Composed by Li Ch’üan (Li Quan); a provincial military official who served in the middle T’ang dynasty; the T’ai-pai Yin-ching revitalized the theoretical study of warfare in China. Remarkably comprehensive; it first focuses upon the human realm; devoting a quarter of its hundred chapters to the grand issues of government; warfare; human society; ethical values; and man’s orientation within the universe while pondering the more concrete problems of the nature of command; methods for evaluating men; the role of rewards and punishments; and the implementation of subversive measures. Instead of conquering through combat or achieving the fabled hundred victories in a hundred clashes; Li’s aim was victory without combat so as to preserve the state rather than debilitate it in warfare. The remaining seventy-five chapters; not translated here; briefly discuss important battle equipment and techniques before unfolding extensive material on sacrifices and arcane prognosticatory methods. Highly regarded thereafter; the T’ai-pai Yin-ching stands at the beginning of the later military tradition in China and numerous chapters appear in the military compendia produced over the next thousand years. It also continues to be the subject of conscious study as the PRC strives to develop “military science with unique Chinese characteristics.â€
#292024 in Books Simon Schuster 2014-12-23 2014-12-23Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.37 x 1.50 x 5.50l; .0 #File Name: 1476754322640 pagesSimon Schuster
Review
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Disappointing Work By An Otherwise Fine WriterBy GDPPeter Watson has authored several very good books; including the brilliant "German Genius' and the impressive 'Ideas'. Both of those efforts combine a remarkable breadth of knowledge with a nuanced sense of history and an appreciation for the complexity of life and thought. In 'The Age of Atheists' he delivers the breadth of knowledge; but sheds the nuance and objective sensibility. While it is a good survey of the Post-Enlightenment search for meaning in what is; for many; a life without an orthodox God; he appears to reveal a staunch anti-religious bias (which is the significant flaw of this book). In doing so he undermines any appearance of objectivity and forfeits any claim upon thoughtful consideration of the human condition and what exactly atheism is an alternative to. Early in this book he offers up a reading of Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age' and this reading is itself seriously flawed; claiming that Taylor posits; "… a fulfilled life - can be achieved only via religion" (p. 6; a footnote directs us to pages 20 and 44 of 'A Secular Age' where that sentiment can't be found). A fairer reading of Taylor might conclude that Taylor writes that for religious-minded souls the ultimate "fullness" of life is achieved through transcendence and is made possible by their relationship with God; while for non-believers the ultimate "fullness" is achieved entirely within an earthly existence. Contrary to Watson's claim; Taylor does not insist "fullness" is only achievable through religion; but rather that supernatural transcendence; or rising above our corporal lives; is. Watson's attitude toward Taylor is fully revealed by following up his convoluted (and intentionally comic) reading of Taylor with a sarcastic dismissal; "Phew" (p. 6). Watson's dismissal of Taylor reflects his dismissal of all religions; which is made obvious by various comments:- "What are we to make of this state of affairs; in which atheism has the better case …" over religion with its "manifest horrors and absurdities" (p. 11). Well; it may be possible to make a good case for atheism; but Watson never makes it (and if I'm not mistaken; "manifest horrors" have been committed by atheists; too) and instead assumes the conclusion is a priori. Any consideration of religion must admit to "horrors" performed in its name; but one would also think of the many benefits mankind has reaped from persons inspired by their religion.In Watson's own 'German Genius' he writes admiringly of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who; along with about 2;000 Lutheran pastors; organized an alternative church to the Nazi's state church and then he went on to actively participate in resistance efforts (GG; p. 680). He also provides a short account of Albert Schweitzer's life; where his religion inspired him to become a missionary and conducting his life in such a way that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (GG; p. 681). The list could go on and on from other sources … see Adam Hochschild's 'Bury the Chains' about religion's influence upon the abolition movement or see Martin Gilbert's 'The Righteous' for examples of moral behavior by religious persons during the Holocaust (or Peter Grose's 'A Good Place to Hide" for that matter) … et cetera; et cetera.- "… the absurd; tragic and horrific dimensions of recent religious history" (p. 21). It's fair to assume that Watson is referring to terrorism initiated by radical Islamist terrorists; which is "horrific" but not representative of the vast majority of Muslims who peacefully practice their religion. Can all religious persons be condemned for the acts of a few? One expects more than a Donald Trump view of the world from Watson.- And speaking of the absurd; Watson quotes Dewey; "… moral progress as a matter of increasing sensitivity; increasing responsibility to the needs of a larger and larger variety of people and things." To which Watson appends an apparently personal declarative sentence; "Doing away with religious groupings helps this" (p. 65). So; apparently; diversity is a legitimate goal; as long as it doesn't include anyone who identifies with an organized religion. Really? This antagonistic attitude toward religion goes on and on. You may ask; "What did you expect from a book titled "The Age of Atheists'?" Well; from Peter Watson I expected more; in fact I expected; in his own words; "… an extensive survey of the work of those talented people - artists; novelists" et al; "who have embraced atheism; the death of God; and have sought other ways to live; who have discovered or fashioned other forms of meaning in the world" (p. 22). He has delivered on that intention; but he has wrapped it in a cloak of polemic rhetoric void of any appreciation for the multitude of people who derive "fullness" and meaning in their lives through religion (and who do not commit acts of "horror" in the name of their faith). There is no nuance; no appreciation for the complexity and the dilemmas of modern life. One would think that any full appreciation and consideration of atheism would require a thoughtful consideration of its alternative; not quick dismissal. In weighing religion Watson limits religion to its frailties; and doesn't place any of its benefits on the scales. Watson appears so smug of his point of view that he writes; "The overall intellectual trajectory of the long twentieth century; of modernism and postmodernism; has been to reinforce the argument that there is not - there cannot be - any privileged viewpoint from which to look out upon the world" (p. 535); an ironic comment in that he is privileging his own viewpoint over that of others (because; one suspects; he considers his viewpoint to be so obviously "right" with history). It is Watson who sounds "overbearing" to me (see p. 535 for reference). Returning to Taylor; he writes; "We live in a condition where we cannot help but be aware that there are a number of different construals; views which intelligent; reasonably undeluded people; of good will; can and do disagree on" (SA; p. 11). Taylor concedes that those with a different worldview to his can find "fullness". Watson's apparently closed mind betrays no such good will; and serves to highlight the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Self-righteousness is unpleasant in both religious fundamentalists as well as militant atheists; and human empathy is unlikely to flourish under either of those extremes.Perhaps an ideal to aspire to is to hold a viewpoint (maybe even a faith); without succumbing to self-righteousness; and holding to an orthodoxy without succumbing to intolerance. On those terms Taylor succeeds and Watson is left wanting. If you're an unabashed rooter for Watson's home team; you might assign five stars. If you are looking for more; four stars may be generous.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Searching for MeaningBy factoid junkieComprehensive in scope and ambitious in its aim; I will use this thoughtful book as much for its rich sources as its argument. Watson overturns all stones; even those I reckoned added little to the discussion; in this compendium overview. Man Searching for Meaning would be as descriptive a title as his; even though it would not indicate the two giant sticks he rubs together throughout: religion and secularism.I enjoyed re-reading about thinkers I know and being introduced to those I didn't or knew only by name. It's as if Watson wrote a long series of wikipedia articles about various philosophers; scientists; artists; and theologians - and then wove the articles into a narrative about the search for meaning. It is a buffet that one cannot sample in one sitting. Prepare to have your appetite sated many times.A condensed version of the arc of his argument would be terrific; even if hard to develop. As I read I could imagine nearly any religious or secular person pausing at certain points and exclaiming; "see there - I am right!" Which is one of the things I appreciate about the book.Watson starts with Nietzsche's exclamatory about the death of god. He ends with proposing god is simply an early; and perhaps best retired; method of finding meaning in life. The absence of god doesn't end the search for meaning (nihilism) but stirs our sense of wonder; thinking; improved investigatory tools; and our shared humanity to continue to improve our search. We gain more than we lose in improving our means of understanding. Searching is as profound as finding.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. A fairly good overviewBy Ronald FernandezThis is a good book. Yet historian Watson spreads himself too thin; so that his som of helpful insights are just insufficient. His attempt at synthesing Heidegger is a case in point; where he falls short of and adequate rendition of his basic tthought. Which is to be expected given the breath of his book . Finally; although praiseworthy I feel he fails to undo Taylor's account of the secular age; again because of lack of depth in his argumentation. Anyway; a good overview and a fairly good read.
