Thought the folks here might enjoy this.
Good article. More thoughtful than a lot of the arguments I’ve seen on the subject.
But I’m not a huge fan of this position in the first place. I think you make a good point about people’s realistic (or less-than-realistic) views of what we do. At the same time, highlighting dictionary definitions of the word ‘martial’ is a tired tactic, in my opinion. We all know it means ‘pertaining to war.’
To my mind, on this forum at least, the bias lies with the martial approach. In theory, at any rate. People here are more likely to side with the combative camp, by and large. (Granted, their interpretations on what that means will vary from person to person. But we don’t tend to get a whole lot of arguments about moral authority, the spirit of budo, etc.)
Here’s my thing: There are people who strike me as paranoid or unrealistic in their assessment of life as a daily struggle for survival. And there are people that infuriate me with esoteric discussions about bushido and martial virtue. But whatever. If some guy got the ever-loving crap kicked out of him and said, “enough’s enough”, who am I to tell him that he’s being paranoid and unrealistic? Likewise, if a person’s never had a fight in his life (like me) and trains because the cultural aspects of the study fascinate him, then who am I to tell him he should be more ‘martial’?
This is where, in my opinion, the word ‘art’ gets downplayed. Art is interpretive and expressive. An artist gives shape and form to his own thoughts and priorities. And just like an abstract painter is going to come up with a very different depiction of a bowl of fruit than a realist might, different martial artists are going to have different depictions of their martial arts. Some will be less ‘realistic’ than others. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s their prerogative. If a person is happy with their work, then that’s all that matters. What we do is an art that’s inspired by the subject of personal conflict. The degree to which an individual artist faithfully recreates that subject is up to that individual (just as it is with any other sort of art).
I think the real problem is honesty. With oneself. If someone spouts off about this ‘martial’ or ‘combative’ viewpoint indicating a lack of self esteem, naivete, or overt hostility, then the real question is, “do you say that because you believe it or because something about that view intimidates you?” And if it does intimidate that person, why? Is it fear? Or is it a genuine moral abhorrence?
People are bound to have differing viewpoints on the subject of violence and how it fits in to what we do. The important thing, I think, is that we learn to distinguish between what we believe and what we hide behind in order to avoid addressing something else. And I’m sure that there are members of both camps that are guilty of that.
For a long time, I bought into the whole “learning to fight so you don’t have to fight” viewpoint. But the truth is that I clung to that viewpoint because I was afraid of getting hurt, embarrassed, etc. It was very easy to tell myself that I was doing right by an idealistic framework held by warriors through the ages. But when I was being totally honest with myself, I knew that much of that was avoidance. Well supported avoidance.
It’s very easy to align ourselves with different camps in order to avoid going through the experiences and making our own judgments about fighting, realism, morality, etc. Whether we address our fears by aligning ourselves with NHB badarses or enlightened ‘scholar warriors’, the net effect is the same. We haven’t done the legwork ourselves. And, in my opinion, that’s no good.
Stuart B.
Dunno 'bout the article, but ap sure has alot of words to type!
Im in the kickass camp. Kick st00’s ass.
:eek:
Originally posted by yenhoi
[B]Dunno 'bout the article, but ap sure has alot of words to type!
Im in the kickass camp. Kick st00’s ass.
:eek: [/B]
Where’s the love? 
The article is interesting and Ap, you make some good points.
I have another point about “martial arts.” There is the claim that it promotes discipline. But, doesn’t it also promote a military obedience? Martial arts isn’t just to learn combat, but it is to build a military. Militaries are to show might and to use might. That, to me, trickles down to the individual. Martial Arts builds that kind of obedience to the leader and to the use of might.
Sorry, I’m not quite as eloquent right now as Ap or the article, but my boss keeps popping up behind me and it’s hard to write like that.
Robin
Im in the kickass camp. Kick st00’s ass.
You have to put him in a dress first…
Stil reading the article but I think Ap is pretty accurate in his opinion.
Robinf,
Originally posted by Robinf
The article is interesting and Ap, you make some good points.
Cheers.
I have another point about “martial arts.” There is the claim that it promotes discipline. But, doesn’t it also promote a military obedience? Martial arts isn’t just to learn combat, but it is to build a military. Militaries are to show might and to use might. That, to me, trickles down to the individual. Martial Arts builds that kind of obedience to the leader and to the use of might.
Well, it certainly can create a sense of obedience, yeah. I think that depends a lot on the school. Martial arts haven’t served a truly military function in a very long time. And that shift has certainly filtered down to some degree over the years.
But yeah, there’s still a very real sense in which the priorities of the teacher (whether those be combat, sport, health, etc.) can become the priorities of the student.
Ideally, the teacher will emphasize free thought (in my opinion). In this day and age, martial artists don’t need to be unquestioning soldiers. On the battlefield, there wouldn’t have been much time for the questioning of orders. And obedience would’ve been a premium. Today, I don’t see as much reason for that sort of setup. Not to say it doesn’t still happen. But even ‘combative’ programs are now dealing more with individual preservation than military coordination. In that case, the individual needs to be able to make personal judgments regarding the situation.
Sorry, I’m not quite as eloquent right now as Ap or the article, but my boss keeps popping up behind me and it’s hard to write like that.
Not at all. I think you’ve raised a good point. The teacher teaches according to his priorities. A student should probably give thought to whether his own priorities fall in line with those.
Stuart B.
I have another point about “martial arts.” There is the claim that it promotes discipline. But, doesn’t it also promote a military obedience?
This is a disturbing facet of some schools. I think its characterized in practices such as forcing students to memorize useless information for testing, engaging in excessive displays of respect, a general intolerance to questioning the effectiveness of any technique, and punishment such as pushups for any failure to follow the often idiosyncratic procedures involved in each class.
These disturb me, I suppose, because they are essentially some of the same methods the military uses to extract blind obedience from recruits, and it serves no purpose in a martial art class other than to condition students to be blindly devoted to the instructor.
Ap’s insightful and thought-provoking post was better than the article. Good work!
Originally posted by Budokan
Ap’s insightful and thought-provoking post was better than the article. Good work!
Cheers Budokan. I appreciate that.
“martial” arts.
I agree with the article. Those that study martial arts need to remember the roots of their arts. It is based in fighting. It is not about learning forms, just so you can do pretty things to impress your friends at parties. Trying to take the moral high ground by walking away from a fight, and not starting one, is of course, a mentality we should all practice. But it is impossible to try to make a split second judgement about the intentions of three guys jumping you from behind on the street. I am not saying that we should fall back on fear- but if someone attacks me unprovoked on the street- I have to assume that a) he is armed and b) he means to kill or rape me. At that point, no holds barred. I think it is naivete to assume that at three in the morning in a parking garage, a guy with a knife deserves my “respect”. Or that you can neccessarily avoid every bad situation. Chances are you will never face that dread scenario, but if you ever do, and turn out to be the stupid heroic type. It could be your last.
Rin,
You’ve got a point. But I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that we adhere to the ‘fighting without fighting’ idiom once things escalate that far.
If you’re staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning, I think everyone can agree that it’s on. And that the time for philosophical vagaries has passed.
Whatever we’re debating, I think it occurs before that. What do you think?
Stuart B.
Originally posted by apoweyn
[B]Rin,
If you’re staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning, I think everyone can agree that it’s on. And that the time for philosophical vagaries has passed.
Whatever we’re debating, I think it occurs before that. What do you think?
Stuart B. [/B]
I once read a article by someone who grew up in very rough neigbourhood. He stated that tough guys in the hood always run when **** hit the fun not because they are coward but they put their safety and life first and don’t go out their to prove size of their ****.
Large part of the self-defence is not physical. You shouldn’t put yourself in the situation where you’re staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning in the first place.
People, who rant about how invincible they are, are idiots who are likely to get themselves killed when real self-defence situation arise. They often actively enage in behaviour which put them in dangerous situation and often escalate such situation because of their idiocy.
Another idiot is the one who freeze when similar situation arise. Both I’m-****ing-invincible and Oh-please-don’t-hurt-me type are trapped in their fear and thus puting themselves in danger.
Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can’t do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won’t freeze and start thinking.
Vapour,
Large part of the self-defence is not physical. You shouldn’t put yourself in the situation where you’re staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning in the first place.
Amen.
Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can’t do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won’t freeze and start thinking.
In theory, yes. In practice, I’ve frozen before. Good thing, as it turned out. If I hadn’t frozen, I’d have decked an undercover cop.
But I get your point, yeah.
Stuart B.
Vapor,
Excellent retort.
Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can’t do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won’t freeze and start thinking
First, ahmen. And my sentiments exactly.
It does, indeed, depend on your point of view what you take away from it. And the training to react is part of the martial art. If you want violence, then the mental part of your training will be fixed to learning to be violent on contact. If you want non-violence, then your training will teach that mental part of you how to avoid violence.
But, all in all, the martial in martial arts is the violent aspect. What people gleem from their learning, violence or non-violence, is personal mental disposition.
Robin
My last post was mostly in response to some art forms that teach a strict philosophy of “defensive maneuvers only” After two years of TKD some time ago, in which the teacher taught to kick to get distance and then run away, it occured to me- How do I know that I can outtrun the bad guy? Isn’t it better for me to make sure the bad guy cannot move, through one way or another before I disengage? That is the kind of philosophy that I was debating. And as for don’t put yourself in a garage @ 3:00 AM. I live alone in the city, and I work nights. Parking garages at 3 am are a daily thing. Caution, yes, but this isn’t a “bad things don’t happen to smart people” kind of world.
Originally posted by rin
My last post was mostly in response to some art forms that teach a strict philosophy of “defensive maneuvers only” After two years of TKD some time ago, in which the teacher taught to kick to get distance and then run away, it occured to me- How do I know that I can outtrun the bad guy? Isn’t it better for me to make sure the bad guy cannot move, through one way or another before I disengage? That is the kind of philosophy that I was debating. And as for don’t put yourself in a garage @ 3:00 AM. I live alone in the city, and I work nights. Parking garages at 3 am are a daily thing. Caution, yes, but this isn’t a “bad things don’t happen to smart people” kind of world.
The thing about defensive maneuver aside from running away is that you still have to engage in fight. O.K. you might break his knee but I would rather not find out what he is hiding in his pocket. Anyway, I can try such manuever when he managed to corner me in the alley.
Since you can’t avoid going into car park at the middle of the night, you could pay attention to where you park the car. Plus, you should pay attension to where possible attacker could hide and sneak up on you so the moment you entered the car park, you know where to watch out. Another thing you could keep in your mental note is which direction you could run away.
The same thing with you house. There are lot of sensible personal safety book out there which tell you what kind of precaution one can take to avoid intruder as well as how to be street smart. If you live in ****-happen kind of world, my recommendation is to read some of these books.
I’m not saying all martial arts techniques are useless. I’m saying that those technique should be put into much wider context of personal safety rather than thought of it as combat techniques.
I came across a site about personal safety and self defence while ago. Most of my idea presented in this comment I got it from there. I will look for it and send you the link.
Vapour,
Your last post makes you seem paranoid.
Its interesting to me that some people get into martial arts with one mindset and come out of it with another sometimes. Maybe they lose their stomach for fighting [akin to hunters losing taste for killing, I suppose] or maybe they get more into it…
The article was very good, BTW. To me, it just said the obvious: fighting is fighting, not a momentous moral choice. ‘Repent at leisure…’
Anyhow, its good to do MAs because at least you can see for yourself, in a real way, what you are repenting of, if that becomes your choice. I don’t fault people for choosing that [not focusing on fighting] if they do- its just not what’s being studied.
I hate alot of fighting, but I really like sparring, training is challenging and the self defense comes in handy. At least that’s where I am right now with the martial arts. If that’s not martial enough than so be it.