art-of-war (chatgpt)

art-of-war (chatgpt)

October 12, 2023

You:

art of war

what does it mean

if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain

ChatGPT:

The quote “If the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain” is from “The Art of War,” a classical Chinese military treatise written by Sun Tzu more than 2,500 years ago. The text is a comprehensive guide on strategic warfare, and it has been studied and referenced by military leaders, business executives, and scholars throughout history.

The quote emphasizes the dangers of prolonged warfare or conflict. When a military campaign (or any other undertaking) is drawn out for too long, it consumes a vast amount of resources. These resources can be in the form of finances, manpower, materials, and morale. Over time, the state (or any organization) will find it increasingly difficult to sustain the effort and bear the costs.

In modern terms, this principle can be seen in any project or endeavor: the longer something takes beyond its expected timeframe, the more resources it consumes, often at an increasing rate. If those resources run out, success becomes harder to achieve or might even be impossible.

The wisdom in Sun Tzu’s words encourages leaders to be efficient, decisive, and strategic in their actions. Prolonged conflicts or endeavors should be avoided if they lead to over-extension and potential collapse. This can be applied in many contexts, from business to diplomacy, emphasizing the need for swift and effective decision-making.

You:

ok. got the meaning,

i understand most word in the sentence, but equal to the “strain” how does it mean resources of the state will not be equal to the previous because of the strain ?

ChatGPT:

The term “strain” in this context refers to the pressures, stresses, or demands placed on a system, organization, or entity. When Sun Tzu says the “resources of the State will not be equal to the strain,” he means that the resources (which can be material, financial, human, or any other kind) will not be sufficient to meet the increasing demands or pressures of a prolonged campaign.

In simpler terms, the longer a conflict or campaign goes on, the more it demands from the state’s resources. After a point, the state’s resources will not be enough to meet these demands. The word “equal” here is used to mean “adequate” or “sufficient.” The resources won’t be sufficient to handle the stress or demands of the situation.

You:

so equal -> sufficient strain -> demands

both words interpretation are somthing regularly happen? i’m asking ‘word meaning’ question as english learner

ChatGPT:

Yes, your understanding is correct for the context of this quote:

  • “Equal” can mean “sufficient” or “adequate” in contexts where there’s a comparison between what is needed and what is available.
  • “Strain” can mean “demands” or “pressures” in contexts where stress or tension is applied to a system or entity.

In everyday English:

  • Equal: While “equal” most commonly refers to things being the same in quantity, quality, value, etc., in some contexts, it can mean being sufficient or up to a task. For example: “His strength was not equal to the heavy lifting required.”
  • Strain: This word can refer to physical tension (like in materials) or metaphorical tension (like in a system, relationship, or organization). For instance, “The sudden influx of customers put a strain on the restaurant’s staff,” means that the staff was under pressure or faced increased demands due to many customers.

Both interpretations can be encountered in various contexts, but the exact meaning usually depends on the situation. As an English learner, it’s essential to recognize that many words in the language have multiple meanings depending on context.

You:

ok let’s do this with following sentence as well, I mostly understand the underlying meaning, but the word usage is somewhat alien to me, so focus on that , which i quoted

Then no man, however wise, will be able to “avert” the consequences that must “ensue”.

ChatGPT:

Certainly! Let’s break down the words “avert” and “ensue” in the context of the sentence:

  • Avert: The word “avert” means to prevent or avoid. When you avert something, you’re stopping it from happening or turning it away.
    • In the context of the sentence, “avert” implies that even a wise man won’t be able to prevent or stop certain outcomes or results from occurring.
  • Ensue: “Ensue” means to follow as a consequence or result of something. It’s a more formal way of saying “follow” in the context of events or results.
    • In the sentence, “ensue” means that certain consequences or results will naturally follow or come after a specific event or action.

So, the sentence “Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue” can be understood as: “Then, no matter how wise a person is, he won’t be able to prevent the consequences that are bound to happen (or follow).”

You:

The skillful soldier does not raise a second “levy”, neither are his supply-wagons “loaded” more than twice

ChatGPT:

Let’s dive into the terms “levy” and “loaded” in the context of the sentence:

  • Levy: Historically, a “levy” referred to the conscription of troops or the act of drafting soldiers for military service. When a ruler or leader raised a levy, they were calling upon their citizens, often ordinary civilians, to join the military, typically in times of emergency or when there was a need for a larger army.
    • In the context of the sentence, “does not raise a second levy” suggests that a skillful soldier doesn’t have to call upon additional troops or conscript civilians more than once. It implies efficiency and effectiveness in military planning and strategy.
  • Loaded: In this context, “loaded” refers to filling or stocking up supply-wagons. Supply-wagons were used to transport essential supplies like food, weapons, and other equipment for an army on the move.
    • “Neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice” indicates that a proficient military leader ensures that their logistics are so well-managed that they don’t have to keep refilling their supply-wagons repeatedly. Again, this points to efficiency, planning, and minimizing the logistical burden on the campaign.

So, the overall essence of the sentence is to highlight the efficiency and foresight of a skillful soldier or military leader. They don’t overextend their resources or rely repeatedly on additional drafts of troops, and they manage their supplies effectively.

You:

Bring war material with you from home, but “forage” on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

ChatGPT:

Let’s focus on the word “forage” in the context of the sentence:

Forage: Historically and in military terms, “forage” means to search for food or provisions, often in the context of an army seeking food from the surrounding area. This can involve either scavenging or seizing supplies from the enemy or local population.

In the given sentence, “Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy,” the advice is to come prepared with the essential war equipment from one’s own homeland, but to rely on taking or procuring food and other supplies from the enemy’s territory or resources. By doing this, an army can reduce the logistical burden of carrying large amounts of food over long distances and can also deprive the enemy of their own resources.

“Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.” This confirms the advantage of the strategy: the army will remain supplied without overburdening its own logistical train.

You:

but “forage” “on” the enemy.

forage on is the expression (paraphrase? what is it called?) ?

ChatGPT:

Yes, “forage on” is a particular expression in this context.

When “forage” is used with “on” in this manner, especially in a military context, it implies sourcing supplies directly from the enemy, either by seizing their stores or taking resources from territories controlled or inhabited by the enemy.

This can be considered a collocation, which is a sequence of words or terms that co-occur more often than would be expected by chance. In other words, certain words are often found together because they make sense in that combination and convey a specific meaning. In this context, “forage on” is a collocation that indicates the act of gathering supplies from the enemy.

You:

Poverty of the State “exchequer” causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be “impoverished”

ChatGPT:

Certainly, let’s delve into the words “exchequer” and “impoverished” in the provided context:

  • Exchequer: The term “exchequer” historically refers to the treasury of a kingdom or state. It’s where the finances, revenues, and expenditures of the state are managed. In the context of the sentence, “Poverty of the State exchequer” means that the state’s treasury is lacking in funds or is in a state of financial distress.
  • Impoverished: The word “impoverished” means to be made poor or to be reduced to a state of poverty. In broader contexts, it can also mean to deprive of strength, richness, or quality. In the sentence “causes the people to be impoverished,” it implies that the actions taken (maintaining an army by contributions from a distance) lead to the general populace becoming poor or financially burdened.

The sentences emphasize the interconnectedness of a state’s financial health, military logistics, and the well-being of its citizens. If the state treasury is in poor shape, it might rely on distant contributions to support its army, which in turn places a financial burden on its people, leading to their impoverishment.

You:

so here, army is (may not be at war) doing service to transfer the contributions from distance? we were talking about army at war as the main subject in a sentence, here the subject changed to explain the concept of danger of managing far away logistics?

ChatGPT:

Based on the provided sentences, it seems the primary idea being conveyed is about the challenges and consequences of financing and supplying an army from distant resources, especially when the state’s treasury is in a state of poverty. It may not necessarily mean that the army itself is transferring contributions, but rather the act of supporting or maintaining an army using resources from distant places puts a strain on the populace, leading to their impoverishment.

While previous sentences may have focused on the army in the context of war, this particular statement emphasizes the financial and logistical aspects of maintaining an army. The idea is that when a state’s treasury is poor, it might have to rely on external or distant contributions to support its military. Such a method of sustaining an army is not only challenging but also economically burdensome to the people, as resources are diverted or taxes are raised to facilitate these long-distance logistics.

So, while the specific operational role of the army isn’t detailed in this statement, the focus is indeed on the dangers and drawbacks of managing far-away logistics, especially when the state’s finances are already strained.

You:

On the other hand, the “proximity” of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people’s substance to be drained away.

ChatGPT:

Here, we’ll focus on the term “proximity”:

Proximity: The word “proximity” means nearness in space, time, or relationship. In this context, it refers to the closeness or presence of an army to a particular area or region.

The statement highlights the economic implications of having an army close by. When an army is nearby, it requires resources, including food, equipment, and other supplies. The local demand for these resources increases, which in turn drives up prices in the local market. As prices rise, ordinary people might find everyday goods and services more expensive. This drains their financial resources or “substance,” making it harder for them to maintain their standard of living.

The overall message here is that both distant and nearby military operations can have detrimental economic effects on the common people. While the challenges of distant logistics can impoverish the populace, the presence of an army nearby can also be economically burdensome due to inflationary pressures.

You:

When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be “afflicted” by heavy “exactions”.

ChatGPT:

Let’s break down the terms “afflicted” and “exactions” in the context of the sentence:

  • Afflicted: To be “afflicted” means to be distressed, troubled, or negatively impacted by something. In the given sentence, when it says the peasantry will be “afflicted,” it implies that the common people or peasants will face hardships or sufferings.
  • Exactions: “Exactions” refer to demands, especially for money or resources, that are made forcefully or under duress. They can be in the form of taxes, fees, or other financial demands that are imposed upon people, often unfairly or oppressively.

Putting it all together, the sentence highlights the economic chain reaction that can occur in the context of military endeavors. If the populace’s resources or “substance” are depleted (due to factors like the presence of an army driving up prices), they become more vulnerable. As a result, those in power (like the state or ruling class) might then impose heavy financial demands or “exactions” on the already suffering peasantry, causing them even more distress.

You:

are those words relatively arcane words? or is it because they are military related terms? would there be more contemporary or natural words for the expression?

ChatGPT:

Both “afflicted” and “exactions” can be considered somewhat formal and less commonly used in everyday casual conversation. While they are not exclusively military-related terms, their use in the context you provided lends them a more formal, historical, or specialized tone.

If we were to rephrase the sentence using more contemporary or colloquial language, it might look something like:

“When they run out of money, the common people will be hit hard by heavy taxes or demands.”

In this version:

  • “run out of money” is a more colloquial way of saying their “substance is drained away.”
  • “hit hard” captures the essence of being “afflicted.”
  • “taxes or demands” provides a simpler understanding of “exactions.”

However, the original phrasing, with words like “afflicted” and “exactions,” has a certain gravitas and precision that might be desired in formal writings, historical texts, or specialized discussions.

You:

ok from now on, when i ask sentence / word explanation, add a contemporary equal sentence as well. (think you are writing a book for low age students, where you want to maintain the meaning but uses simpler words)

ChatGPT:

Understood! I’ll provide explanations followed by a more contemporary, simplified version suitable for younger readers or those seeking more straightforward language. Let’s go ahead!

You:

With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be “stripped bare”, and three-tenths of their income will be “dissipated”

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence is conveying that due to the depletion of resources (“loss of substance”) and the wearing out of the population’s physical and possibly moral strength (“exhaustion of strength”), the people will face severe economic hardships. Their homes will be left without essential items (“stripped bare”), and a significant portion of their earnings or wealth (“three-tenths of their income”) will vanish or be wasted (“dissipated”).

Contemporary, Simplified Version: Because of losing their resources and energy, people’s homes will be left empty, and they will lose a big part of their money.

You:

One “cartload” of the enemy’s “provisions” is equivalent to twenty of one’s own, and likewise a single “picul” of his “provender” is equivalent to twenty from one’s own store.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This sentence discusses the value of seizing or obtaining resources from the enemy in comparison to using one’s own resources. One “cartload” is a measure of volume or capacity, indicating how much a cart can carry. When referring to the enemy’s “provisions,” it’s talking about their food and supplies. “Picul” is a traditional Asian unit of weight, roughly equivalent to about 60 kilograms or 133 pounds. “Provender” is a word for animal feed, especially for large animals like horses.

The emphasis here is on the strategic value and efficiency of using the enemy’s resources during warfare: taking a cartload of provisions or a picul of animal feed from the enemy is twenty times more valuable than using one’s own resources.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: Taking one load of the enemy’s food is like saving twenty loads of our own food. Similarly, getting a bit of their animal food is like saving twenty times that from our own stock.

You:

so provision means generally?

ChatGPT:

Yes, “provisions” generally refers to supplies or necessary items, especially food. In many contexts, especially historical or military ones, “provisions” typically denotes food and other essential goods that are stocked or supplied, especially for a journey or a specific purpose like a military campaign. In the sentence you provided earlier, “provisions” likely refers to the food and essential supplies of the enemy.

However, in broader contexts, “provisions” can also mean necessary supplies of any kind, not just food.

You:

what’s the common use of the word in normal usage?

ChatGPT:

In normal, everyday usage, “provisions” is still most commonly associated with food and supplies, especially those prepared and packed for a specific purpose, such as for a trip or special occasion. Here are a few examples of how “provisions” might be used in common contexts:

  • Before the camping trip, they stocked up on provisions like canned food, bottled water, and snacks.
  • The sailors made sure to have enough provisions for their long journey at sea.
  • The family always keeps emergency provisions in the basement in case of power outages or storms.

Outside of this common context related to food and supplies, “provisions” can also be used in legal or formal contexts to refer to stipulations or conditions in a document, contract, or law:

  • The contract has a provision that allows early termination under certain conditions.
  • The new law includes provisions for increased environmental protection.

However, in everyday casual conversation, the first context related to food and supplies is more commonly understood.

You:

legal context, provision means .. section? (maybe about non regular situation)

ChatGPT:

In a legal context, a “provision” is a clause or stipulation within a larger document, such as a contract or legislation. It’s a specific requirement or condition that dictates certain actions or outlines particular obligations or rights.

While “section” can be a broader part of a legal document that may encompass multiple provisions or clauses, a “provision” is more specific. It zeroes in on a particular rule, condition, or stipulation. So, you can think of “sections” as comprising multiple “provisions” or clauses.

For example, a contract might have a section about “Termination,” and within that section, there might be specific provisions that explain under what conditions either party can terminate the contract, the notice required, the consequences of termination, etc.

It’s worth noting that “provisions” in legal documents don’t necessarily pertain only to “non-regular” situations. They can address a wide range of topics and scenarios, both regular and exceptional.

You:

ok, it seems provision is used as verb as well. can you give me 2 examples of noun / verb usage each in normal conversational context?

ChatGPT:

Certainly! “Provision” can indeed be used both as a noun and a verb. Here are examples for each in a conversational context:

Noun Usage:

  • “Before our hiking trip, we should check our provisions to make sure we have enough food and water.”
  • “The software comes with a provision for free updates for the first year.”

Verb Usage:

  • “We need to provision the team with the necessary equipment for the project.”
  • “Before the boat trip, make sure you provision adequately since there won’t be any stores on the island.”

In the noun usage, “provision” refers to supplies or specific stipulations. In the verb usage, “provision” means to supply or equip with something needed.

You:

wouldnt it sound very formal? “Before our hiking trip, we should check our provisions to make sure we have enough food and water.” there are other phrases to express that idea probably, what are those, and when would one use word provision?

ChatGPT:

You’re right; the use of “provisions” in everyday conversation can sound a bit formal or old-fashioned, especially in certain contexts. Here are some less formal ways to express the idea:

  • “Before our hiking trip, we should check our supplies to make sure we have enough food and water.”
  • “Before we go hiking, let’s make sure we’ve packed enough food and water.”
  • “Let’s double-check our snacks and drinks before the hike.”
  • “Have we got everything we need for the trip, especially food and water?”

The word “provision” might be used more commonly in situations where the formal or specific nature of the word is appropriate, such as:

  • In more formal or organized outings where it’s crucial to ensure all necessary supplies are accounted for.
  • When discussing preparedness in a more structured manner, like in a planning meeting for a significant event or expedition.
  • In historical or literary contexts where older or more formal language is the norm.
  • When one wants to emphasize thoroughness or meticulousness in preparation.

But in casual, everyday conversations, especially among friends or in relaxed settings, simpler words like “supplies,” “food,” or “stuff” might be preferred over “provisions.”

You:

Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be “roused to” anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence is discussing the motivation and incentives required for soldiers to effectively engage with and defeat the enemy. It suggests that for soldiers to actively and effectively confront the enemy, they should be emotionally charged or “roused to” a state of anger. Furthermore, to benefit from winning against the enemy, soldiers should be provided with incentives or “rewards.”

Contemporary, Simplified Version: To get our soldiers to fight well, they need to be really motivated or angry. And to get the most out of beating the enemy, we should reward our soldiers.

You:

men must be “roused to” anger, let’s focus on rephrasing this into contemporary form (although i agree motivated is good interpretation), i’m asking to try to keep the meaning more closely

ChatGPT:

Certainly. If we’re trying to keep close to the original meaning while making it more contemporary, then:

“Men must be ‘roused to’ anger” could be rephrased as:

“Men need to be fired up enough to get angry.”

You:

Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. “Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy”, and the chariots “mingled” and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This passage provides strategies for chariot warfare. It emphasizes the importance of rewarding soldiers who perform well by capturing enemy chariots, particularly those who capture the first ones. The idea behind substituting “our own flags for those of the enemy” is symbolic: by replacing the enemy’s flags on captured chariots with your own, you not only claim victory but also demoralize the enemy. The term “mingled” suggests that the captured chariots should be integrated with the existing fleet and utilized alongside one’s own chariots. Lastly, the approach towards captured enemy soldiers is one of benevolence; they should be treated well and not harmed.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: In chariot battles, if we capture ten or more chariots, we should reward the ones who got the first one. We should replace the enemy’s flags with our flags on those chariots and use them together with our chariots. We should also be nice to the soldiers we capture and take care of them.

You:

This is called, using the conquered foe to “augment” one’s own strength.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence emphasizes a strategy where, instead of just defeating the enemy, you also utilize the resources or personnel of the defeated enemy to strengthen your own position or force. The term “augment” means to increase or make larger.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: This means using the beaten enemy to make ourselves stronger.

You:

lets add another interpretation, I think the meaning can be applied to other context such as business or life strategy in general, for people relationship management, or some other contexts, you may pick any context and apply the sun tzu’s expression to the context, to make it short, add a sentence for this, as you are doing it for comtemporary simplified version

ChatGPT:

Certainly, let’s apply Sun Tzu’s principle to a business context:

Contemporary, Simplified Business Version: This means using the strengths of our competitors to boost our own business.

You:

ok. from now on, include that section as well for me

ChatGPT:

Understood! For future explanations, I’ll provide:

  • The direct explanation or breakdown of the original sentence.
  • A contemporary, simplified version.
  • A version contextualized to a different scenario (like business or another applicable context).

Let’s continue!

You:

So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a “detachment” or a company entire than to destroy them.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The statement suggests that in warfare (or potentially any conflict), it’s more advantageous to capture enemy forces intact rather than destroying them. By doing so, one preserves resources and potentially gains assets. A “detachment” typically refers to a subgroup of a larger military unit sent out on a specific mission or task, and it’s smaller than a regiment but larger than a company.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: It’s better to take over an entire army or smaller groups like regiments or teams than to wipe them out.

Contextualized Business Version: It’s more beneficial to merge with or acquire competing businesses than to try and push them out of the market completely.

You:

Thus the highest form of generalship is to “balk” the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the “junction” of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to “besiege” walled cities.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This passage outlines a hierarchy of strategic military preferences. The most preferred strategy is to thwart or “balk” the enemy’s plans, meaning to prevent them from executing their strategies. The next is to prevent the “junction” or joining together of enemy forces, effectively keeping them separated and weaker. Attacking an enemy’s army in the open field is the next preference. The least preferred, and most resource-intensive strategy, is to “besiege” or lay siege to fortified cities.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: The best strategy is to stop the enemy’s plans before they start. The next best is to keep their groups from teaming up. After that, it’s good to face the enemy’s army out in the open. The least favored option is to try and take over cities with big walls.

Contextualized Business Version: The best business approach is to anticipate and counter competitors’ strategies. Next, prevent competitors from partnering up. Then, directly challenge competitors in the market. The least effective strategy is to try and dominate well-established market leaders.

You:

The general, unable to control his “irritation”, will launch his men to the “assault” like “swarming” ants, with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This passage describes a scenario where a general, driven by impatience or “irritation”, hastily orders an “assault” or attack on a fortified position. The comparison to “swarming” ants implies a disorganized, frenzied, and potentially aimless attack. This rash decision leads to significant casualties – one-third of his forces – and still fails to capture the town. The underlying message is a cautionary tale about the dire consequences of impulsive decisions, especially in the context of sieges.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: If a leader gets too impatient and sends his soldiers to attack without a good plan, it’s like ants rushing everywhere. This can cause many of his soldiers to get hurt, and they might not even capture the town. This shows how bad it can be to attack a fortified place without thinking it through.

Contextualized Business Version: If a CEO acts out of frustration and rushes into a market without a clear strategy, it’s like throwing resources everywhere without purpose. This can lead to big losses, and the company might not even gain a foothold. This shows the risks of hastily challenging well-established competitors.

You:

With his forces intact he will “dispute” the mastery of the empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This statement conveys that if a leader or general keeps his forces unharmed and together, he can contend for or “dispute” control over the entire empire (or significant territory). By achieving this without suffering any casualties, his victory is not only assured but is also flawless and total.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: If a leader keeps his team safe and together, he can try to take over the whole kingdom. And if he does this without anyone getting hurt, it’s a perfect win.

Contextualized Business Version: If a CEO keeps his company strong and united, he can aim for market leadership. Achieving this without setbacks means total business success.

You:

dispute in this sentence is alien to me, is it similar to “conquer” in this sentence?

ChatGPT:

In the sentence provided, the word “dispute” is used in the sense of “challenge” or “contend for.” It doesn’t mean “conquer” directly, but it implies a challenge or contention for control or leadership.

While “conquer” suggests a successful takeover or domination, “dispute” indicates the act or process of challenging or contesting something. In this context, it’s about challenging or vying for the leadership or control of the empire.

A more direct replacement for “dispute” in this sense might be “compete for” or “challenge for.”

So, “With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the empire” could also be understood as:

“With his forces intact, he will challenge for control of the empire.” or “With his forces intact, he will compete for leadership of the empire.”

You:

is using ‘dispute’ to mean ‘challenge for’ is common usage? formal usage?

ChatGPT:

Using “dispute” in the sense of “challenge for” or “contend for” is a more formal and somewhat archaic usage of the word. In contemporary, everyday conversation, “dispute” is more commonly used to mean “argue about” or “debate,” especially in the context of a disagreement about a fact, definition, or right.

For example:

  • “The two companies are in a dispute over the patent rights.”
  • “The siblings had a dispute about the inheritance.”

In historical texts, older writings, or very formal contexts, “dispute” might be used in the sense of “challenge for” as seen in the sentence you provided. However, in modern, casual conversation, it would be less common to encounter “dispute” used in this way.

You:

the art of war is using arcane expression then, why? the english translation has been done many years ago?

ChatGPT:

“The Art of War” by Sun Tzu is an ancient Chinese military treatise, and its original concepts are embedded in the context and language of its time. When it comes to English translations, several factors can contribute to the use of what may seem like arcane expressions:

  • Historical Context: Many translations, especially earlier ones, aimed to capture the historical and philosophical essence of the original text. Using more formal or older English can give a sense of antiquity and gravitas, preserving the feeling of reading an ancient treatise.
  • Literal Translation: Some translators strive for a more literal translation to remain as faithful as possible to the original text. This can sometimes result in word choices that might seem less natural in contemporary English.
  • Multiple Translations: “The Art of War” has been translated into English multiple times by different translators over the years. Each translator brings their own interpretation and style. Some might choose more archaic or formal language, while others might go for a more modern tone.
  • Universality: The teachings of “The Art of War” are not only about warfare but are often applied to various fields like business, sports, and personal strategy. Using language that’s a bit more general or formal can make the teachings feel more universal and timeless.
  • Tradition: Once a particular translation gains popularity, it can set a tone for future translations. Later translators might maintain certain word choices or structures to keep consistency with what readers are familiar with.

Newer translations might use more contemporary language, but many people still value older translations for their classic feel. If you’re interested in a more modern take, it might be worth seeking out more recent translations or adaptations of “The Art of War”.

You:

Now the general is the “bulwark” of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points;

ChatGPT:

Explanation: In this sentence, the general is likened to a “bulwark” of the State. A “bulwark” is a defensive wall or barrier, often used metaphorically to refer to something that acts as a primary defense against a particular thing. Thus, the general is described as the main defense or protector of the State. If this primary defense (the general) is strong and without weaknesses (“complete at all points”), then the State is well-protected.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: The general is like the main shield for the country. If this shield is strong everywhere,

Contextualized Business Version: The CEO is the main pillar of the company. If this pillar is solid in every aspect,

You:

By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called “hobbling” the army.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence describes a scenario where a leader gives orders to the army without understanding its current situation or capabilities. Telling the army to move forward or pull back when it’s not possible for the army to do so can severely limit or cripple its effectiveness. The term “hobbling” generally means to hamper or hinder the movement or activity of something, so “hobbling the army” implies rendering the army ineffective or constrained.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: Telling the army to move without knowing if it can actually do it is like tying its legs together, making it useless.

Contextualized Business Version: Telling a team to take on a task without knowing their current workload or capabilities is like holding them back from doing their best.

You:

By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which “obtain in” an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier’s minds.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This sentence underscores the pitfalls of trying to lead an army in the same manner as one would govern a kingdom. The unique dynamics, discipline, and conditions in an army are different from those in civilian governance. The phrase “obtain in” here means “exist in” or “are prevalent in.” So, if a leader is unaware of these specific conditions that exist within the army and tries to lead it as he would a kingdom, it can lead to confusion, discontent, or “restlessness” among the soldiers.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: Trying to lead an army like you would run a country, without understanding how an army really works, can make the soldiers upset and uneasy.

Contextualized Business Version: Managing a team without understanding its unique challenges, just like you’d run a different department, can cause confusion and unease among the team members.

You:

By “employing” the officers of his army without “discrimination”, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence emphasizes the importance of choosing the right people for the right roles in an army. “Employing” means putting someone into a particular role or task. “Without discrimination” suggests doing so without carefully assessing or selecting individuals based on their skills, experience, or suitability for the role. If a leader fails to appropriately select officers, especially without considering the specific needs and circumstances of the military situation (“military principle of adaptation to circumstances”), it can undermine or “shake” the trust and confidence that soldiers have in their leadership.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: Picking army leaders without really thinking about who’s right for the job can make the soldiers lose trust.

Contextualized Business Version: Hiring managers without carefully considering their fit for specific roles can lower the team’s confidence in leadership.

You:

discriminate is used with negative feeling (discriminate against color, etc), so it’s common to use the word with positive as in here? (carefully select)

ChatGPT:

You’re right that in contemporary usage, “discriminate” often carries negative connotations, especially when it refers to unfair treatment based on race, gender, age, etc. However, the word “discriminate” in its broader and original sense means to differentiate or make a distinction.

Historically and in certain contexts, “discriminate” can be used neutrally or even positively to mean “to make informed distinctions” or “to choose selectively based on criteria.” In the context of the sentence you provided, it’s used in this positive or neutral sense: selecting or employing officers with careful discernment and consideration of their abilities.

While this usage might sound formal or even a bit outdated, it is accurate. However, in modern everyday conversation, due to the more common negative associations of the term, people might prefer to use words like “differentiate,” “distinguish,” or “select carefully” to avoid any potential confusion or unintended negative connotations.

You:

so my text is a bit arcane for my taste, which book is popular contemporary traslanation version?

ChatGPT:

If you’re looking for a more contemporary translation of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” that might be more accessible and suited to modern tastes, several versions could fit the bill. Here are some recommendations:

  • “The Art of War: A New Translation” by Michael Nylan. Nylan offers a fresh translation that aims to be more understandable for modern readers while retaining the essence of the text.
  • “The Art of War: The New Illustrated Edition” translated by Samuel B. Griffith. While Griffith’s translation itself, made in the 1960s, might not be the newest, this edition is complemented by beautiful illustrations and commentary, which might help make the text more engaging and clear.
  • “The Art of War: The Ancient Classic” by Tom Butler-Bowdon. This edition of Sun Tzu’s classic is not just a translation but also includes modern commentary and explanations to help readers apply the principles in contemporary contexts like business and personal development.
  • “Sun Tzu’s The Art of War: Bilingual Edition Complete Chinese and English Text” by Lionel Giles. Giles’ translation, though an older one, remains one of the most popular in the English-speaking world. This bilingual edition might interest readers who are curious about the original Chinese text.

When choosing a translation, it’s essential to think about what you’re looking for. If you’re interested in a version that bridges the ancient wisdom with modern interpretations and applications, versions with commentary might be the way to go. If you’re seeking pure readability, newer translations might be more your style. Reading some reviews or excerpts can also help you decide which one resonates with you the most.

You:

But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other “feudal” “princes”. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The passage warns about the consequences of having an army that is uneasy (“restless”) and lacking trust (“distrustful”). If the army is in such a state, it becomes vulnerable, and other leaders or powers will likely take advantage of the situation. The term “feudal princes” refers to rulers or lords of smaller territories or regions during times when power was divided among many such leaders, as was common during feudal systems. When the army is not united and lacks trust in its leadership, it’s equivalent to inviting chaos (“anarchy”) into its ranks, which greatly reduces the chances of victory.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: If our army is uneasy and doesn’t trust its leaders, other local rulers will cause problems. This is like inviting chaos into our ranks and throwing away our chance to win.

Contextualized Business Version: If our team is uneasy and doesn’t trust management, competitors or other departments might take advantage. It’s like allowing disorder in our team and giving up on success.

You:

He will win whose army is “animated” by the same spirit throughout all its ranks He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the “sovereign.”

ChatGPT:

Explanation:

  • The first sentence suggests that an army united in purpose and spirit across all its members (“animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks”) has a better chance of achieving victory. Being “animated” here means being invigorated, motivated, or inspired.
  • The second sentence implies that victory is more likely for those leaders who possess military skill (“military capacity”) and are given the autonomy to make decisions without interference from the highest authority or ruler (“sovereign”).

Contemporary, Simplified Version:

  • The team that’s united and motivated together will win.
  • If someone knows how to lead and isn’t held back by the top boss, they’ll win.

Contextualized Business Version:

  • A business team that shares the same passion and motivation will succeed.
  • Success comes to those leaders who have the skills and aren’t micromanaged by higher-ups.

You:

To see victory only when it is within the “ken” of the common “herd” is not the “acme” of excellence.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: This sentence conveys the idea that recognizing a win or opportunity only when it’s obvious to everyone (“within the ken of the common herd”) is not the pinnacle or highest level of skill or expertise. Here, “ken” means the range of one’s knowledge or understanding, “herd” refers to the general population or the masses, and “acme” means the peak or zenith.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: Seeing success only when everyone else does isn’t true excellence.

Contextualized Business Version: Noticing an opportunity only when it’s obvious to all isn’t top-tier business insight.

You:

Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole empire says, “Well done!”

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The statement implies that achieving victory in battle and receiving universal praise (“the whole empire says, ‘Well done!’”) isn’t the highest or most admirable form of excellence. There’s an underlying suggestion that true excellence might lie in strategies or actions that prevent battles, preserve peace, or achieve goals without obvious confrontations.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: True greatness isn’t just winning a fight and getting everyone to cheer for you.

Contextualized Business Version: Being the best isn’t just about making a big sale and having everyone praise you.

You:

so does this mean, if you had to make others notice you to win a victory (by doing something hard), it is not true excellence? then it means essentially same thing with next sentence : What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.

are those two sentences essentially talking about same thing?

ChatGPT:

Yes, you’ve grasped the essence correctly. Both sentences emphasize the idea that true excellence in strategy and leadership is not just about achieving victory, but achieving it in a way that seems effortless or without significant conflict.

The first sentence suggests that if the entire empire notices and lauds your victory, it might have been a hard-fought, noticeable battle — implying that true excellence would’ve been achieving the goal without such noticeable struggle.

The second sentence reinforces this idea by praising the “clever fighter” as one who doesn’t just win, but wins with ease.

Both sentences converge on the philosophy that the highest form of strategy or leadership is to achieve objectives smoothly, without creating significant upheaval or drawing undue attention. This aligns with many other teachings in “The Art of War” about the value of subtlety, strategy, and avoiding direct confrontation when possible.

You:

A victorious army opposed to a “routed” one, is as a pound’s weight placed in the scale against a single grain.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence contrasts a victorious army with a “routed” one. Here, “routed” means a defeated army that has been broken up and forced to retreat in a disorderly fashion. The metaphor of a pound’s weight against a single grain in a scale is used to emphasize the vast difference in strength or power between the two armies. In essence, the victorious army is overwhelmingly more powerful compared to the defeated and scattered force.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: A winning army compared to a defeated one is like comparing a heavy weight to a tiny grain on a scale.

Contextualized Business Version: A successful company against a failing competitor is like comparing a major corporation to a small startup in terms of resources.

You:

The “onrush” of a conquering force is like the bursting of “pent-up” waters into a “chasm” a thousand fathoms deep.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: The sentence uses a vivid metaphor to describe the overwhelming momentum and force of a conquering army. The term “onrush” refers to a powerful forward movement or surge. Comparing this force to “pent-up” waters (waters that have been held back or contained) that burst forth into a deep “chasm” (a deep fissure in the earth’s surface) conveys an image of unstoppable power and destruction. The depth of “a thousand fathoms” (a fathom is six feet) further emphasizes the immense scale and impact of this force.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: The strong push of a winning army is like a huge dam breaking and flooding a very deep canyon.

Contextualized Business Version: The rapid growth of a successful company is like a dam bursting and filling up a massive valley.

You:

The army on the march section up to #24 seems to be not relevant in context other than actual war.. did i miss something that might be relavant to other context from #1 to #23?

ChatGPT:

“The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, while fundamentally a military treatise, has been applied to numerous fields outside of warfare, including business, sports, and personal strategy. The text is rife with metaphors, principles, and strategies that can be abstracted and applied in various contexts.

In the “Army on the March” section, Sun Tzu offers many detailed observations and directives about the movement, positioning, and behaviors of troops in specific terrains and circumstances. While some of these directives are indeed quite specific to military operations, the underlying principles can still be extrapolated for broader application.

From the “Army on the March” section (up to #24 based on most standard versions), here are a few principles with potential broader application:

  • Reading Signs & Indicators: Sun Tzu speaks about interpreting signs from the enemy, like the movement of birds to indicate an ambush or the flow of water to signify ground has been disturbed. This can be translated into business as the importance of understanding market indicators or in personal life as being observant and reading cues from one’s environment or relationships.
  • Response to Challenges: There’s emphasis on how an army should behave when in certain terrains, whether it be crossing mountains, navigating forests, or fording rivers. This can be seen as a metaphor for adapting to and navigating challenges or changes in different contexts.
  • Positioning & Perspective: The section talks about positioning troops on the high ground and ensuring a vantage point. In business, this could relate to always striving for a competitive edge or having a clearer vision of the broader market trends.
  • Understanding Competitor Behavior: There are references to understanding why an enemy behaves a certain way, for instance, why they might offer a bait or why they might retreat. In a business context, this can be seen as understanding competitor behavior and strategy.
  • Adaptability & Strategy: The various scenarios described, whether it’s facing an enemy uphill or downstream, emphasize adaptability and tailoring strategy based on current circumstances. This is universally relevant.

While not all specifics in this section might be directly relevant to contexts outside of warfare, the broader strategic principles can be. It’s about abstracting the underlying idea and creatively applying it to different scenarios.

You:

oh got it, very good thanks

ChatGPT:

You’re welcome! If you have any more questions or need further explanations on any topic, feel free to ask. Happy reading!

You:

let’s go back with our interpretation session, can you add “investing” context next to “business” context ?

  1. Humble words and increased preparations are signs that the enemy is about to advance. Violent language and driving forward as if to the attack are signs that he will retreat.

ChatGPT:

Certainly! Let’s break down the statement and provide interpretations in the contemporary, business, and investing contexts.

Explanation: This passage from Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” suggests that there’s often a disconnect between what an opponent says and what they’re actually preparing to do. If the enemy uses modest or humble language but is ramping up their preparations, they might be planning to advance. Conversely, if they use aggressive or violent language while pushing forward aggressively, they might actually be setting up to retreat. It’s a lesson in reading beyond surface behaviors to understand underlying intentions.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: If someone speaks quietly but gets ready for action, they’re planning to make a move. If they talk loudly and act like they’re coming at you, they might back off.

Contextualized Business Version: If a competitor speaks modestly but is visibly ramping up their resources, they might be planning a market push. If they make aggressive announcements but seem to overextend, they might be in a weaker position than they let on.

Contextualized Investing Version: If a company downplays their progress but is quietly ramping up operations or R&D, they might be preparing for significant growth. Conversely, if a company makes bold claims about its future without substantial backing or starts diversifying without a clear strategy, they might be facing underlying challenges.

You:

Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn “covenant” indicate a plot.

ChatGPT:

Explanation: In this passage, Sun Tzu suggests that when an opponent offers peace without a binding agreement or a formal pledge (a “covenant”), there may be hidden intentions or deceit at play. Essentially, without a concrete commitment, words of peace might be mere diversions or tactics.

Contemporary, Simplified Version: If someone offers peace but doesn’t want to make a formal promise, they might be up to something sneaky.

Contextualized Business Version: If a business rival suggests a partnership but avoids putting terms in a formal contract, they might have hidden motives.

Contextualized Investing Version: If a company talks about a merger or collaboration but hesitates to formalize it with binding agreements, it could indicate uncertainty or undisclosed intentions.