[SIZE=“3”]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.[/SIZE]
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?
[SIZE=“3”]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.[/SIZE]
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”?
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.
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.
[SIZE=“3”]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.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=“3”]…Kudos[/SIZE]
[SIZE=“3”]
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.
I think this last part would qualify it as a philosophy in my opinion.[/SIZE]
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?
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.
philosophy is not needed for that. fighting alone does not necessarily create negative emotions. In fact, you could argue that it creates positive emotions.
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.
then I would say the onus is on the individual - what do YOU consider a martial art ?
[SIZE=“3”]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.[/SIZE]
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
[SIZE=“3”]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:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=“3”]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.[/SIZE]
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.
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. 