Skip to main content

What I learned from The Art of War: Winning Battles

 Every battle was won before it was fought
- Sun Tzu on The Art of War

People use this quote on different aspects. Some use it on business, some with their work, most of the time it is use in war. But this has more than what it means. This applies to all that you do: even walking.

Let's digest it:

Doing something has basic parts

  1. Goal (Ends, Want, Effect)
  2. Work(Means, Task, Cause)

When you do something, you have a goal in mind: a reason why you are doing it. If you don't have a reason then you are stupid. Even just wasting your time is a reason for doing something. Let's take your reading this article as an example. Why are you reading this? It could be that you are interested with Sun Tzu and his book. Perhaps, you got interested with the article itself. Maybe you are looking for knowledge or wisdom and you ended up here by chance. Every reason is valid. Some or most may or may not like it. But, it is valid and you have a reason: which means you are not stupid.

Before you can get to the goal, you do the work first. There is no sense in having a goal without working for it. It's like wanting to win the lottery without buying a ticket. Or, wanting to be in shape without working out. I think you get what I mean.

Now, what am I implying?

I define battle as the small or big things that we do in life. From taking an bath to leading a nation. We do battle everyday. And, when Sun Tzu say "Every battle was won before it was fought" I understood it as having accomplished things right after you have decided to do them. So, if you are fickle minded in doing something or has doubts about yourself on doing it, think about this article. There's always an answer, because every battle was won before it was fought.
Labels:

Popular

The Architecture of Self: Metacognition, Emotional Intelligence, and the Dynamic Control System Within

I. The Right Question Most discussions of Emotional Intelligence treat it as a companion to cognition — a soft counterpart to the harder work of reasoning. Most discussions of metacognition treat it as a neutral, elevated faculty: the mind watching itself from a clean remove. Both assumptions are wrong. The productive question is not whether EQ and metacognition matter — they clearly do — but what is the structural relationship between them, and more precisely: what regulates what, under which conditions? That question — not "what serves what?" but "what governs what, and when?" — is the organizing principle of this framework. It reframes the entire discussion from static hierarchy to dynamic control architecture. Everything that follows depends on that shift. II. The Conventional View and Its Limits The standard position holds that EQ and metacognition are co-equal, mutually reinforcing capacities. EQ supplies the affective sensitivity that keeps cognition ...
Read more

adfly: make money on the web

adf.ly is a money generating, link shortener. how you say? give the link to adf.ly adf.ly will make the link short you post the link(on twitter, facebook, forums, etc) they click the link adf.ly gives you money for that requirements: email add, which i'm guessing you already have paypal or alertpay account, click on the links to create an account sites to post you links ( twitter , facebook , forums, blogs etc) now, this is just a business tool. my advise, don't be stuck with just that! learning how to create contents is just as important.
Read more

Artificial Intelligence Does Not Understand

Artificial Intelligence does not understand, at least not in the way humans mean the word understanding. This is not a criticism of AI’s capability, but a clarification of context. The confusion arises because we collapse multiple meanings of “understanding” into a single, unexamined concept. When AI performs well in language, reasoning, or problem-solving tasks, we intuitively project human comprehension onto it. But this projection ignores a critical distinction: understanding is not a monolith, but is stratified across contexts. Without contextual stratification, discussions about AI intelligence, alignment, and consciousness become incoherent. We argue past each other, using the same word while referring to fundamentally different phenomena.
Read more