empiricism vrs rationalism in the martial arts

[Black Jack II]

How do you look at your specific martial art or lets say style of training?

This post is not about mma vrs traditional or anything of that nature but on how one views the ends to the means when it comes to self protection. This can be looked at from a micro or macro perspective if one chooses.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. That there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience

What does this mean?

Does it state that certain arts because they were developed for a supposed defensive purpose a long time ago in our history or even by one's teachers teacher make them still effective because of there concepts even though they may not have any current empircal knoweldge on their use in a field tested situation.

In that regard what to you defines a field tested or pressure tested situation in that context then?

Some would say MMA or other combative sports for sure, others would argue the techiques and principles used in the current real world by bouncers, cops, guards, military operatives, street hoods and so forth.

On the other hand, Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. To them if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then they really may not be worth a darn.

Maybe instead of a combative sports testing lab, the empircial knowledge is self obtained by the respective traditional art or by ones teacher using it in a working enviorment. Rationalism and Empiricism don't have to be totally serparate either but for the post lets say they are in some big respects.

Arts that one may consider on the macro to be Empirical-

Judo
Wrestling
Boxing
San Shou
Muay Thai
Savate
BJJ
and so forth

Arts that one may consider on the macro to be based on Rationalism-

Longfist
Japenese Jujitsu
Silat
JKD Concepts
Karate
Tai Chi Ch'uan
Pakua
a vast number of gung fu systems
and so forth

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge so on that note what do you think?

[SifuAbel]

That there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience



Oh great, another idiot claiming it was all "dreamt up". Watch out dude, too much masterbation is bad for your health. If your logic were any more flawed and bloated, it would implode under its own grotesque girth. Your "Mixed bag" seems to be a high colonic.

[jon]

Hume vs Descartes

Hume by rnc in the first round.

This thread reminds me of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU

[Black Jack II]

LOL,

Hey Almighty,

That is not my viewpoint you douche. Thats taken from standard philosophy based descriptions of Rationalism. Your taking personal attacks on something which is standard textbook.

Did you even read the post at all??

I presented two different viewpoints using empiricism and rationalism. Thinking it may be a good way to look at training methods. Just because you don't have a clue what they mean is not my fault.:rolleyes:

[rogue]

Let's say I'm a Empirical Karateka.

Is this the one and only Black Jack?

[Black Jack II]

Sup Rogue,

Yes it be me chief. How you been.

I gave you a shout out before, thought I was on the out for a little bit there!

I think people are seeing this post topic way-way to harsh. Its not how it was intended at all. If people TAKE THE TIME to read what it states it has NOTHING to do with style bashing but more with different ways to view one's system.

[SPJ]

can not quite agree with your first post.

Judo has rules to be a game/sports, there are things you may not do. it is rationalized big time.

1. Long fist or Tai Tzu long fist is a summary of all the good styles/methods used in the Song army. They used them to fight in the battle field. It is purely empirical or evidence or combat proof 100%

2. Tai Chi used by Yang Lu Chan and imperial guards and royalties. It is also 100% empirical.

3. Ba Gua was used by imperial guards.

heck

reverse your list.

:D

[SifuAbel]

LOL,

Hey Almighty,

That is not my viewpoint you douche. Thats taken from standard philosophy based descriptions of Rationalism. Your taking personal attacks on something which is standard textbook.

Did you even read the post at all??

I presented two different viewpoints using empiricism and rationalism. Thinking it may be a good way to look at training methods. Just because you don't have a clue what they mean is not my fault.:rolleyes:

Oh STFU!, you anally bored out aging *****bag. You meant EXACTLY that. You are stating that the styles on the "rational" list were "dreamt up" without the imputus of NEED. Which is what you cowboy john wayne wannabe/neverwas, paramilitary, gun stock stroking, camo at a wedding wearing, beer swilling, red necked, micro dicked, sister raping, mutha fookers like to masterbate to.

[rogue]

Sup Rogue,

Yes it be me chief. How you been.

I gave you a shout out before, thought I was on the out for a little bit there!

I think people are seeing this post topic way-way to harsh. Its not how it was intended at all. If people TAKE THE TIME to read what it states it has NOTHING to do with style bashing but more with different ways to view one's system.

Sorry I missed the shout out bro, my bad. We should catch up on the combatives subject soon.

I agree about the topic.:cool:

[rogue]

Oh STFU!, you anally bored out aging *****bag. You meant EXACTLY that. You are stating that the styles on the "rational" list were "dreamt up" without the imputus of NEED. Which is what you cowboy john wayne wannabe/neverwas, paramilitary, gun stock stroking, camo at a wedding wearing, beer swilling, red necked, micro dicked, sister raping, mutha fookers like to masterbate to.

Able, Did Knifefighter hide your meds again?:p

[Black Jack II]

Able, Did Knifefighter hide your meds again-

LMAO

Aging? Dude I think I am younger than you if I remeber?

Take a chill pill you queen....f@ck, I wish I had that picture of you in that horse stance with your harem of glossy funboys squating on your legs in heavenly admiration.

btw....that is not what the post was about at all. This post is not about mma vrs traditional or anything of that nature but on how one views the ends to the means when it comes to self protection. This can be looked at from a micro or macro perspective if one chooses.

Never said both views can not be combined, people in science use both all the time, and I also used that as a very raw list without taking in any specific persons training format.

[SPJ]

off topic;

I had a pet mouse named Ben. It was eaten by my cat.

I started to sing like MJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvaxMjJudhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRqrHEkbiOc

is it a dream.

no. it is as real as you can be.

fighting methods do evolve.

however, if it is no good, it will be out of window before long.

that is as empiric as it can be.

what are we talking about?

:D

[cjurakpt]

I thik that at a given point in a given art's development, it's practitioners may swing from one extreme to the other: since it's not the content but the context about which you are speaking (e.g. - techniques from tai chi and wrestling can look very similar, but the manner in which they are practiced and applied can vary greatly); it's similar to the notion of dialetic syncretism, where you have periodic fluctuation of a "new" art being formed from a synthesis of other styles based on a practitioners experience and perceived need (empricial) and that art being "standardized" after a few generations and carried on for its own sake as a system (rationalism), until someone no longer is willing to stake their rep on what worked for someone 100 years ago

you can also have this occur within an art as well: I can practice tai chi which I learn from someone who has never used the art to fight, but who assures me that the techniques work in such and such a way despite them not being able to apply them well, and I can "reverse engeneer" it back to it's martial roots by taking the techniques, training them differently and trying to apply them in live venues; interestingly though, the reverse probably is less plauseable: although in the case of wrestling, development of the WWF "style" could be construed, oddly enough, as a form of rationalism, since it is in effect not based on empirical data of what works, but rather on a set of principles independent of the direct experience of the practitioner...

personally though, I prefer skepticism (if I punch you in the face and your head snaps backwards into another person's head, just because their head moves it doesn't necessarilly mean that it was caused by your head hitting theirs...;) ) and deconstruction (your so-called "traditional" style is nothing more than a construct propogated by dead white Christian males, and a textual reading of your forms reveals the inevitability of it's own dialectic...:eek: )

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Abel,

I think you are overreacting here! It seems to me that Black Jack's intent is to open an interesting philosophical discussion and not degrade any particular art. There is a difference between the usual mindless argument and a serious intellectual discussion.

All discussions occur according to a context. Black Jack set up some ground rules (context) for the discussion to focus around. This is reasonable for any philosophical discussion. If you disagree with his premises it would be more productive to formulate a reasoned argument that refutes his premises, however all discussion occur according to a predetermined set of premises. Just because you do not like Black Jack's premises is not reason to attack him personally with such vitriol. A reasonable response would be more appropriate here. This would carry on the discussion and help to prevent it from devolving into just another pi$$ing contest.

Your comments have began the pi$$ing contest because of the preconceived notions you have about Black Jack's intent. This does you no justice. I know you to be capable of reasoned discussion. If you are not willing to participate in the manner that Black Jack has repeatedly stated he intended the discussion to proceed then perhaps this is not the discussion thread for you.

I hope to participate in this discussion later if I have the time. In the mean time please take my comments as a friendly admonition and not intended to increase the pi$$ing in the pool here.

Or perhaps you have a personal history with Black Jack that some of us are not aware of?

[cjurakpt]

hey Scott - so I guess this is the type of thread title that gets you to leave the relative civility of the tai chi threads and come up to hazzard the slings and arrows of the main forum? ;)

Abel seems to have had a particularly spikey burr up his butt of late, I also was surprised by his seemingly unwarranted response; I think you contextualized it well, and hopefully this won't turn into a philosophical flame war ("No Rene, it is a solipsistic perspective!" "Screw you Martin, you fu(king Nazi!")

[Scott R. Brown]

hey Scott - so I guess this is the type of thread title that gets you to leave the relative civility of the tai chi threads and come up to hazzard the slings and arrows of the main forum? ;)

Abel seems to have had a particularly spikey burr up his butt of late, I also was surprised by his seemingly unwarranted response; I think you contextualized it well, and hopefully this won't turn into a philosophical flame war ("No Rene, it is a solipsistic perspective!" "Screw you Martin, you fu(king Nazi!")

LOL!! Hi cjurakpt,

Well nothing of interest is going on down below for me so I have had to slum a bit, ;) I even posted on the Street/Reality Forum once or twice and made my way over to ebudo for a bit of Zen discussion.

Also I don't have a lot of time lately. Thanks for the friendly ribbing. :)

[Fu-Pow]

1) I think that this is a false dichotomy. Its not that MMA is empirical and Classical Martial Arts are rational/theoretical. There is a broad overlap.

2) In terms of knowledge I think that rationality (that is logic and intuition) can get you very far. If we had to empirically test ALL knowledge then we'd be no better than mindless automatons with no reasoning or intuitive faculties. Where empiricism comes in is in those questions that don't have an easy answer and rationalism can't get you any closer to the answer.

(Sometimes empiricism reveals false assumptions and changes the whole model. So I guess you could say that empiricism and rationalism can work together and this is basically how modern science proceeds. Its one part logic, one part intuition and one part empiricism. Its actually a cycle that I have drawn out some where from a philosophy of science book, basically it looks like this:

Concepts and theories(ie reasoning) ----->Theories influence observation
A ooooooooooooooooooooo|ooooooooooooooooo|
|oooooooooooooooooooooo|ooooooooooooooooo|
|oooooooooooooooooooooovooooooooooooooooov
Imagination <-------------Obervation Data (ie empiricism)
Analogy
Models
(ie intuition)

(ignore the lower case o's they're just place holders)

I can't remember exactly where I got this from, it was a book on the philosophy of science or something.

FP

[Black Jack II]

Thanks to those that understand that this was actually supposed to be a interesting discussion.:)

Philosophical rationalism encompasses several strands of thought, all of which usually share the conviction that reality is actually rational in nature and that making the proper deductions is essential to achieving knowledge. In martial terms I think a lot can be said here when looked at from a commonsense persepctive. The only problem I see in that statement of mine, is that one persons view of what is innate commonsense in martial terms may not be commonsense at all or to another.

A person can draw from reason that a certain technique of principle will work in certain situations and it very well might but without some kind of testing method how sure can we all be?

This is where the empiricists attack the rationalists at this point, arguing that the content of socalled innate ideas were actually learned through one's experience, though perhaps largely unreflected upon by the person. Thus we learn vast amounts of knowledge through our family, education, and society which comes very early in life and cannot be counted as innate.

One rationalistic response to this empirical contention was to point out that they were many concepts widely used in science and mathematics that could not be discovered by experience alone. The rationalists, therefore, concluded that empiricism could not stand alone, but required large amounts of truth to be accepted by the proper use of reason.

When it comes to martial arts/self defense/combatives I think the sense experiance is king but without a rationalistic viewpoint it may go nowhere.:o

[SPJ]

off topic;

I had a pet mouse named Ben. It was eaten by my cat.

I started to sing like MJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvaxMjJudhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRqrHEkbiOc

is it a dream.

no. it is as real as you can be.

:D

the empiricism is that not to keep the cat with the mouse in the house alone. the cat will figure out how to jump up and open the mouse cage.

or the rationalism is such/

I am so confused.

go back to singing mode about Ben.

:D

[SevenStar]

can not quite agree with your first post.

Judo has rules to be a game/sports, there are things you may not do. it is rationalized big time.

1. Long fist or Tai Tzu long fist is a summary of all the good styles/methods used in the Song army. They used them to fight in the battle field. It is purely empirical or evidence or combat proof 100%

2. Tai Chi used by Yang Lu Chan and imperial guards and royalties. It is also 100% empirical.

3. Ba Gua was used by imperial guards.

heck

reverse your list.

:D

sure, it's rationalized - to some extent, ALL arts are. But, in this day and age, when was the last time tai tzu was used on any battlefield? It's evidenced that it worked back then, with the weapons and conditions of that time. Over the years, training has changed, and more importantly, battle has changed. Judo on the other hand gets tested all the time in it's rule-bound competitions and by several people on the streets. I can't say I know any tai tzu guys today who are actively testing what they train, though that is not to say that they don't exist. I definitely don't know of many taiji guys actively testing, other than in push hands tournies.

[SevenStar]

Oh STFU!, you anally bored out aging *****bag. You meant EXACTLY that. You are stating that the styles on the "rational" list were "dreamt up" without the imputus of NEED. Which is what you cowboy john wayne wannabe/neverwas, paramilitary, gun stock stroking, camo at a wedding wearing, beer swilling, red necked, micro dicked, sister raping, mutha fookers like to masterbate to.


who p!ssed in your cheerios this morning? chill out.

[SevenStar]

When it comes to martial arts/self defense/combatives I think the sense experiance is king but without a rationalistic viewpoint it may go nowhere.:o

I dunno. At the club I bounce at, we have wrestlers, footballplayers and people who walked the wrong side of life and because of which have a lot of fight experience. These guys are really straight-forward. They close distance, clinch the guy, maybe sneak in some elbows and knees, etc. and get the guy outside. Experience has taught the 'streetfighter' how to do these things, and the "HULK SMASH!" attitude of the football players make them crash in on someone. We also have a few cops who are VERY effective. I was shocked at how good their hand to hand was, a few weeks ago when we had a big brawl break out. On the other hand, we have also had, TKD, taiji and kempo guys there. None of them lasted long, as they had too much trouble getting people out and eventually quit.

Rationally, those guys had the greater skill set and should have more easily been able to get a guy outside. Realistically, the cop, street figghter and football players all fared much better. I would pin that on lack of experience on the part of the MAs that we had.

[Black Jack II]

Seven Star,

Oh no man, we are in total agreement on that paragraph, experiance is almost always king. It's all about aggression and forward drive in my book when talking about self offense, but what I mean by rationalistic viewpoint is not everything under the sun can be trained in the excellent conditions that combative sports do, unless certain people have access to specific tools, like RedMan suits and so forth.

Take a chin jab for example. A simple but very effective technique of driving your palm under the chin of your attacker and up. An Excellent tool that fits into what some peeps call a high percentage technique.

You can work it with force on pads, bags, dummies, hand made equipment, but you can really only use it with some degree of controll on a partner in live fire drills. That is unless you get a suit where you can really drill balls to the wall like a Redman suit or a simple makeshift biker helmet.

That is where the rationalistic aspect comes in I think for when you don't have access to that enviroment or equipment. As a fighter you know basic anatomy, you know driving a hard strike like that under the chin with force has a effect on the person and his cns due to the whipping back of the head.

Taking that knowledge/assumption base off of physical science lets you see where the end result may go. I do have to say that this only makes sense to me at least when we are talking about KISS techinques. Nothing obscure, low percentage and esoteric.

[mantis108]

How do you look at your specific martial art or lets say style of training?

This post is not about mma vrs traditional or anything of that nature but on how one views the ends to the means when it comes to self protection. This can be looked at from a micro or macro perspective if one chooses.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. That there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience

What does this mean?

Does it state that certain arts because they were developed for a supposed defensive purpose a long time ago in our history or even by one's teachers teacher make them still effective because of there concepts even though they may not have any current empircal knoweldge on their use in a field tested situation.

In that regard what to you defines a field tested or pressure tested situation in that context then?

Some would say MMA or other combative sports for sure, others would argue the techiques and principles used in the current real world by bouncers, cops, guards, military operatives, street hoods and so forth.

On the other hand, Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. To them if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then they really may not be worth a darn.

Maybe instead of a combative sports testing lab, the empircial knowledge is self obtained by the respective traditional art or by ones teacher using it in a working enviorment. Rationalism and Empiricism don't have to be totally serparate either but for the post lets say they are in some big respects.

Arts that one may consider on the macro to be Empirical-

Judo
Wrestling
Boxing
San Shou
Muay Thai
Savate
BJJ
and so forth

Arts that one may consider on the macro to be based on Rationalism-

Longfist
Japenese Jujitsu
Silat
JKD Concepts
Karate
Tai Chi Ch'uan
Pakua
a vast number of gung fu systems
and so forth

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge so on that note what do you think?


Sorry, I think your generalization is off. Most Kung Fu systems isn't rationalism. Technically, they are mysticism (still philosophical but not necessarily rational). In some traditional Kung Fu, you would even find Shamanistc root still intact. You can safely say that Modern Wushu, San Shou (the sport) and even new age Taiji belong in the rationalism category but you can not say styles such as Tongbi (through the arms), Tanglang (praying mantis), Baihe (white crane), etc are rationalism based. I would encourage you to do a more thorough study of traditional styles before you jump to any conclusion.

Rationalism is dualistic in nature (ie life imitates arts or arts imitate life). Mysticism treats life (the meaning of it) as arts and arts as life. In other words, Life is the art and they are one and the same. There is not distinction between the artist and the art; hence, from a mystic's point of view martial artist leads a lifestyle of martial arts (with the "presumption" that martial arts is indeed spiritual in nature) - 24/7 and no breaks or dayoffs.

Mantis108

[Black Jack II]

Very interesting way to look at it Mantis.

I wonder if some kung fu gents would frown at that philosophical viewpoint from the standpoint of this topic anyway. In terms of training I mean.

[SPJ]

a better word would be metaphysics.

it is theorized view that is not yet provable.

mind, substance, meaning of everything including life.

what is a mind?

what is an substance?

etc etc.

[lunghushan]

It's all fake, TKD, karate, MMA, BJJ ... The only real fighting is with guns and planes and submarines and missiles and warships.

[SPJ]

if we are asking the ultimate Q;

then everything is not real.

realism is only relative in time and space.

if there is no relativity or reference point in time and space;

then there is no or not thing or Wu Ji.

--

[SPJ]

I think therefore I am.

what if I dun think?

--

nature may follow certain patterns/rules/normacy/laws.

however, nature is mostly if not entirely random or chaotic events or too many variables.

we may like science or finding rules that things may be following or repeating.

--

but the greater scheme of things is still random.

--

fighting or warfare is no exception. they are random. you may increase your odds or winning chances/factors--

you may win this fight today. will you win the next fight tommorrow?

--