But the point is, LF, your decision to apply different standards to fine artists and martial artists, as per your post, is simply a reflection of your own additional requirements. It does not reflect common usage. It does not reflect any kind of social consensus on the application of the term `martial artist' to individuals. That was my point about Leonardo, Titian, Heidegger and so on. I can impose, Humpty-Dumpty-like, exactly the same requirement on them to qualify for the term `(Fine) artist' or `philosopher' that you seek to impose on martial artists. I can say, for example, `Well, Heidegger was a facist and Nazi collaborator, so he wasn't a true philosopher'. Nonetheless, that still leaves a large body of immensely influential philosophical work to account forafter all, a philosopher is one who does philosophy, and here is a dense record of philosophywho wrote it, if not a philosopher? What I think of Heidegger's morality or ethics or whatever is irrelevant.
By the same token, the term `martial artist' (= [ [martial] art]+ ist) denotes nothing other than one who practices martial artscombat arts. There is no external authority behind the term which imposes an additional requirement of `virtuous application'. That is your own criterion, which is why I said that you were using the term in a knd of private fashion. Now of course, you can say, well, all of the people who say that Kyan and Motobu were martial artists were wrong. But what you're saying is, they're wrong because I personally do not believe the term should be applied to people like that. When you say, `apples and oranges', you're already assuming the particular criterionvirtuous application, as I've called itwhich is at issue. From my point of view, it's not apples vs. oranges, because I don't impose that extra condition, as many people, certainly amongst those who've written about karate and its history, do not impose it. And if you say to me, well, you're wrong, all you're doing is in effect saying, `no, my definition of martial artist is the correct one'.
But you can't demonstrate this correctness in terms of any external authorityit's not part of the social consensus that a dictionary definition reflects, for example. It's simply your view of how the term should be applied, based on your own requirement of `virtuous application'. That's fineas I say, we can impose these requirements any way we like: I can personally refuse to accord Heidegger the description `philosopher' on the grounds that though he produced philosophy, and is regarded as a philosopher even by other philosophers who despise his Nazism, a true philosopher cannot have been a Nazi. I can extend the same treatment in my personal use of the term `musician' to von Karajan and Wagner. My point is just that in saying that people like Kyan and Motobu aren't martial artists, you are expressing a strictly personal opinion of how a technically proficient exponent of systematic combat systems should behave socially. And that's a private opinionone far from universally shared.
By the same token, the term `martial artist' (= [ [martial] art]+ ist) denotes nothing other than one who practices martial artscombat arts. There is no external authority behind the term which imposes an additional requirement of `virtuous application'. That is your own criterion, which is why I said that you were using the term in a knd of private fashion. Now of course, you can say, well, all of the people who say that Kyan and Motobu were martial artists were wrong. But what you're saying is, they're wrong because I personally do not believe the term should be applied to people like that. When you say, `apples and oranges', you're already assuming the particular criterionvirtuous application, as I've called itwhich is at issue. From my point of view, it's not apples vs. oranges, because I don't impose that extra condition, as many people, certainly amongst those who've written about karate and its history, do not impose it. And if you say to me, well, you're wrong, all you're doing is in effect saying, `no, my definition of martial artist is the correct one'.
But you can't demonstrate this correctness in terms of any external authorityit's not part of the social consensus that a dictionary definition reflects, for example. It's simply your view of how the term should be applied, based on your own requirement of `virtuous application'. That's fineas I say, we can impose these requirements any way we like: I can personally refuse to accord Heidegger the description `philosopher' on the grounds that though he produced philosophy, and is regarded as a philosopher even by other philosophers who despise his Nazism, a true philosopher cannot have been a Nazi. I can extend the same treatment in my personal use of the term `musician' to von Karajan and Wagner. My point is just that in saying that people like Kyan and Motobu aren't martial artists, you are expressing a strictly personal opinion of how a technically proficient exponent of systematic combat systems should behave socially. And that's a private opinionone far from universally shared.