Kung Fu does include philosophy, it does include healthful regimens as well as militaristic ones. It has all sorts of other inward looking aspects in it that are employed to develop good character and in many cases a sense of morality and of ethics that are in line with the upright man of Confucian thought.
If all you want to do is learn to fight, get conditioned and gain some stamina, then I would suggest you avoid Kung Fu altogether because you will feel that there is too much else in there. :)[/QUOTE]
Kung fu has had those things added to it, yes but kung fu does NOT need them.
People that choose to learn kung fu BECAUSE of them, need them.
There is very little moral thought the goes into learning how to hurt someone, there is however lost in desciding not to, but you don’t need any confusion thought for that.
I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t need my MA to have any of that.
I don’t get my morals, ethics, philosophy, culture and whatnots from MA.
That is not what they were developed for.[/QUOTE]
Oh Dear Sanjuro,
So many good posts, I had so much respect for your opinion and in one post you have destroyed that.
Unfortunately this post and dragonblaze and iron eagle (both76)'s agreement sums up the entire argument.
The entire purpose of Martial arts is moral and philosophical and always has been. Without morality and philosophy we have no need of the martial arts.
So many good posts, I had so much respect for your opinion and in one post you have destroyed that.
Unfortunately this post and dragonblaze and iron eagle (both76)'s agreement sums up the entire argument.
The entire purpose of Martial arts is moral and philosophical and always has been. Without morality and philosophy we have no need of the martial arts.[/QUOTE]
Actually, history tells us otherwise, that is why elements of moral and ethics were ADDED to MA.
Kung fu and Martial Arts and the art of War is ultimately built on Morality and to train combat without morality is unthinkable.
Kung Fu and all Martial Arts are BUILT on philosophy and morality. These things are not added later. People don’t need martial arts to fight. Our instinct does just fine.
The entire concept of Martial Arts is developed because of our human increasing awereness of morality.
actually man, in chinese kung fu there is morality, but it is very alien compared to christian western morality. traditional kung fu morality talks about justification for robbing and kiling people and how violence solves everything. its very shocking to western ppl and i never mention it.
kung fu morality also emphasizes a lot on patriotism and chinese nationalism. this is why chinese teachers in american can really only talk about qi and internal alignment.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1055978]I think you make fun of whatever you don’t personally like or know or understand.
Because you fail to make it work, to you it would seem that that constitutes bs, and yet, why would the standing self defense stuff even be in bjj if it was nonsense? I’m pretty sure the only place nonsense comes from in martial arts is from trying to interpret something that you don’t understanding the first place. Like how you try to interpret traditional martial arts.[/QUOTE]
If you have an application background, you would understand. Since you don’t, I’ll explain it to you:
When you see the BJJ self-defense techniques practiced in only co-operative situations and then, when BJJ guys go full-on against resisting opponents, you almost never see any of those techniques, it’s pretty easy to conclude that they don’t work so well.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1056005]Actually, history tells us otherwise, that is why elements of moral and ethics were ADDED to MA.[/QUOTE]
Morals and Ethics preceed what we know now as traditional martial arts by many centuries actually.
They were not added in, if anything, they were applied to teh fighting arts in order to temper the otherwise savage nature of men who would be practicing such things as killing other human beings.
when to use force, when not to, when to use violence period vs when not to. All of that is garnered from moral and ethical sense wouldn’t you agree?
Would you teach a known criminal, who had a record of violent assaults how to put a sleeper choke on someone? Would you teach them the weakest parts of a human form? Would you teach them how to throw more forcefully? Would you teach them Iron skills?
These are all considerations of knowing who learns what.
Take a military institution for instance.
If you are of low moral character and lacking a good ethic, what are your chances of gaining access to highly specialized training?
Is it not in the best interest of the teachers of martial art to ensure that the information and training that they are providing is not given to someone who will use it in a highly inappropriate way?> such as committing crimes or deliberately harming others or themselves?
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1056008]Kung fu and Martial Arts and the art of War is ultimately built on Morality and to train combat without morality is unthinkable.
Kung Fu and all Martial Arts are BUILT on philosophy and morality. These things are not added later. People don’t need martial arts to fight. Our instinct does just fine.
The entire concept of Martial Arts is developed because of our human increasing awereness of morality.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, history has taught as differently.
MA were created for war and THEN elements of a “moral and ethical nature” were infused later.
By the way, I have seen as good if not better, displays of morals and ethics in sports that do NOT teach them, then I have in some TCMA schools that profess to do just that.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1056008]Kung fu and Martial Arts and the art of War is ultimately built on Morality and to train combat without morality is unthinkable.
Kung Fu and all Martial Arts are BUILT on philosophy and morality. These things are not added later. People don’t need martial arts to fight. Our instinct does just fine.
The entire concept of Martial Arts is developed because of our human increasing awereness of morality.[/QUOTE]
So according to your philosophy, someone whe trains in a fighting art is of equal fighting skill as someone not trained in a fighting art, since instinct does just fine and is all one needs, yet somehow these philosophies and moralities make them a better fighter?
So many good posts, I had so much respect for your opinion and in one post you have destroyed that.
Unfortunately this post and dragonblaze and iron eagle (both76)'s agreement sums up the entire argument.
The entire purpose of Martial arts is moral and philosophical and always has been. Without morality and philosophy we have no need of the martial arts.[/QUOTE]
reaally, so the cut throats bandits, bodyguards, thugs, killers and revolutionars who came up with these arts were really in it for the moral and spiritual process and not to find a way to defend themselves and kill their enermy more efficently?
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1056010]If you have an application background, you would understand. Since you don’t, I’ll explain it to you:
When you see the BJJ self-defense techniques practiced in only co-operative situations and then, when BJJ guys go full-on against resisting opponents, you almost never see any of those techniques, it’s pretty easy to conclude that they don’t work so well.[/QUOTE]
are you saying that you have the secret stuff here?
Why do you even make assumptions about my background…oh wait, never mind, it seems you assume pretty much everything about anyone and start building your strawmen to burn from there.
no text book technique will work 100% of the time, all the time. And that’s where your argument fails and ends.
all techniques in bjj can be rendered useless and not workable in a “live” resisting situation. Would you not agree?
Or do you think that there is a set of techniques that always work in a 100% resisting environment?
Which is it? Please tell us? You seem to be convinced that it is only one way or the other after all.
[QUOTE=Frost;1056016]reaally, so the cut throats bandits, bodyguards, thugs, killers and revolutionars who came up with these arts were really in it for the moral and spiritual process and not to find a way to defend themselves and kill their enermy more efficently?
thats a new one to me[/QUOTE]
cut throats and bandits don’t come up with arts.
Why do you think so.
Cut throats and bandits are only that.
Generally they are unable to function without a group.
[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1056014]So according to your philosophy, someone whe trains in a fighting art is of equal fighting skill as someone not trained in a fighting art, since instinct does just fine and is all one needs, yet somehow these philosophies and moralities make them a better fighter?
Sorry man, don’t quite follow you.[/QUOTE]
AHAHhahah,
You prove my point.
NO!!! I don’t think learning philosophy makes you a great fighter… I think fighting makes you a good fighter. Philosophy and morals makes you a great person.
In the begining we had instincts to fight, and they do just fine. Martial arts were created later for use in society. Society was created through morals and ethics.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1056017]are you saying that you have the secret stuff here?
Why do you even make assumptions about my background…oh wait, never mind, it seems you assume pretty much everything about anyone and start building your strawmen to burn from there.
no text book technique will work 100% of the time, all the time. And that’s where your argument fails and ends.
all techniques in bjj can be rendered useless and not workable in a “live” resisting situation. Would you not agree?
Or do you think that there is a set of techniques that always work in a 100% resisting environment?
Which is it? Please tell us? You seem to be convinced that it is only one way or the other after all.[/QUOTE]
dales point is those standing locks have about a 1 percent chance of working so why bother with something that has that low of a chance of being functional in a live setting?
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1056017]are you saying that you have the secret stuff here?
Why do you even make assumptions about my background…oh wait, never mind, it seems you assume pretty much everything about anyone and start building your strawmen to burn from there.
no text book technique will work 100% of the time, all the time. And that’s where your argument fails and ends.
all techniques in bjj can be rendered useless and not workable in a “live” resisting situation. Would you not agree?
Or do you think that there is a set of techniques that always work in a 100% resisting environment?
Which is it? Please tell us? You seem to be convinced that it is only one way or the other after all.[/QUOTE]
Everything that we do to prepare in life is probability. Nothing, other than death, is 100%.
Effective and efficient techniques are generally the ones that work a relatively high percentage of the time. However, as pretty much anyone with an application background will tell you, it makes a lot more sense to train the techniques that, added together, work 98% of the time, than to train the techniques that, when added together, work 2% of the time.
[QUOTE=Frost;1056016]reaally, so the cut throats bandits, bodyguards, thugs, killers and revolutionars who came up with these arts were really in it for the moral and spiritual process and not to find a way to defend themselves and kill their enermy more efficently?
thats a new one to me[/QUOTE]
No, the cutthroats and bandits were the frontline cannon fodder who were taught martial arts by enlightened generals and leaders of men. They created these arts like the art of war from their philosophy and morals and ethics.
[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1056014]So according to your philosophy, someone whe trains in a fighting art is of equal fighting skill as someone not trained in a fighting art, since instinct does just fine and is all one needs, yet somehow these philosophies and moralities make them a better fighter?
Sorry man, don’t quite follow you.[/QUOTE]
the philosophies and morals make them a better human being than one without morals and without philosophical direction.
they also serve to temper a fighter in how he reacts to the world around him.
no need to nuke someone for a small insult right? so, if you are without the lessons on how to use the weapon, how will you use it effectively, at the right time etc.
It is easy to know this in a sportive venue, you have rules, you have a place marked out and clear instruction as to why you are there.
wasn’t there this great bagua master who went around beating the sh1t out of defenseless christian missionaries and bragged about it. forgot his name…anyway i dont think he was, by our standarts, such a morally upright person lol
