Should martial arts ever be separated from philosophy?

[dw3041]

There seems to be different ideas concerning the philosophy of martial arts. Some think that it is an integral part of martial arts while others see it as only dealing with other aspects of life not necessarily having to do with fighting and as completely nonfunctional when it comes down to blows.

The latter of these ideas is very common in societies with a less wholistic way of thinking such as the US, whereas in countries where there is more of an importance placed on community there seems to be almost a complete dependence of life placed on the philosophical side of things.

But which of these ideas, if either, is correct? Are these ideas the driving force behind the way that our cultures are today, or are these beliefs more of a reflection of modern day society?

The second of these questions is an important one because someone can either negate the validity of both mindsets by stating that they are only a product of the culture to which they belong, or it could be argued that these ideas have made the societies what they are today and the productivity of each culture could then be used as a measurement of which is the better mindset. But this second idea would lead to a very long discussion about what makes a better society, which, although it would be getting off of the subject of martial arts, I wouldn't mind as long as it helped answer the question concerning the philosophical side of martial arts.

So, is there a place for philosophy in the martial arts? If so, is it an optional one?

I'd like to hear your opinions concerning this topic.

[dwid]

Philosophy should develop organically, if at all.

Too often, elaborate philosophies are attached to instruction to validate training methods and techniques that are difficult to rationalize when subjected to logical analysis. It is a way for people to bypass skepticism and reason on the part of students. I would be wary of instructors who spend too much time talking about the philosophy of the style at the cost of time spent actually working.

On the other hand, a philosophy of the style that develops organically out of training effective technique and synthesizing what you're learning into a cohesive set of ideas can be a good way of organizing information and maybe achieving a higher level understanding.

[Chief Fox]

I consider Greco Roman wrestling and western style boxing to be a martial arts and as far as I know, there are no philosphies associated with them. So yes, they can be separated.

In my opinion you also have to consider the individual studying the martial art not just the art.

Many people study a martial art to become better fighters. I would say that philosophy for this person is probably not that important.

Other people study a martial art to become a better or more well rounded person. Philosphy will probably mean a bit more to this person.

Then of course there are many shades of grey in between. So really many people say that the philosphy makes them a better martial artist while there are many great martial artists that don't consider philosophy at all.

For me personally, the philosophy behind the art takes you deeper into it.

So there you go, I typed a lot but really didn't say all that much.:D

Also: what's up with the bold? hurts my eyes, hard to read.

[dw3041]

DWID:

This is true, but when I talked about philosophy being an integral part of martial arts, I didn't mean it as having any importance on it's own. It's true that too much philosophical teachings can take away from martial arts, but only in that once it exceeds it's balance it becomes just philososphy, which is not the same as martial traning. The question is whether or not it is an integral "part", not whether or not it is the whole of martial arts.

I guess another way of stating the question is;
Would martial arts still be martial arts without the philosophical side, and would the philosophical side of martial arts still be considered a philosophy of martial arts taken apart from the physical side?

[dw3041]

Many people study a martial art to become better fighters. I would say that philosophy for this person is probably not that important.

Other people study a martial art to become a better or more well rounded person. Philosphy will probably mean a bit more to this person.
Good point

But...
I consider Greco Roman wrestling and western style boxing to be a martial arts and as far as I know, there are no philosphies associated with them. So yes, they can be separated....is kind of begging the question.

[Chief Fox]

So what are you saying? That Greco Roman Wrestling and Western Boxing are not martial arts? Or by identifying two martial arts that have no philosophy associated with them that I'm saying that martial arts and philosophy should be separated?

The answer to your question and to just about any philisophical question is, yes and no.

It depends on the person and the art.

Tai Chi Chuan: You pretty much have to believe in the whole Ying Yang philosphy if you plan to study it in depth. Unless of course you're just studying it for health reasons then the philosophy doesn't mean that much if anything.

Enough with the bold already!

[PangQuan]

i will give an example.

the school i attend.


my teacher was raised in a temple. buddhism is part of his life. he is still a monk, just not a temple monk.

he does not preach his philosophies or beliefs at all. never has, never will. he would not breach that oh so fragile barrier, of personal belief. not in our society anyhow.

he has students that look deeply into taoism, some buddhism, some catholic some athiest. all spectrums of the rainbow are represented within the specific individuals at the school whom practice them.

from myself to a kung fu brother who has different beliefes or ideals of philosphy, whether they contemplate or not, does not matter or effect our training other than on a personal level.

so along the lines of Chief Fox.

It is whole up to the individual, and may or may not effect your martial training. It is wholey personal.

[dainos]

kung fu without philsophy is like saying the fish is more important than the river they are swimming in. in kung fu you need both. it makes your training more fruitful. i will not say anymore in post because i dont want to

[dw3041]

What do you think about the fact that people can learn to tell certain things about someone's personality by their physical features being evidence that their general attitudes towards life can affect the way that they develope physically; don't you think that certain negative emotions could also possibly cause some udesirable subtleties in movements in your martial arts?

If there is any truth to the above statement, it would seem as though a general goal towards self improvement would improve upon any martial artist's technique.

I know that showing the roots of martial arts doesn't really prove that any ideas differing from these roots are false, but just as a side note; "dojo" means "a place of enlightenment."

And to Chief Fox:

I was only saying that by stating that martial arts can be separated from philosophy because you consider a certain style that has nothing to do with philosophy a martial art, is basically the same as saying that a certain condition does not make some martial art not a martial art because it is a martial art. This begs the question.

P.S. I only used bold to make my posts stand out and make it easier to see my responses as the starter of this thread, but I will stop using the bold since it bothers you.

[PangQuan]

What do you think about the fact that people can learn to tell certain things about someone's personality by their physical features being evidence that their general attitudes towards life can affect the way that they develope physically; don't you think that certain negative emotions could also possibly cause some udesirable subtleties in movements in your martial arts?

this is something i agree with.

i do believe that the morality of an individual will determine the hight at which they will be able to bring thier martial arts to.

we know that when a man does evil, it is based upon an emotional desire, this emotional desire is against nature's true course.

when one is in tune with nature they do not have the restriction of these confining emotional responses.

when driven by the negative side of emotions, we are limiting our ability in the sense that we have pre determined the course we are willing to take. Not to say an evil man cannot become powerful. so long as his ambitions guide him to this height.

but a man of natures harmony, will continue to progress, without any harboring restrictions. due to the fact that nature inherintly grows, and continues to grow until it dies.

Now, show me a true man of nature and I will be his willing diciple.

[Chief Fox]

And to Chief Fox:

I was only saying that by stating that martial arts can be separated from philosophy because you consider a certain style that has nothing to do with philosophy a martial art, is basically the same as saying that a certain condition does not make some martial art not a martial art because it is a martial art. This begs the question.

You see it as begging the question, I see it as evidence that martial arts and philosophy are successfully separated in these cases.

Why do I get the feeling that I'm having a conversation with The Architect from The Matrix?

Thanks for not using bold. :D

[dw3041]

PangQuan:

Point well made. I think someone who doesn't care to learn about themselves can still become an effective fighter, but they will never reach their highest potential.

Chief Fox:

What I said is not my opinion, begging the question is a universal logical error that is not easily mistaken. I still have to stand by what I said. Not that it makes that much of a difference though, I asked for your opinion and that's what I got. Thanks for your posts.

And about the Architect remark, I'll take it as a compliment.

[Chief Fox]

And about the Architect remark, I'll take it as a compliment.
Some how I knew you would. :rolleyes:

[johnyk]

Yes, in a High School gym class.

[dwid]

What I said is not my opinion, begging the question is a universal logical error that is not easily mistaken. I still have to stand by what I said. Not that it makes that much of a difference though, I asked for your opinion and that's what I got. Thanks for your posts.

Please explain again how Chief Fox's argument was an example of begging the question. Your explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. Generally, begging the question is a logical fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by itself, only in different words. Thus, in this case, if Chief Fox had said "philosophy can be separated from the martial arts because it is clear that the martial arts do not require a philosophy in order to be practiced" - that would be begging the question, as no evidence has been offered. However, what Chief Fox did was cite an example of a style, which, by most anyone's criteria would be considered a martial art and further stated that this art does not require a philosophy. Thus, he offered evidence against your assertion rather than begging the question. Anyway, this is how I see it, so please explain how this is begging the question.

[dw3041]

dwid:

What he said can not be called evidence unless it holds some kind of merit. In this case the merit comes from the answer to the origional question, which was whether or not it is really a martial art. When you use it as an example you are already assuming that it is, which is begging the question.

[dwid]

I guess I can see where you're coming from, in which case it is a problem of defining our terms. So, for the sake of this argument, what qualities does a thing need to possess for that thing to be called a "martial art?"

[Merryprankster]

So, for the sake of this argument, what qualities does a thing need to possess for that thing to be called a "martial art?"


And therein, lies the rub.

I'd like to point out that it is only begging the question if you consider that one must justify GR wrestling and boxing as martial arts.

If you accept them as martial arts, it is evidence.

I would say then, that he was not begging the question at all, because he was working from his own framework, built on a particular set of assumptions - the real issue is one of assumptions then, not of logical fallacy. He logically reached his point using a different (possibly equally valid) assumption :P

But I'm also just being persnickity today because I'm slightly hungover and I feel like it :D

[dwid]

Thanks Merry,

I'm glad to see that someone else had a similar perspective on the argument that I did. By my criteria (and I would think that of most rational people), wrestling, being a very old and tested fighting style, would qualify as an MA, so I, too, saw the introduction of it as evidence to counter the initial position.

[dw3041]

what qualities does a thing need to possess for that thing to be called a "martial art?"

The question is whether or not philosophy should be included in these qualities.

[dw3041]

And therein, lies the rub.

I'd like to point out that it is only begging the question if you consider that one must justify GR wrestling and boxing as martial arts.

If you accept them as martial arts, it is evidence.

I would say then, that he was not begging the question at all, because he was working from his own framework, built on a particular set of assumptions - the real issue is one of assumptions then, not of logical fallacy. He logically reached his point using a different (possibly equally valid) assumption :P

But I'm also just being persnickity today because I'm slightly hungover and I feel like it :D
I'm sorry, but saying that something is a martial art is not evidence that it is a martial art. It begs the question "why do you say that it is a martial art?"I understand what the point of the arguement for philosophy free martial arts was, and it is a valid opinion, it's just not made valid by the fallacy that I pointed out. Sorry for the confusion.

[Chief Fox]

If you are going to ask the question, "should martial arts ever be separated from philosophy?", then maybe there should be some kind of consensus as to what defines a particular activity as a martial art.

I stand by GR wrestling and western boxing both as martial arts. A few others would be fencing, capoeira and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

Or do you consider them to not be martial arts because they have no philosophy associated with them?

[dw3041]

I stand by GR wrestling and western boxing both as martial arts. A few others would be fencing, capoeira and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

Or do you consider them to not be martial arts because they have no philosophy associated with them?
That's the question. Does the fact that they don't have anything to do with philosophy make them any less of a martial art?

My personal opinion is that the first two examples that you gave are incomplete martial arts at best. I believe that without a deep enough understanding of martial arts to be able to apply their principles to every day life, the art is taken out of the martial art. I think that for something to be an art there first has to be a certain level of appreciation for the art from the artist. I am not saying that the movements of some martial arts are not still very artful if executed by someone doesn't have a deep understanding or self awareness, but it's been my experience that a person who is very wise will always look more artful with their skill.

This is just my opinion on your question. I don't think that a consistent definition of martial arts will ever exist, but I am just curious to see what people's opinions are on this issue and the evidence supporting their beliefs. I would like to see which side provides the most convincing evidence.

And as for your last three examples, there are philosophies behind fencing, capoeria and ju jitsu, although I can't recall them exactly.

[dwid]

My personal opinion is that the first two examples that you gave are incomplete martial arts at best. I believe that without a deep enough understanding of martial arts to be able to apply their principles to every day life, the art is taken out of the martial art. I think that for something to be an art there first has to be a certain level of appreciation for the art from the artist. I am not saying that the movements of some martial arts are not still very artful if executed by someone doesn't have a deep understanding or self awareness, but it's been my experience that a person who is very wise will always look more artful with their skill.

It depends a lot on the standards you use. If your standard for "completeness" is taking account of all possible ranges of combat, for example, few traditional arts would qualify as martial arts. Karate, Tae Kwan Do, and many styles of kung fu definitely would not. If your standard is "aliveness," for an art to be complete, then, once again, boxing and greco would likely fare better than many traditional arts. To be honest, it sounds to me like you are rigging the question in favor of traditional arts by this somewhat vague idea of what a deep understanding, etc... is. If I'm a wrestler, and I take the discipline and mindfulness of wrestling and wrestling training into my life and apply it by being a disciplined and focused person in other areas, then am I applying a "philosophy of wrestling"?

[5Animals1Path]

If the philosophy associated with the art is simple and to the point, then yes, it should be part of it.

If it's full of twists and turns that can only be understood somebody who wants to look cool for "knowing" it, the high, or the mentally ill, then no, not really.


Everything should make sense from the beginning and the end, with your own understanding of how much sense it makes increasing, not the fact that it does.

[Chief Fox]

That's the question. Does the fact that they don't have anything to do with philosophy make them any less of a martial art?

Now that is a good question.

I really only can relate to the martial arts that I have been taught and the philosophies, if any, that were presented.

I study 7 star praying mantis and my instructor doesn't really present a "philosophy" with his teachings. At least he hasn't yet. But I consider the man to be a true martial artist. He has internalized his art to a point where he doesn't even have to move that much and when he does move it always has meaning. Usually in the form of pain for his opponent.

He teaches technique, strategy and the underlying principles of the art like speed and the idea of continuous attack but I don't really think that this could be considered philosophy.

Now that i think about it, the one time that my sifu maybe touched on philosohy was about the subject of being able to "flow" with the movements. Making them a part of you. He mentioned Joe Satriani and how he has achieved "flow" with his guitar. How the guitar has become an extension of him and how the goal is to be able to do this with the techniques of praying mantis.

So is this a philosophy? I don't know. A very loose one at best. It helped me to understand what he was talking about and gave me a greater understanding of how I had to approach my practice.

Clearly a difficult subject to discuss especially on an internet message board.

[dw3041]

It depends a lot on the standards you use. If your standard for "completeness" is taking account of all possible ranges of combat, for example, few traditional arts would qualify as martial arts. Karate, Tae Kwan Do, and many styles of kung fu definitely would not. If your standard is "aliveness," for an art to be complete, then, once again, boxing and greco would likely fare better than many traditional arts. To be honest, it sounds to me like you are rigging the question in favor of traditional arts by this somewhat vague idea of what a deep understanding, etc... is. If I'm a wrestler, and I take the discipline and mindfulness of wrestling and wrestling training into my life and apply it by being a disciplined and focused person in other areas, then am I applying a "philosophy of wrestling"?

This is just my opinion on your question. I don't think that a consistent definition of martial arts will ever exist, but I am just curious to see what people's opinions are on this issue and the evidence supporting their beliefs. I would like to see which side provides the most convincing evidence.
I only posted my opinion to answer your question, it was not ment to be debated. It's just my opinion and holds no relevance to whether or not philosophy really belongs in martial arts.

[dw3041]

If the philosophy associated with the art is simple and to the point, then yes, it should be part of it.

If it's full of twists and turns that can only be understood somebody who wants to look cool for "knowing" it, the high, or the mentally ill, then no, not really.


Everything should make sense from the beginning and the end, with your own understanding of how much sense it makes increasing, not the fact that it does.......Kudos

[dw3041]

my instructor doesn't really present a "philosophy" with his teachings.
Alot of martial arts teachers don't teach using philosophy these days because they are afraid that people will be bord with it and lose interest. You should show your instructor that you are interested, maybe he will give you some usefull insight.

Now that i think about it, the one time that my sifu maybe touched on philosohy was about the subject of being able to "flow" with the movements. Making them a part of you. He mentioned Joe Satriani and how he has achieved "flow" with his guitar. How the guitar has become an extension of him and how the goal is to be able to do this with the techniques of praying mantis.

It helped me to understand what he was talking about and gave me a greater understanding of how I had to approach my practice.
I think this last part would qualify it as a philosophy in my opinion.

[splinter]

Uh, maybe we need a decent definition of "Philosophy".

If I say that the pholosophy behind my art is to "Learn to kick ass to the best of your ability" does that count?

[PangQuan]

there are different types of philosophy.

are we speaking in terms of moral philosophy, religious philosophy, working philosophy (such as a philosophy as to how to achieve a desired result through various methods), or through a miriad of various other types of philosophies.

i think a sound philosophy depicting methodology in a specific art is necessary. if the art is structured and based around a philosophy thus giving it its entirety, then it should be necessary for this specific art. for were you to remove the philisophical backbone of this art, that which gives it filling substance, you then have a different art.

in summary, i think it depends on the art you are practicing.

Many MA do not need philosophy, yet there are others that would not be the same art without the underlining mentality from which they birthed.

[SevenStar]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]What do you think about the fact that people can learn to tell certain things about someone's personality by their physical features being evidence that their general attitudes towards life can affect the way that they develope physically; don't you think that certain negative emotions could also possibly cause some udesirable subtleties in movements in your martial arts?


philosophy is not needed for that. fighting alone does not necessarily create negative emotions. In fact, you could argue that it creates positive emotions.

[SevenStar]

That's the question. Does the fact that they don't have anything to do with philosophy make them any less of a martial art?

My personal opinion is that the first two examples that you gave are incomplete martial arts at best. I believe that without a deep enough understanding of martial arts to be able to apply their principles to every day life, the art is taken out of the martial art. I think that for something to be an art there first has to be a certain level of appreciation for the art from the artist. I am not saying that the movements of some martial arts are not still very artful if executed by someone doesn't have a deep understanding or self awareness, but it's been my experience that a person who is very wise will always look more artful with their skill.

This is just my opinion on your question. I don't think that a consistent definition of martial arts will ever exist, but I am just curious to see what people's opinions are on this issue and the evidence supporting their beliefs. I would like to see which side provides the most convincing evidence.

And as for your last three examples, there are philosophies behind fencing, capoeria and ju jitsu, although I can't recall them exactly.

bjj doesn't have any underlying philosophy that you will be taught. capoeira is very cultural, but their training is modeled more after sport fighting martial arts like bjj and muay thai, thus it's not a focal point of learning, other than learning to play the birimbau.

EDIT: you're going in a different direction here too. Now we get into what the definition of art is, in relation to MA. IMO, it has nothing at all to do with my everyday life, though it may be applied in such a way. In my eyes, the art is in "martial" - the fighting. The way you use your given style and mold it into an expression of yourself when you fight - that is art. My friend and I have trained together off and on for about 10 years. We have had the same teachers (except for our tma - when I was training longfist, he was training kempo), we are the same height and similar build. However, we fight totally different. THAT is art, IMO.

[dw3041]

philosophy is not needed for that. fighting alone does not necessarily create negative emotions. In fact, you could argue that it creates positive emotions.
I am not saying that the negative emotions are caused by fighting. I was just using it as an example of something that could inhibit your abilities.
Perhaps I should define this kind of philosophy as an intentional ballancing with the aim of building a well rounded person through enlightenment.(without negative emotions)

I guess this changes the question to whether or not, given an equal amount of knowlege and experience in a martial art, an enlightened person can always be a better fighter than someone who is not enlightened. AKA; emotionally balanced, self aware, conscious of others (not selfish), understanding.

This really is a much deeper question than could be expressed with the original post.
Thanks for the opinions.

[dwid]

IMHO There are no enlightened people. Only enlightened actions. The whole concept of impermanence negates the possibility of enlightenment as a trait rather than a state.

In that sense, perhaps fighting at your highest level, remaining present and focussed, is itself a form of enlightenment.

[PangQuan]

IMHO There are no enlightened people. Only enlightened actions. The whole concept of impermanence negates the possibility of enlightenment as a trait rather than a state.

In that sense, perhaps fighting at your highest level, remaining present and focussed, is itself a form of enlightenment.


bravo

12345

[dw3041]

IMHO There are no enlightened people. Only enlightened actions. The whole concept of impermanence negates the possibility of enlightenment as a trait rather than a state.

In that sense, perhaps fighting at your highest level, remaining present and focussed, is itself a form of enlightenment.
It seems like you are trying to find any way possible to disagree here. It is very common to say that someone "is" some thing and only mean that they are "being" some thing. Just like when someone is being an idiot you just call them an idiot, you don't hear people say that they are "being" an idiot as often as the former response. The people who do use "being" in this way usually don't make a conscious decision to say "being", it's usually just a habit i.e. their way of saying things. On that note, I think it was very obvious what I meant. I understand the importance of being extra specific while trying to define terms, but whether I take "being" enlightened in the same way that you did or not is besides the point.

To all:

I realised that I had only asked the first part of a two part question:
I guess this changes the question to whether or not, given an equal amount of knowlege and experience in a martial art, an enlightened person can always be a better fighter than someone who is not enlightened. AKA; emotionally balanced, self aware, conscious of others (not selfish), understanding.the question should continue: And if enlightenment has a positive effect on martial arts, should the means of obtaining it be included in any martial arts that it improves upon?

Sorry if the difference between the first question and the incomplete one that I just quoted confused anyone.

[dwid]

It seems like you are trying to find any way possible to disagree here. It is very common to say that someone "is" some thing and only mean that they are "being" some thing. Just like when someone is being an idiot you just call them an idiot, you don't hear people say that they are "being" an idiot as often as the former response. The people who do use "being" in this way usually don't make a conscious decision to say "being", it's usually just a habit i.e. their way of saying things. On that note, I think it was very obvious what I meant. I understand the importance of being extra specific while trying to define terms, but whether I take "being" enlightened in the same way that you did or not is besides the point.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I find that people quite frequently talk about enlightenment as something one achieves and then that person is "enlightened." In fact, it is generally rare in my experience for people to discuss enlightenment any other way. Enlightened action vs. being is something extensively debated in lots of buddhist circles, and I generally find myself in the minority for thinking about it the way I do, so I quite naturally assumed you were referring to enlightenment as a state of being.

I stand by my final comment in my last post, and feel that fighting at your best, totally mindful and focussed, is quite conceivably a form of enlightenment.

[dwid]

I realised that I had only asked the first part of a two part question:the question should continue: And if enlightenment has a positive effect on martial arts, should the means of obtaining it be included in any martial arts that it improves upon?.

Well, by my logic above, the means to enlightenment is fighting at your best, and so, in answer to your question, yes, fighting at your best should be included in any martial arts training. The more contact the better. ;)

[Merryprankster]

In that sense, perhaps fighting at your highest level, remaining present and focussed, is itself a form of enlightenment.

Ah clever, and yes. I believe this, but never phrased it quite this way.

Nice!

[Merryprankster]

I'm sorry, but saying that something is a martial art is not evidence that it is a martial art. It begs the question "why do you say that it is a martial art?"I understand what the point of the arguement for philosophy free martial arts was, and it is a valid opinion, it's just not made valid by the fallacy that I pointed out. Sorry for the confusion.

Um, there's no confusion here. I understand what begging the question is. Rhetoric is a highly useful course.

MY point is that the issue that you raised and the response dwid offered was NOT begging the question at all.

This is brought out in the fact that you then explained your set of assumptions to us: that some of these other arts are "incomplete," ie, not QUITE martial arts as you define it.

The thing you said was begging the question was:


I consider Greco Roman wrestling and western style boxing to be a martial arts and as far as I know, there are no philosphies associated with them. So yes, they can be separated.

Nobody had sat down yet and explained what set of assumptions they were using. If you assume a martial art as "something that teaches you to fight," then GR and boxing are certainly martial arts, and there is no question to be begged with respect to philosophy.

If the question is really "Is philosophy necessary to call something a martial art," then it would be begging the question.

And if that is what you actually meant at the beginning of this thread, then I concur, it would be begging the question for the purposes of that issue.

But if the question was just simply, "Can philosophy be separated from martial arts," then I would say that what Chief Fox said about GR and boxing is perfectly valid (from a begging the question perspective), given his assumptions.

[dw3041]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I find that people quite frequently talk about enlightenment as something one achieves and then that person is "enlightened." In fact, it is generally rare in my experience for people to discuss enlightenment any other way. Enlightened action vs. being is something extensively debated in lots of buddhist circles, and I generally find myself in the minority for thinking about it the way I do, so I quite naturally assumed you were referring to enlightenment as a state of being.

I stand by my final comment in my last post, and feel that fighting at your best, totally mindful and focussed, is quite conceivably a form of enlightenment.
I see your point. Sorry.

[dw3041]

Well, by my logic above, the means to enlightenment is fighting at your best, and so, in answer to your question, yes, fighting at your best should be included in any martial arts training. The more contact the better. ;)I don't know if you are being serious here or just joking, but I don't recall saying that enlightenment is fighting at your best. I was just asking if fighting at your best is possible without enlightenment. I may have mentioned somewhere that I thought that it wasn't, but that was just my opinion, I am wanting to see other people's opinions.

[dw3041]

This is brought out in the fact that you then explained your set of assumptions to us: that some of these other arts are "incomplete," ie, not QUITE martial arts as you define it.I was not trying to use it as a set of assumptions to be adhered to for the rest of this thread. This was only my personal opinion and was not meant to be debated. I stated this very clearly:
My personal opinion is that the first two examples that you gave are incomplete martial arts at best. I believe that without a deep enough understanding of martial arts to be able to apply their principles to every day life, the art is taken out of the martial art. I think that for something to be an art there first has to be a certain level of appreciation for the art from the artist. I am not saying that the movements of some martial arts are not still very artful if executed by someone doesn't have a deep understanding or self awareness, but it's been my experience that a person who is very wise will always look more artful with their skill.

This is just my opinion on your question. I don't think that a consistent definition of martial arts will ever exist, but I am just curious to see what people's opinions are on this issue and the evidence supporting their beliefs. I would like to see which side provides the most convincing evidence.



Nobody had sat down yet and explained what set of assumptions they were using. If you assume a martial art as "something that teaches you to fight," then GR and boxing are certainly martial arts, and there is no question to be begged with respect to philosophy.Nobody sat down and explained what set of assumptions they were using for what a martial art is because these assumptions are subject to the question. e.i. The answer to the question: "can philosophy be separated from martial arts?" is needed to make any assumptions as to what defines a martial art.


If the question is really "Is philosophy necessary to call something a martial art," then it would be begging the question.

And if that is what you actually meant at the beginning of this thread, then I concur, it would be begging the question for the purposes of that issue.

But if the question was just simply, "Can philosophy be separated from martial arts," then I would say that what Chief Fox said about GR and boxing is perfectly valid (from a begging the question perspective), given his assumptions.
The question: "Is philosophy necessary to call something a martial art?" is automatically assumed in the question: "Can philosophy be separated from martial arts?" since the first question can be answered with the second.

e.g. If the answer to the second question (Can philosophy be separated from martial arts?) is "yes" then you can say that there exists some thing that is a martial art and does not require philosophy, so by this criteria the answer to the first question (Is philosophy necessary to call something a martial art?) would be "no". If the answer to the second question is "no" then you can say that there exists no thing that is a martial art and does not require philosophy, so the answer to the first question would then be "yes". These questions can be flipped around and it will work the same way. There is no more or less information that can be gained from either question, so they are essentially the same.

I hope that this makes my reasoning a little more clear. I really don't mean to be such a stickler about rhetoric.

[dougadam]

Yes, and I feel they should be.

[dw3041]

Yes, and I feel they should be.
Any reason why?

[Crushing Fist]

There seems to be some confusion here... let's see if we can straighten it out a bit.



phi·los·o·phy Audio pronunciation of "philosophy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.


and



martial art
n.

Any of several Asian arts of combat or self-defense, such as aikido, karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as sport. Often used in the plural.



but perhaps we should be broader with this definition


mar·tial Audio pronunciation of "martial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (märshl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.




art1 Audio pronunciation of "arts" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.


to say what we are talking about I would suggest #3 for martial and for art probably 6.1 or 7.1 would be best.

now we have the more difficult part in deciding what we mean by "philosophy'

I would think that 7 or 8 would be the most applicable here, though someone else might think that 1 or 2 are the topic at hand.

now that we have some definitions to work with, let's address the question.

assuming we will include boxing and GR wrestling as "martial arts" for the purpose of discussion can we say that they in fact do have philosophy?

I would say yes, as I am taking definition 7. "A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory"

by this definition every activity includes a "philosophy" even making a peanut butter an jelly sandwich.


As for the other definitions of "philosophy" I would say that they have no real bearing on martial arts, and therefore should not really be involved in it.


martial arts can be used as an example for this kind of philosophy, but then so can any aspect of reality.

would learning philosophy make someone a better fighter? likely no.

would learning to fight teach someone about philosophy? maybe so.



As for enlightened action...


certainly fighting at one's highest potential would be an expression of enlightenment, but so would eating at one's best, sleeping at one's best, breathing at one's best and so on.


enlightenment is in the Now.

[uki]

separating philosophy from martial arts = commercialized McMA sport fighting. :D

[Dragonzbane76]

combining phil. and ma's = brainwashed. :)

[uki]

combining phil. and ma's = brainwashed.in order to clean the sh!t out, one has to wash the brain. :p

[Dragonzbane76]

in order to clean the sh!t out, one has to wash the brain.

lol... water and soap work as well. :)

[uki]

lol... water and soap work as well.for brain washing??

[Frost]

for the love of god please let these old posts die, read them but don't ttt them!

[kfson]

In the wide scope, "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

"It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
____

This separation from mysticism, myth, and the arts is from a general absence of the nonreason, not irrationality, nonreason. Though, a faction of the 20th century philosophy and the very early Greek philosophy did investigate non reason.

What is the relationship of "reason" (as we all probably understand it), "non reason" as we see in Heraclitus and Heidegger, and "enlightenment" as directed by Buddhism and Daoism in their foundational influence on Chinese martial arts?

[David Jamieson]

every art is accompanied by a philosophy.

every method of development has a philosophy that drives it.

in short, you can't separate a method from the philosophy that created it. lol

now, i think that maybe you could ask, "should the idiots who have no background in philosophy stop pretending that they do have extensive philosophical credibility"?

lol.

there's no shortage of people who want to help you, even though they themselves fail to understand what it is they want to help you with.

There is no shortage of teenagers who want to be teachers without ever having learned how to properly study. For that matter, there's no shortage from within any age group of folks who want to be a teacher without taking the time to learn fully and completely what it is they want to teach.

this is a fault within the human condition that is the desire to be seen as something which has merit whether you deserve that merit or not.

Once you get over that hump in your own condition, should you ever face it, and many do, then you are most of the way to attaining actual kungfu!

anyway.... I digress. :-)

[kfson]

every art is accompanied by a philosophy.

every method of development has a philosophy that drives it.

in short, you can't separate a method from the philosophy that created it. lol

now, i think that maybe you could ask, "should the idiots who have no background in philosophy stop pretending that they do have extensive philosophical credibility"?



You might be using "philosophy" for "theory".

[David Jamieson]

You might be using "philosophy" for "theory".

not really. theory is proven or disproven through application.

if one's martial art has never gotten beyond theory, then it is not yet an art, it is a theory. lol

philosophy is the foundation of belief. any belief is founded on philosophy. It is so because philosophy is by its very nature a systematic and critical approach to any given subject.

[kfson]

not really. theory is proven or disproven through application.

if one's martial art has never gotten beyond theory, then it is not yet an art, it is a theory. lol

philosophy is the foundation of belief. any belief is founded on philosophy. It is so because philosophy is by its very nature a systematic and critical approach to any given subject.

Philosophy is not founded on belief. What is belief?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Belief is a philosophy.
:D

[kfson]

Belief is a philosophy.
:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true."

"True" must be universally defined for Belief to be a philosophy.
If philosophy is love of wisdom, what is the relationship of wisdom to knowledge, truth, and belief.

Of course, this is a dance of definitions a couple thousand years old.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true."

"True" must be universally defined for Belief to be a philosophy.
If philosophy is love of wisdom, what is the relationship of wisdom to knowledge, truth, and belief.

Of course, this is a dance of definitions a couple thousand years old.

That is an interesting philosophy of what belief is.
:p

[kfson]

That is an interesting philosophy of what belief is.
:p

What, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief? It really shows no wisdom.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief? It really shows no wisdom.

Since you are being serious:
phi·los·o·phy (fĭ-lŏs'ə-fē)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

1.

Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2.

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3.

A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4.

The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5.

The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6.

The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7.

A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8.

A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

[kfson]

fundamental assumptions or beliefs.


...and the relationship of these to truth and wisdom?

[sanjuro_ronin]

...and the relationship of these to truth and wisdom?

Truth and wisdom are subjective.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Everyone tends to have their very own philosophy about everything. Adopting someone elses is like changing religions simply because your ancestors had a different religion. If you are so quick to switch, then your original religion was not a true committment to faith. Neither would be your new philosophy. Besides, it will never make your fighting abilities better or worse. So, you will have your own ideas, or philosophy concerning fighting, since a philosophy is nothing more than just the way you look at things.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I noticed you didn't mention this part of the definition of philosophy:
7.

A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

People tend to subscribe to a philosophy that they like, agree with or that works for them.
In MA that is no different.
When I was doing TKD, at one point I was training for a point competition and I had to change my whole MA philosophy to be effective in it, I didn't like it at all and as soon as I could, I reverted back to my original MA philosophy:
If its standing its a threat, kill it, bury it, move on to the next one.
:D

[Scott R. Brown]

lol... water and soap work as well. :)

You are thinking about when your mom washed your mouth out for all that bad language!!!:D


In the wide scope, "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

Actually, Philosophy at its most basic level is:

Philos = Love

+

Sophi = Wisdom

......Love of wisdom/knowledge!

Therefore, the desire to understand or learn about any field of knowledge would fill the bill!

Even what I just said is a statement of philosophy!:)


now, i think that maybe you could ask, "should the idiots who have no background in philosophy stop pretending that they do have "extensive philosophical credibility"?

Pretending one has "extensive philosophical credibility" is still following a philosophy, so maybe they are experts at pretending to have extensive philosophical credibility.......

....kind of like being a good "bad example":)

....and even idiots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E) follow a "philosophy of idiocy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E)" or they wouldn't be such good idiots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E)!:D
_____________________________________________

At least that is my philosophy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnodPfR1X2U&feature=channel).....(as i run for the wings!!!!):p

[kfson]

I noticed you didn't mention this part of the definition of philosophy:
7.

A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

;)

"Philosophy": KFM.com definition, whatever you want it to mean.

Wisdom: "whatever you want it to mean".


This thread is a pile of wisdom.

[sanjuro_ronin]

"Philosophy": KFM.com definition, whatever you want it to mean.

Wisdom: "whatever you want it to mean".


This thread is a pile of wisdom.

You need to develop a better sense of humour there.

[kfson]

You need to develop a better sense of humour there.

This thread has got me pee owed:
http://www.ratewall.com/cpics/102b26a8-fdd8-4d89-906a-d7f33e7bddf1_jeff_dunham_walter.gif

[taai gihk yahn]

....and even idiots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E) follow a "philosophy of idiocy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E)" or they wouldn't be such good idiots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E)!:D

I dunno Scott - thing is, I watched each of the three links you posted and for the life of me I couldn't tell the difference; am I missing something? could you please explain this? or is this part of your wisdom-loving (which sounds kinda NAMBLA-ish creepy to me, to be honest...)?
any help would be greatly appreciated...

[David Jamieson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true."

"True" must be universally defined for Belief to be a philosophy.
If philosophy is love of wisdom, what is the relationship of wisdom to knowledge, truth, and belief.

Of course, this is a dance of definitions a couple thousand years old.

You're making it to convoluted.

You either want to know or you don't.

Don't ask if you don't want people to tell you. lol

[Scott R. Brown]

I dunno Scott - thing is, I watched each of the three links you posted and for the life of me I couldn't tell the difference; am I missing something? could you please explain this? or is this part of your wisdom-loving (which sounds kinda NAMBLA-ish creepy to me, to be honest...)?
any help would be greatly appreciated...

If you can't tell the difference between all three videos then......

......YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!!!!:eek:

Welcome to the club! Glad to have ya!!!:p

[Scott R. Brown]

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

So far so good.....

...sort of....

....one holds the proposition or premise to be true, but does not KNOW it to be true!


"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true."

Now, not so good......belief is only knowledge if one knows that the belief is true, in which case it is no longer belief, it is knowledge!

As long as you believe something is true, but do not KNOW it is true, it is belief!

Once you KNOW it is true, it is knowledge, NOT belief!

But what do I know....I am just an IDIOT!!!

Even I can't tell the difference between the three IDIOT PHILOSOPHY links, and I posted them!!!:eek:

[taai gihk yahn]

If you can't tell the difference between all three videos then......

......YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!!!!:eek:

Welcome to the club! Glad to have ya!!!:p

where do I apply for my face-full of mud and boot to the noggin', please?

[Scott R. Brown]

where do I apply for my face-full of mud and boot to the noggin', please?

WOW!!!!:eek:

You are a natural!!!!!:eek:

You don't even know how to get a full-face of mud and boot to the noggin!:eek:

I'll bet you even like getting slapped up-side the face with a dead fish!!!:eek:

I'm nominating you to be the next IDIOT PRESIDENT at our next inter-national meeting......

.....if I ever find it!!:eek:

[SteveLau]

So, is there a place for philosophy in the martial arts? If so, is it an optional one?

- dw3041


To reply to the first post. My answer to both questions is Yes. Sure, there is a place for philosophy in martial arts. Some styles are philosophical based. Others do have philosophy in them to different degrees. It can be optional, and all technical too. The choice is on the founder and the heirs of the school of style.



Good luck,

KC
Hong Kong

[SteveLau]

So, is there a place for philosophy in the martial arts? If so, is it an optional one?

- dw3041


To reply to the first post. My answer to both questions is Yes. Sure, there is a place for philosophy in martial arts. Some styles are philosophical based. Others do have philosophy in them to different degrees. It can be optional, and all technical too. The choice is on the founder and the heirs of the school of style. :o



Good luck,

KC
Hong Kong

[Xutreck5601]

I think it depends on how you look at philosophy. You have on one hand, the very "Airy Fairy" way of thinking about things. Expressing your chi, and such. On the other hand philosophy is an EXCELLENT way of training your mind to understand situations. For instance the general principles of the main 5 punches in hsing yi. How each of them is presented with a relative element from chinese theory. Each punch is countered by a punch of a differen't energy and that energy happens to be named by the element that counters it in chinese theory. This is exceptionally helpful when trying to teach. I would even go as far as to say. (And this is coming from my EXCEPTIONALLY LIMITED martial experience) that the philosophy of marital arts is a great deal more useful in the teaching and learning of the art than in the practical application. Once you have it, its is very much muscle memory, you don't really have time to think anyways. But when explaining to another peer in class that the change from a yin to a yang palm creates certain energies, and that such an idea relates to the rest of the body, legs, shins, shoulders, ect. I am usually thankful that someone has laid out such mechanisms for passing on knowledge.

[KC Elbows]

I started with a cartesian view of it all: I hit, therefore I am. So far, so good. Then I tried to use that to prove the existence of God. It got a little dicey, so I went Sartre on it, I am, but I come to define myself in relation to someone else hitting me. From there, I ended up on a forum, and it got a bit Godot for a while, until a forum member of limited literacy pointed out that Godot is dead.