hold that "the worst policy is to attack cities"?
Why does Sun Tzu place such great importance on a commander's self-knowledge? How is self-knowledge important beyond the scope of military conflict? What kinds of mistakes can be made by people who do not really understand themselves?
Can Sun Tzu's philosophy of war be applied beyond the scope of military affairs? Do any of his aphorisms seem relevant to other kinds of human conflict? Why might The Art of War be a bestseller among American business professionals?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Can Sun Tzu's view of war be reconciled with Erasmus's view that war and violence destroy our humanity? How might Sun Tzu respond to such an assertion?
How might Sun Tzu's advice on warfare be interpreted by George Orwell
(p. 508), a former pacifist who believed that the Nazi threat made defensive warfare a moral requirement?
Sun Tzu was likely familiar with the teachings of Confucius and Lao Tzu. How does this chapter of The Art of War appear to have been influenced by Taoism as found in the Tao Te Ching (p. 384) and Confucianism as found in the works of Mencius (p. 78) and Hsun Tzu (p. 84)?
What view of human nature do you detect in Sun Tzu's writings? What does he assert as the underlying motivations of most people? How do his views compare with other Chinese writers of the same period, such as Mencius (p. 78) and Hsun Tzu (p. 84)?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Write a chapter of The Art of War for College Students, The Art of War for Corporate America, or some other version of this classic text for a contemporary audience you know well. What simple, direct aphorisms could be relevant to contemporary situations involving conflict?
Analyze one or two underlying assumptions of The Art of War. What principle or principles are the aphorisms based on? Are these overall principles stated anywhere in the text, or are they left unstated, and why is this so?
Compare The Art of War with The Prince (p. 405). How do Sun Tzu and Machiavelli agree about the nature of effective leadership? How do they disagree?
st. thomas aquinas
from Summa Theologica
[1265-1274]
THOMAS AQUINAS (1224 or 1225-1274) was born Tommaso d'Aquino to an aristocratic family in Italy and received a classical education, first at the Benedictine monastery of Montecassino, and later at the University of Naples. In 1243, against the strong objections of his family, he joined the recently founded Dominican Order and began to study theology at the University of Paris, where he was eventually awarded a doctorate in theology. He spent his life teaching in universities and writing several massive theological works, which have since become cornerstones of Catholic doctrine.
When Aquinas began his studies, Aristotle's works were becoming increasingly important in Christian Europe, and conflicts between faith and reason were occurring with increasing frequency among European intellectuals. As a devoted student of classical philosophy, Aquinas set out to reconcile Aristotle's rigorous methods of logical analysis with what he believed to be the revealed truths of the Bible and Christianity. He wanted not merely to synthesize Aristotle and the Bible but to reconcile faith and reason as they were understood in his society. By far, his most ambitious work is the Summa Theologica ("a summary of theology"), a three-volume work that covers nearly every imaginable topic of Christian ethical and metaphysical belief.
The Summa Theologica is a series of thousands of deductive proofs on more than six hundred major subjects. In a typical proof, Aquinas introduces a proposition and lists possible objections to it; he then restates his position clearly and succinctly, citing both the Bible and the writings of the Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, and proceeds to answer the objections in order. Once the proposition is thus "proved"—all possible objections to it answered—it can serve as evidence in a later proof.
The following selection, from the second book of the Summa Theologica, is the first of four proofs that Aquinas offers on the subject of war. In this proof, Aquinas lays down the conditions that must be met for an armed conflict to be considered a "just war." As the Middle Ages progressed and Christian nations struggled to reconcile warfare with a religion that emphasizes peace, Aquinas's conditions became the foundation for the "just war theory" in Christian doctrine, a theory that the Catholic Church still applies to wars.
"Whether It Is Always Sinful to Wage War?"
Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.