Philosophy or not?
- Thread starter Wey
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
I like this question, and I'm a little surprised no-one else answered yet, so I'll try to get the ball rolling....
My view is that all martial arts are philosophy, expressed through physical combative methods, so I would suggest that every teacher is taking their students through philosophy in some form... of course, how overt that is made is another issue!
Within our schools, it's a very common aspect. Every class ends with an open forum, where the students are invited to share something that was important to them, something that they learnt, or ask any questions they have, after which the instructor comments, and typically adds to the comment with some aspect of the philosophy as expressed through the art.
To give you an example, a few weeks back one of the students asked how to ensure that, if they got so drunk they couldn't stand properly, that their techniques would still work. My answer was along the lines of "don't drink that much!" (it may be noted that the school we are studying at present has, amongst it's rules, "drinking dissipates your skills"), which then turned into a discussion of personal control, personal boundaries, personal responsibility, and so on.
My view is that all martial arts are philosophy, expressed through physical combative methods, so I would suggest that every teacher is taking their students through philosophy in some form... of course, how overt that is made is another issue!
Within our schools, it's a very common aspect. Every class ends with an open forum, where the students are invited to share something that was important to them, something that they learnt, or ask any questions they have, after which the instructor comments, and typically adds to the comment with some aspect of the philosophy as expressed through the art.
To give you an example, a few weeks back one of the students asked how to ensure that, if they got so drunk they couldn't stand properly, that their techniques would still work. My answer was along the lines of "don't drink that much!" (it may be noted that the school we are studying at present has, amongst it's rules, "drinking dissipates your skills"), which then turned into a discussion of personal control, personal boundaries, personal responsibility, and so on.
Philosophy is discussed concerning the physical representation of the techniques & things related to them.
Philosophy isn't discussed on how to live, what to do, etc... as that is best left up to the individual who's in charge of their own life, like I am mine.
If somebody asks advice, I give it as one person to another based on personal experience, not some philosophy I may or may not practice myself, but on first hand experiences only.
That's about as deep as I go.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
We don't teach a philosophy, though anyone can look up chivalric codes if they like... it changed over time and the study of it is a lifetime's work in and of itself.
The "philosophy" of the fight in Kunst des Fechtens is the primacy of attack. Strike first, strike fast, strike hard in order to force the opponent to defend and then use the defence against him. It is much easier and efficient to attack in an encounter with swords than it is to defend. Giving thought only to defence is to bring about your own defeat. As the manuscripts in the Liechtenauer tradition say:
"Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend"
Best regards,
-Mark
The "philosophy" of the fight in Kunst des Fechtens is the primacy of attack. Strike first, strike fast, strike hard in order to force the opponent to defend and then use the defence against him. It is much easier and efficient to attack in an encounter with swords than it is to defend. Giving thought only to defence is to bring about your own defeat. As the manuscripts in the Liechtenauer tradition say:
"Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend"
Best regards,
-Mark
ap Oweyn
Black Belt
I kind of marvel at the idea of someone teaching a philosophy. I might take a similar tack to a philosophy teacher in college (i.e., "the sophists believed this...") rather than trying to present myself as though I embodied a particular philosophy. I think it shines through when someone purports to teach a philosophy they clearly don't "live."
I'm pretty happy to accept any philosophy I see "lived." I'm not a Christian, but my best friend's mother is a Presbyterian minister. And I appreciate the degree to which her faith has genuinely informed her life.
If a martial arts teacher demonstrated to me (and I mean "demonstrated" in a generally observable way, not in a demonstration) that Daoism (for instance) informed their life, I'd be game to hear about it.
For my own part, I might advocate both concepts of martial arts and general life lessons that might, collectively (and loosely) be taken as a "philosophy." But I would never claim to have some sort of curricular approach to teaching someone how their lives should be lived.
Stuart
I'm pretty happy to accept any philosophy I see "lived." I'm not a Christian, but my best friend's mother is a Presbyterian minister. And I appreciate the degree to which her faith has genuinely informed her life.
If a martial arts teacher demonstrated to me (and I mean "demonstrated" in a generally observable way, not in a demonstration) that Daoism (for instance) informed their life, I'd be game to hear about it.
For my own part, I might advocate both concepts of martial arts and general life lessons that might, collectively (and loosely) be taken as a "philosophy." But I would never claim to have some sort of curricular approach to teaching someone how their lives should be lived.
Stuart
My view is that all martial arts are philosophy, expressed through physical combative methods, so I would suggest that every teacher is taking their students through philosophy in some form... of course, how overt that is made is another issue!
I agree with that statement. I think today to many schools divorce them selves from the philosophy that was once taught in the early days of karate. By early days I mean Funakoshi era.
Gichin Funakoshi said:
You may train for a long, long time, but if you merely move your hands and feet and jump up and down like a puppet, learning karate is not diffrent from learning to dance. You will never have reached the heart of the matter; you will have failed to grasp the quintessence of karate-do.
Is not the real adversary in karate-do, ourselves.
I know of to many people who learn karate so they can be tougher than some one else.
I agree with that statement. I think today to many schools divorce them selves from the philosophy that was once taught in the early days of karate. By early days I mean Funakoshi era.
Gichin Funakoshi said:
You may train for a long, long time, but if you merely move your hands and feet and jump up and down like a puppet, learning karate is not diffrent from learning to dance. You will never have reached the heart of the matter; you will have failed to grasp the quintessence of karate-do.
Is not the real adversary in karate-do, ourselves.
I know of to many people who learn karate so they can be tougher than some one else.
I think though in the East philosophy is very much more part of everyday life than it is with us. We compartmentalise things like religion and philosophy to keep them apart from each bit of our lives so I don't believe they taught philosophy/religion in martial arts I believe that it was part and parcel of their lives all the time not just when practising martial arts. Their philosophy would flow through their relationships, their work, their leisure, their arts and their martial practices, it would be fairly seamless.
Balrog
Master of Arts
We teach life skills and we use martial arts as the teaching medium. Through our training, our students learn confidence, honor, integrity, loyalty, perseverance, etc. Most of that, they probably already knew so we are simply reinforcing it from a slightly different viewpoint. But I've had students come in who have had no concept of honor or integrity taught to them by their parent(s). They think it is perfectly okay to lie, cheat, steal or whatever as long as they get what they want. They want to learn martial arts so that they can "kick some serious ***". They are the hardest students to teach, and the most rewarding ones when they learn.
Read my sig - I think he says it better than I do.
Read my sig - I think he says it better than I do.
I absolutely integrate philosophy. I see no point in teaching someone to protect their life if they're not also working to increase the quality of their life. Plus, without philosophy, all I'd be teaching is fighting skills, not martial arts. I'm more interested in the whole package.
OP
OP
Wey
Green Belt
This is primarily what I mean by philosophy, making martial arts more than fighting. Thanks for the post, great quote as well.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Could you, or someone else perhaps, go more in depth about this?
Just curious ... how do you define "martial arts" as opposed to "fighting skills"?
Shifu Steve
Green Belt
This is an interesting question, more so after reading through the posts. I have always defined "Martial Arts" as an organization of combative movement that expresses an underlying philosophy. But...after reading through some of the posts I guess "philosophy" needs to be qualified. So I would simply define it as an underlying theory. Not necessarily a way to live a life.
That being said, I think there are some general qualities that are associated with most Martial Arts. Humility, patience, diligence etc tend to be associated with the Arts, at least the ones I've studied. You could call those virtues part of a philosophy or whatever, but they seem to be common themes taught across arts.
Similar threads
- muayThaiPerson
- General Martial Arts Talk
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
Why Wouldn't A Good Athlete Be Good In The Martial Arts
- Latest: Same Trick
