Poor sense of philosophy and history

[Jaeimseu]

I'm going to guess (just my opinion) that the vast vast vast majority of martial arts practitioners are martial arts hobbyists who train/take class anywhere from 2-6 hours per week (probably closer to 2-3). I'm also going to guess that the vast vast vast majority of these people aren't signing up to learn history or philosophy. People tend to get that stuff from other avenues if they want it. Furthermore, I'm guessing the vast vast vast majority of "MAists" have been practicing/practiced for less than 1-2 years. I don't feel like an academic approach to history and philosophy is necessary or even appropriate for these people.

It's entirely possible to do/be good at an activity without knowing much about the history/philosophy of the activity. For example, I may or may not know that Babe Ruth struck out 74 times in 1930 (no idea if this is true), but it really makes no difference to my practice of baseball.

Now, if we are only talking about the content people post on these boards then I have no idea^^

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do May I ask for the source of your data that you're using to support this conclusion?

Ksd, your LE background and diverse training speaks for itself. I think you do agree, but play devil's advocate with the best of them. Ethics, philosophy and history are not what today's schools really instill. They may hang placards on the wall but beyond that the deeper connection to the art is absent. I have certainly learned how to fight, save for soo bahk do, the honorable use of those skills was nothing but passing notes in a symphony of physicality.

Perhaps the schools you've attended lack the sense of philosophy and history which you're discussing. But that is a rather sweeping generalization don't you agree? Regardless of whether a school has a sport or a SD focus, they can also incorporate philosophy and history. Using my own school as an example, we are purely SD. Not an ounce of sport. Yet history is a part of our training and indeed it is used in the promotion process. I've studied my particular lineage, as best as can be done with the information out there to research, back to the 1300's. This is provided to my students as this is now their lineage as well. And we often discuss the good, bad and ugly of particular elements of our martial history. As far as philosophy, depends on your definition I suppose. If it is far east zen then no, not an ounce of it. If we're talking avoidance, evasion, de-esculation, and final appropriate use-of-force for the situation then yes we cover that as well as courtesy, not seeking revenge and things along those lines.

Are these the types of issues your talking about?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I am not surprised but disappointed at the lack of scholarly and philosophical development in many of those who post here. .......................................A martial artist should take an academic approach to historical investigation. The martial artist should be stretching his heart and soul as much as his body........................

While I subscribe to one of General Choi's ideals that we must develop our students as "Scholars and Soldiers", and there are lessons to be learned from history and philosophy, without getting into a semantics argument, I do not look to the martial arts to stretch my heart or soul, nor do I view it as a vehicle for such more my students.

I leave the heart and soul stretching for better vehicles such as family, and houses of worship if they so choose.

 

[Instructor]

While I subscribe to one of General Choi's ideals that we must develop our students as "Scholars and Soldiers", and there are lessons to be learned from history and philosophy, without getting into a semantics argument, I do not look to the martial arts to stretch my heart or soul, nor do I view it as a vehicle for such more my students.

I leave the heart and soul stretching for better vehicles such as family, and houses of worship if they so choose.

I agree with you completely and yet I have to admit that the practice and study of martial arts has changed my perspective on many things. It has made my heart stronger to appreciate my family and my church. It has given me a sense of security so that I can interract with others without fear or reservation.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Hapkido, taekwondo, karate, tang soo do, soo bahk do and a touch of tai chi. The latter offering the most holistic approach.

So you are making a general statement about all martial arts with virtually no experience in Chinese Martial arts and none in FMA. So basically all this can then be thought of is "your Opinion" with no academic approach no support at all for anything that could be called a thesis to come to your conclusion of...

I am not surprised but disappointed at the lack of scholarly and philosophical development in many of those who post here. It supports my thesis that the martials have devolved into merely a method of fighting (self defense, sports, et cetera). A martial artist should take an academic approach to historical investigation. The martial artist should be stretching his heart and soul as much as his body. It is not commercially viable nor truly appreciated in today's material culture. Martial arts are overly deferential to youth, issuing black belts to teens, and celebrate the physical aspects of the art in the extreme.

Yeah...thanks for the opinion

You may want to look here and then maybe you will understand why your list of 5 arts and a touch of Taiji makes me not take you seriously

 

[Rumy73]

So you are making a general statement about all martial arts with virtually no experience in Chinese Martial arts and none in FMA. So basically all this can then be thought of is "your Opinion" with no academic approach no support at all for anything that could be called a thesis to come to your conclusion of...

Yeah...thanks for the opinion

You may want to look here and then maybe you will understand why your list of 5 arts and a touch of Taiji makes me not take you seriously

Well Xue Sheng, this is not the medium for an academic paper. However, beyond the arts I have personally studied, I have friends who are involved in others, including Chinese arts. At least in the U.S., they are lacking beyond the physical. The modern development of martial arts has changed the purpose and mission of them. While there are people who care to teach and pass on the history and philosophy, generally speaking, it is not the case -- and let's be clear, I did not argue exclusively.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The modern development of martial arts has changed the purpose and mission of them.

What do you think is the purpose and mission of the martial arts?

 

[Instructor]

It's a question I would like to answer though it was aimed at Rumy73. It could perhaps be different for arts I haven't studied but for those I have studied the primary purpose is to prevail in a fight or better yet, avoid it altogether.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well Xue Sheng, this is not the medium for an academic paper. However, beyond the arts I have personally studied, I have friends who are involved in others, including Chinese arts. At least in the U.S., they are lacking beyond the physical. The modern development of martial arts has changed the purpose and mission of them. While there are people who care to teach and pass on the history and philosophy, generally speaking, it is not the case -- and let's be clear, I did not argue exclusively.

:hmm: And yet you are the one talking Thesis and academic approach.... interesting

I do not think you actually know the historical purpose of most martial arts if you are upset about the lack of philosophical development and you are then applying any of this to the majority of them, even more so to CMA. If you are then you are upset at the lack of the mystical movie version of CMA and many MAs and not so much the historical reality.

You are making generalizations about things you do not understand the history of and yet berating other martial artists because they did not "take an academic approach to historical investigation" which is rather Ironic since your statement, which is a gross generalization, shows that you are guilty of what you are accusing others of

 

[Rumy73]

I see I touched a nerve here, but I have to disagree, I have learned that the historical purpose of martial arts was the holistic development of the student. I am not in search of a "mystical movie" version.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I see I touched a nerve here, but I have to disagree, I have learned that the historical purpose of martial arts was the holistic development of the student. I am not in search of a "mystical movie" version.

Where have you learned this? Because from common sense, and most history books that include the development of martial arts *most* of them include a primarily martial need for the martial art.

 

[Instructor]

The regular training of martial arts does mean a number of fringe benefits.

The regular practice of Football is the same way, attracting girls for example, but most players agree that winning the game is the first and best priority.

 

[Rumy73]

KSD, I think that teaching a student the power of fighting is a process that comes with great responsibility for teacher and student alike. Physical training alone cannot accomplish this goal. It was rightly mentioned along the way that most martial arts students are merely hobbyists. I think that is correct and teaching most often caters to this reality. I understand that instructors have to make a living. The result is that the predominant number of persons involved in the martial arts are getting only a sliver of its real value. Belts, trophies, certificates, and the ilk are nice and relevant but only at the surface. I would hope that achieving a belt (of any color) would be part of a personal growth. Learning that violence one can unless must be grounded in justice and respect. As a law enforcement officer, you have not only bought into those values but make them the tenets of your career. If a person only wishes to be a fighter, so be it, the world has had its share of them and will continue to do so. However, the scholarly side of the martial artist knows that the pen is mightier than the sword. In his development of self-expression, knowledge of history and understanding of the human condition, he can enrich the lives of others and diffuse conflict.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

The way I am understanding Rumy's position, is that the purpose of martial arts is personal growth; physical, mental, and spiritual. Correct me if I am wrong on this Rumy. In JMA's it would refer to the "Do" vs "Jutsu" argument that we've had on here countless times in the past.. .

Such as Kong Soo Do's post (fourth post down) in this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/100966-Do-vs-Jutsu

I will agree that to an extent this was, at one point in history, a purpose of martial arts. However, as I understand it, there are very little, if any traditional (i.e. not modern) martial arts that were created with this in mind.


However, if anyone on here has any "academic" information to contrary, beyond Rumy's personal experience/opinion, I'm sure we'd all enjoy seeing it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I see I touched a nerve here, but I have to disagree, I have learned that the historical purpose of martial arts was the holistic development of the student. I am not in search of a "mystical movie" version.

Actually you have not touched a nerve at all but you do show a great lack of of knowledge of the history of most martial arts. And based on the history martial arts had little to do with the "holistic development of the student", that is if you are truly looking at it from a realistic view point based on the factual history. Now you may be able to make that case for Martial Arts from Japan that are catagorized as "do" arts but for the rest I am sorry but you are very wrong based on the real history, not the legendary of mythologfical history, of those arts.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

KSD, I think that teaching a student the power of fighting is a process that comes with great responsibility for teacher and student alike. Physical training alone cannot accomplish this goal. It was rightly mentioned along the way that most martial arts students are merely hobbyists. I think that is correct and teaching most often caters to this reality. I understand that instructors have to make a living. The result is that the predominant number of persons involved in the martial arts are getting only a sliver of its real value. Belts, trophies, certificates, and the ilk are nice and relevant but only at the surface. I would hope that achieving a belt (of any color) would be part of a personal growth. Learning that violence one can unless must be grounded in justice and respect. As a law enforcement officer, you have not only bought into those values but make them the tenets of your career. If a person only wishes to be a fighter, so be it, the world has had its share of them and will continue to do so. However, the scholarly side of the martial artist knows that the pen is mightier than the sword. In his development of self-expression, knowledge of history and understanding of the human condition, he can enrich the lives of others and diffuse conflict.

While I cannot speak for everyone on here, I don't disagree with what you are stating here, but this is significantly different than your OP. Your OP asserts that martial arts in the U.S. have somehow devolved into a place to take your money for daycare OR take your money to teach you to fight, which I strongly disagree with.

You state that it is a martial artist's duty to take on an academic approach to historical investigation, which I also disagree with. As an instructor, I stress the moral and ethical standards and responsibilities that come with learning martial arts. I also intermingle history lessons from time to time, but not often in class. However, I would never suggest to any of my students that if they want to become a REAL martial artist they must devote ardent time to academic research on martial arts history. Would they benefit from it? Maybe.. . Is it necessary? No. This is not the perfect analogy, but here it is anyhow. I know how to shoot a gun. I spend time practicing to become proficient with its use, and I know the moral and ethical responsibilities of using it. Do I devote academic research on the history of firearms? No, I do not.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I have learned that the historical purpose of martial arts was the holistic development of the student.

There may be some arts that were indeed created with this purpose in mind. The majority though, at least from an historical perspective had little holistic pursuit in mind. The martial arts were by definition, martial or warlike in nature and pursuit. Now, esoteric ventures did find their way into some arts. CMA is an example though the Shaolin temples. And to an extent, their is nothing inherently wrong with esoteric values coming into the martial arts if it has a positvie affect on the student i.e. don't go looking for trouble, self-defense only etc. As long as the holistic approach doesn't impede what the arts were developed for originally, specifically if that is the goal of training.

Also keep in mind that eastern philosophy is in no way needed for complete martial arts training. As several have stated here already, one can obtain spiritual and holistic training in numerous ways outside of the arts.

KSD, I think that teaching a student the power of fighting is a process that comes with great responsibility for teacher and student alike.

Yes, there is a responsibility.

The result is that the predominant number of persons involved in the martial arts are getting only a sliver of its real value.

But again, you're making an assumption based upon your personal experience(s) and what you've come into contact with.

Let me throw a little 'philosophy' over to you for consideration;

A man was teaching a class about God. A teenage boy made the comment that he didn't believe in God. The teacher asked the boy, "Do you know everything that can be known"? The boy said no, of course not. The teacher then replied, "Let us assume that you do know half of everything that can be known....perhaps God is in the half you don't yet know". In otherwords, perhaps there are a plethora of schools out there that provide the student with a full, complete and rewarding experience in the martial arts beyond the physical. Doesn't matter if the school is sport, SD or a mix.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Such as Kong Soo Do's post (fourth post down) in this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/100966-Do-vs-Jutsu

Thank you, I'd forgotten about that post. Here it is for consideration:

Firstly- the notion that a koryu cannot use dan/kyu grades is absurd. Daito-ryu uses them nowadays (in concert with their old license system), and I don't think you'll hear anyone (credible) claim that they're somehow "less classical" because of it. I wonder how someone could likewise state that Daito-ryu would lose any claim to its (mightily impressive) heritage by adopting it.

The distinction between "do" and "jutsu" was practically non-existant until after WW2. Prior to this, and especially prior to the Meiji period, they were used with virtual interchangeability, and sometimes omitted altogether. This is particularly true of the iai schools, virtually none of which identified themselves as anything other than "iai" ("Itto-ryu iai", "Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iai", etc.).

Many schools didn't even use titles to describe which methods they taught- Araki-ryu being a good example. One went to learn the subject the way that school taught it- whatever weapons or methods they happened to teach.

The distinction came with polarization. The martial arts became polarized after the Meiji period. Those schools that adopted "do" where they had previously (or in previous incarnations) used "jutsu", did so to dissociate themselves from the defunct and unpopular samurai- not to mention, to avoid government-ordered oblivion. When the "return to traditionalism" hit Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, some schools became ardently "jutsu" in order to affect the aforementioned "return". The distinction is an artificial and semantic one, which has lasted for a sufficient number of decades to become "gospel".

So yes, while there is a small distinction (in the koryu sense, anyway) between "do" and "jutsu", it is just that- a small difference. Over time, the difference becomes even less significant, as life asserts itself and the various aspects of budo blend together in the practicioner and become indistinguishable from one another. Those who make a major difference out of it, need to spend less time analyzing names and words, and more time living budo.

Leave it to an academic to speak in broad declaratives about such a complex, nuanced, and rich subject. IHS's refrain of "This is koryu, this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" is the opinion of folks who fail to realize that history does not pause while the reader concludes one chapter and begins the next. It's the opinion of people who, rather than having twenty or thirty years of experience, have one year of experience twenty or thirty times over.

Nowadays, you'll note that many of the seasoned practicioners omit it altogether- "aiki" instead of aikido or aikijujutsu, "iai" instead of iaido or iaijutsu, "naginata" instead of naginata-do or naginata-jutsu, and so on.

This is, to my mind, a very healthy "return to traditionalism"- it harkens back to when the real practicioners didn't give a crap about artificial distinctions, because their practice served more than a single purpose. It wasn't just technical (or "jutsu"), it wasn't just about enlightenment (or "do"). It was an all-consuming, life-affirming, all-encompassing practice which supported and nourished their bodies, minds, and spirits. It was their work, their sport, their duty, their spirituality, everything, all wrapped up into one package.

It harkens back to when budo was real life, rather than a hobby or an academic pursuit (i.e. "hoplology").

So, while the IHS folks are busy contemplating which method produces "more superior" people, I'll be at the dojo, living and breathing the practice of bu(do or jutsu).

 

[Rumy73]

Were Greek hoplites not expected to be citizen soldiers? Fathers? Philosophers? Yes, they were. Were samurai not expected to expertly wield both a sword in battle and a pen for poetry? Were Cherokee braves not expected to guard the tribe, but to be guardians of justice? How many examples would you like? If you would like an excellent text on how the arts of warriors were for a reserved elite, please consult John Keegan's A History of Warfare.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Were Greek hoplites not expected to be citizen soldiers? Fathers? Philosophers? Yes, they were. Were samurai not expected to expertly wield both a sword in battle and a pen for poetry? Were Cherokee braves not expected to guard the tribe, but to be guardians of justice? How many examples would you like? If you would like an excellent text on how the arts of warriors were for a reserved elite, please consult John Keegan's A History of Warfare.

The three examples you use are for Soldiers. Not martial arts. While there are some overlapping between the two, they are distinctly different. We both have backgrounds with the Moo Duk Kwan. The Moo Duk Kwan's code is a modernization of the Code of the Hwarang.

1. Be loyal to your country.
2. Obey your parents.
3. Respect elders and teachers.
4. Trust in your friends.
5. Never kill anything.

The Hwarang were a special "officer" rank, if you will. They studied martial arts, poetry, politics, philosophy, etc.. . However, the poetry, politics, and philosophy weren't part of their martial arts training. They were all parts that created a great soldier.

That said, I still teach the philosophical component, but I don't require my students to do book reports or anything.. .