fandomhigh | War Theory, Thursday, 4th period

Entry tags:

war theory

War Theory, Thursday, 4th period

Honor was in her usual position at the front of the classroom, leant against the front of the desk, arms folded across her chest, with Nimitz looking out from the perch on her shoulder. The usual assortment of hot chocolate, coffee, water, and whatever else Mac saw fit to drag in waited by the sign-in sheet just inside the door.

As time for the class approached, the admiral glanced up at the clock and rubbed the tip of her nose. She regarded the students with a smile. "Thirty second warning: wrap up any asides and pull out your notes from last week."

Honor waited a few more minutes, then launched into her lecture. "So far," she began, walking to the board, "we've discussed our own views of warfare, and some historical perspectives on war theory, as presented by Thucydides in his history of the Peleponnesian War." She picked up a marker, drawing a relatively straight line, marking BC at one end, "0" in the middle, and CE at the opposite end. She added a point between BC and "0", which she labeled "Thucydides."

"Today," she continued, "we're going to discuss some of the ideas about war theory published by Sun Tzu, right about...here." Honor marked a place just shy of the one she had made for Thucydides, then made two more marks on the line, these toward the "CE" marking at the end of the line. "They were both translated about a hundred-and-fifty years apart - Thucydides in 1648 by Thomas Hobbes, and Sun Tzu in 1782 by the Jesuit Order.

"In chapter one, Sun Tzu focused on five constant factors in warfare: Moral Law; Heaven; Earth; Commander; and Method and Discipline." She paused, turning to the students. "The first - Moral Law - is a bit different than the 'moral law' we might discuss today, and our primary interest in this course. Does anyone have any ideas as to how it might differ?"

Once the discussion seemed to draw to a close, she built upon the previous discussion. "So when we turn to Sun Tzu's definition of a fit commander, we apply those same principles, drawing on Chinese virtures: benevolence; uprightness of mind; self-respect or self-control, sometimes referred to in the text as 'proper feeling'; wisdom; and sincerity or good faith. If you look closely, however, Master Sun has replaced 'uprightness of mind' and 'self-respect' with two military attributes -- 'courage' and 'strictness.' Why would these traits be important in conducting warfare? Would you say these are in competition with any of the others?" She paused. "Can you draw any parallels between the ideas presented by Thucydides and Sun Tzu?"

Honor moved back toward the front of the room as the discussion began. She resumed her place at the front of the room, leaning back against the desk. Nimitz hopped down and glanced up at her. Through their link, she could sense his confusion with the "two legs" and their ways of warfare, but he said nothing. It was a discussion they could definitely continue later, when they were at home, and Honor didn't need to translate for a classroom full of teenagers. She ruffled his fur playfully in a brief pause, then glanced at the clock. It was almost time to leave.

"We'll wrap up early today," she said, pursing her lips. "Next week, we'll be discussing medieval ideas of just war theory - ideas that still form the basis of Western tradition in current times - yours and mine." She smiled. "Make sure you review Secunda Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologica, with particular attention to question forty.

"Dismissed."

[Posting by e-mail today, as a way to get around the firewall. If the first person to sign-in, as well as respond to the discussion questions (in bold) would start the threads, I would appreciate it. For the sign-in, please make sure you use the "Reply" function so the thread collapses. Hopefully, I’ll have better access next week. Thanks!]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Pip Bernadette

Isabel Evans

Setsuna Sakurazaki

Peter Pevensie

Alanan Trebond.

Seely Booth

Matilda Wormwood

"Isn't he using the idea of moral law more in the sense of administirting troops, rather than being a good person.

"That's how it seems. From a Western standpoint, moral law would help determine if the cause was just or not - like Aquinas and using force to defend one's country. Sun Tzu seems to be saying that he feels moral law is more the King or general's personal charisma than the morality of his actions," Peter said.

"So maybe we could call it the "leadership" instead? You know, rousing speeches that get men to give their all."

"Though you'd think that would lie in the 'Commander' factor," Peter replied. "I wonder why he felt the need to differeniate"

Honor smiled, listening to the dialogue between the students. She moved to the board, drawing a yin-yang symbol. She darkened one half in, then regarded the students. "We've all seen these, correct? Representing what we might call the light and dark sides of life -- male, female -- however you want to describe it. This little line" -- she took the marker and traced the line separating the two halves -- "represents the tao, the balance between the two. In this instance, it symbolizes the delicate balance of a community.

"Tao was achieved by peaceful obedience to leadership; living a life 'below the radar,' not taking actions to draw attention to one's self. In this, the Moral Law that Sun Tzu discusses isn't the morality we think of today; in this instance, moral law means peaceful adherence to the ruler's law...not the rule of law."

Peter frowned, thinking. "So that's why it's separated from the 'Commander' aspect? Because it refers to the people?" He paused. "What if the ruler is evil or corrupt?"

She gave a wry grin, folding her arms across her chest. Nimitz's expression, strangely, echoed hers. "What if the ruler is evil or corrupt? Do you have recourse?" And here, she was not thinking about the Peep triumvirate.

"It's the first responsibility of a warrior and a leader to protect the people," Peter said. "If the ruler is corrupt, he or she ought to be removed in order to protect the civilians in the country. The King gives up his right to reign if he misgoverns."

"But, in the time period in which this was written, Mr. Pevensie, 'natural right' as we know it didn't exist; this is centuries before the Magna Charta." She shook her head. "You either followed your king into battle or died for the privilege of disobedience -- especially in a land where there was no vote, even for the freeborn males."

Peter frowned, thinking. "I'm not referring to the vote or democracy in any way. Even Sun Tzu says that leaders are not necessarily imbued with the Moral Law. Therefore it certainly he is acknowledging a situation where the people do not follow the leader. One could probably also say that is Heaven does not support the King's right to rule, than the people need not either."

He considered. "Of course if the King overcomes a revolt, he will punish the rebels, but they still fulfilled their responsibility to their people by acting to remove him."

Getting to the Declaration of Independence was going to be fun with this class, Honor mused, listening to Peter. "Mister Pevensie, before next week, I'd like you to find a copy of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, and review chapters... seventeen and eighteen, I believe." Her smile turned into a lopsided grin. "I'd like to see three pages, comparison and contrast, between your beliefs and those of Mr. Hobbes. Taking Mr. Hobbes in his historical context, of course."

Internally facepalming, Peter nodded and wrote down the assignment in his notes. "Yes, ma'am. But...may I ask, do you think that Sun Tzu feels there is no recourse to a corrupt King? He says you may remove a general, but a King?"

"Honestly, Mr. Pevensie, I don't think Master Tzu was above a little coup now and again, as long as it suited his purposes." She shook her head. "Much as we would like to think of him as the little Chinese man at the corner store, he could be ruthless as a leader."

Peter had close to no idea what his teacher was referring to about the corner store, but he wasn't going to question. "Yes, ma'am. But one has to be. Ruthless that is. In order to be a leader. And I can't imagine Master Tzu wouldn't know that."

"Ruthless, yes... Heartless, no." Her expression was one of sadness, mingled with a smile. "True leaders are able to make the hard calls, regardless of what it costs; they know what has to be done, and they mourn the loss of those who die in the line of duty. That little element is one I'm not sure Master Tzu understood."

Peter nodded, his expression mirroring hers. He flicked a quick glance to Sakurazaki, not wanting to criticise either her hero or her country. "He does not seem to see the loss of men as anything more than a move on a chessboard. But perhaps this was because the fact is - was too painful for him to write about. Perhaps his seeming unfeeling is covering a much deeper feeling?"

Setsuna could recite most of Sun Tzu in Japanese, and was working on doing so in English, but memorization and actual discussion were two very different things. It felt strange to her to discuss something so...evident, but it was also pretty exciting.

She jumped right onto the question about courage and strictness. In a very Eastern way.

"If you do not have courage and strictness, you do not have a warrior. You can have courage and be a fighter, but only when you add strictness do you transcend beyond an ineffective chaos."

"And if you do not have courage," she said, with a small, sarcastic grin, "then you are not on the battlefield, but behind the closed doors of the overly protected elite."

Peter...had absolutely nothing to add to that point. When she was right, she was right.

Honor smothered a smile as she reached up and rubbed her nose with her index finger. She knew of an admiral back home who would disagree -- mainly because, if given a choice, he'd be back on the battlefield. Instead, headquarters was making use of his unequalled tactical ability.

"Would you say that strictness is in conflict with humanity or benevolence? Is it possible to be a warrior and be benevolent in warfare?"

Setsuna considered this carefully before responding. "No. I don't think that they are in conflict. When you are on a battlefield, you are among men who should realize that they run the risk of dying. Of course, this runs into problems if you are going against an army that requires manditory membership, but, if in a battle with warriors who are there because they are warriors, there is no shame or lack of benevolence in killing them. They are there for the same reason you are: to kill, or be killed."

"It is when a warrior forgets that this mentality must not be followed off the battlefield when problems occur."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

War Theory, Thursday, 4th period

Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

Re: Moral Law

'Courage' and 'Strictness'

Re: 'Courage' and 'Strictness'

Re: 'Courage' and 'Strictness'

Re: 'Courage' and 'Strictness'