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.

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!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.