Is it possible to be both a pacifist and a martial artist? The founder of a RBSD system claims to be just that. His definition of a "pacifist" he admits is not the classic definition of a pacifist to never use violent force no matter the situation. Rather, he calls himself a pacifist because he will not use force unless physically attacked. Call him whatever you will, deny him certain rights, even push him, and he will not use violent force of any kind. Only if physically attacked will he use violent force, and than the violent force will constitute total violent attack, doing whatever is needed to stop the attack, because he believes only a total violent attack works to defend yourself. Do you think this is a valid way of being a pacifist martial artist? It's essentially my view of things as well, depending on the situation, I wouldn't use total violent force against somebody who was merely emotionally distraught especially if the attack wasn't deadly and especially if the person was a relative. It would depend on the situation, but I believe it's an overall good philosophy, although I am not sure I would call it "pacifism". I tend to believe the classic definition of "pacifism" and being a "pacifist", and I'm no pacifist...a peace seeker certainly but pacifist...no.
The Pacifist Martial Artist?
- Thread starter Joab
- Start date
I don't know what to call it, but 'pacifist' is not the term I'd use.
I also will seek the solution least likely to get me injured or killed in any kind of confrontation, and I call that 'self-defense'. If I can end a confrontation by walking away from it, I will. I have no place in a pecking order or face to maintain among fellow males. My safety means more to me that punching someone who calls me a name or threatens me.
That does not mean I will not fight. It just means I recognize that fighting is inherently dangerous, and only a short step from 'life-threatening', so avoiding it is part and parcel of self-defense. If I do not see any other way to end a dangerous confrontation, I will fight, and like your source, I'll fight all out until the threat is ended.
I don't call my way pacifism. I call it enlightened self-interest.
I also will seek the solution least likely to get me injured or killed in any kind of confrontation, and I call that 'self-defense'. If I can end a confrontation by walking away from it, I will. I have no place in a pecking order or face to maintain among fellow males. My safety means more to me that punching someone who calls me a name or threatens me.
That does not mean I will not fight. It just means I recognize that fighting is inherently dangerous, and only a short step from 'life-threatening', so avoiding it is part and parcel of self-defense. If I do not see any other way to end a dangerous confrontation, I will fight, and like your source, I'll fight all out until the threat is ended.
I don't call my way pacifism. I call it enlightened self-interest.
astrobiologist
Brown Belt
Ya, what this man is practising is not pacifism. A pacifist would allow the aggressor to actually stomp a mud hole in them and would still not fight back. A pacifist does not use martial arts since they never act in a martial way.
I have my reasons for not being a pacifist. Not fighting back is probably one of the biggest...
I have my reasons for not being a pacifist. Not fighting back is probably one of the biggest...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
Depends on your definition of 'pacifism'. I agree that I don't hold the referenced party's definition.
astrobiologist
Brown Belt
True. But even in that wiki article it said, "opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others."
I think we both agree that someone who fights back when physically attacked is not a pacifist, at least not by the shared modern definition of the term.
But I guess, if the guy wants to call himself a pacifist, regardless of what I think he's still going to call himself that...
I think we both agree that someone who fights back when physically attacked is not a pacifist, at least not by the shared modern definition of the term.
But I guess, if the guy wants to call himself a pacifist, regardless of what I think he's still going to call himself that...
And, that definition was given as the extreme end of pacifism.
If we were to adopt this guys position probably 99.9% of martial artists would call themselves 'pacifist'. Personally I couldn't call him a pacifist without knowing what his position would be if, for example, his country was attacked or his family faced a dire situation. In other words, would he fight for the safety and well being of his fellow man?
K-Man: Personally I couldn't call him a pacifist without knowing what his position would be if, for example, his country was attacked
Joab: He told his class the day of 9-11 that minutes after the World Trade Center was destroyed he would have launched missiles with neutron bombs loaded on them and wiped out every man, woman and child in the Middle East except our ally Israel.
K-Man: or his family faced a dire situation. In other words, would he fight for the safety and well being of his fellow man?[/quote]
Joab: Without a doubt he would have. And I don't agree with his position on a proper response to the 9-11 attacks, and think it is in fact totally insane. But he is a good teacher who knows a lot about self defense, I listen to him regarding self defense, not politics.
Joab: He told his class the day of 9-11 that minutes after the World Trade Center was destroyed he would have launched missiles with neutron bombs loaded on them and wiped out every man, woman and child in the Middle East except our ally Israel.
K-Man: or his family faced a dire situation. In other words, would he fight for the safety and well being of his fellow man?[/quote]
Joab: Without a doubt he would have. And I don't agree with his position on a proper response to the 9-11 attacks, and think it is in fact totally insane. But he is a good teacher who knows a lot about self defense, I listen to him regarding self defense, not politics.
I apologise in advance as AI have only skimmed this thread so far. I'm off ot work and short for time.
Anyway, I'm a martial artist and a pacifist. So, yes, I think the two things can coexist one's philosophy. However, it can be tricky.
My pacifism is an expresison of my faith. I don't often talk about it...but I'm a Christian...sepcifically a Quaker. One of the key aspects of Quakerism is tryign to follow the peace testimony of Jesus.
I've been told, seen (on this board more often than not) that being a pacifist is all sort sof things fr0m perplexing to stupid, from insane to cowardly.
Hell, amongst my Quaker friends I'm more than a bit of an oddball. Most Quakers, if they practice MA, it's T'ai chi for health (no martial applications).
Here's how it works for me. I believe that violence does not solve problems. It is not an answer. The problem is that violence can be effective. It can stop people from doing things in the short term very effectively. However, the long-term effects (which are harder to see and appreciate in the moment) lead to more pain and sufferrin gin the world more often than not. Violent solutions olnly stop issues in the short term and often lead ot more difficult and intractzable problems down the road. I find in my expereince this holds true on a personal, interpersoanl and global level. If people were willing to commit to a non-violent existence, I think the world might be a better place...unfortunately, I'm sadly in the minority...(see the above comments on insane and cowardly).
I can hear you asking..."Ok smart ugy, how can you be a martial artist and be non-violent?" Welp, it depends on how extreme you want to go with non-violent. I do not take it to the extreme that I should never lay a hand on another living creature. That just doesn't make sense. I need to kill to eat (even a vegetarian has to harm the plant he/she chooses to eat).
I accept that there are people in this world who for any number of reasons (mental illness, trauma, sociopathy, etc.) that have no compunction to be violent and don't care if I'm the last eprson who is a threat to them. I get that. However, just because these people exist doesn't mean I need to be the guy to wipe them out. In fact, when confronted by such an individual(s), I feel it is my moral and ethical duty to defuse the situation using the least violent tools at my disposal first. Ultimately, in order to preseve life (mien and others) I may have to put my hands on another....but I don;t have to injure them...if I have to injur ethem, I may not have to do so permanently, I certainly shoudl do whatever it takes to not kill them.
Moreover, I view the times in my life I've been physical with another (either in a fight or as a part of my job restraining an out of control person) as a failure. My actions were necessary to deal with a crisis...but they were not the solution to the underlying problem that spawned the crisis and with hinsight Imore often than not see where myself (or others) could have doen things differently and maybe had a different outcome.
So, somebody that robs me is goign ot get my money. I probably won't fight. Someone who threatens the lives of my child...I will stop using all the tools at my disposal...startign with the least violent and restrictive if at all possible. Moreover, I will try my damndest to love that person no matter how awful or hateful their behaviors are (for Quakers also say that the spark of God is in everyone....that needs to be cherished, honored and respected).
I keep referencing using tools. I feel that martial arts training gives me tools...as does my counseling and crisis intervention training. As an expereinced martial artist, I've got the option of grappling, locking, holding people....without that training...I'm swinging for the fences. In essence, my training gives me a choice. I can choose not to fight because I knwo exactly what I'm capable of...and I'm in control of my actions. That is a freedom and a responsibility afforded to me by my training.
In closing, pacifism is not cowardly. It takes courage to face down violence with love (most can't do it....I often fail myself...i"m wokring on it though). It takes courage and creativity to find other slolutions to problems when the "easy" path is right there...to see the bigger picture and the longer term effects of ones behaviors. However, it can be done and I wish more people would at least try.
Peace,
Erik
Anyway, I'm a martial artist and a pacifist. So, yes, I think the two things can coexist one's philosophy. However, it can be tricky.
My pacifism is an expresison of my faith. I don't often talk about it...but I'm a Christian...sepcifically a Quaker. One of the key aspects of Quakerism is tryign to follow the peace testimony of Jesus.
I've been told, seen (on this board more often than not) that being a pacifist is all sort sof things fr0m perplexing to stupid, from insane to cowardly.
Hell, amongst my Quaker friends I'm more than a bit of an oddball. Most Quakers, if they practice MA, it's T'ai chi for health (no martial applications).
Here's how it works for me. I believe that violence does not solve problems. It is not an answer. The problem is that violence can be effective. It can stop people from doing things in the short term very effectively. However, the long-term effects (which are harder to see and appreciate in the moment) lead to more pain and sufferrin gin the world more often than not. Violent solutions olnly stop issues in the short term and often lead ot more difficult and intractzable problems down the road. I find in my expereince this holds true on a personal, interpersoanl and global level. If people were willing to commit to a non-violent existence, I think the world might be a better place...unfortunately, I'm sadly in the minority...(see the above comments on insane and cowardly).
I can hear you asking..."Ok smart ugy, how can you be a martial artist and be non-violent?" Welp, it depends on how extreme you want to go with non-violent. I do not take it to the extreme that I should never lay a hand on another living creature. That just doesn't make sense. I need to kill to eat (even a vegetarian has to harm the plant he/she chooses to eat).
I accept that there are people in this world who for any number of reasons (mental illness, trauma, sociopathy, etc.) that have no compunction to be violent and don't care if I'm the last eprson who is a threat to them. I get that. However, just because these people exist doesn't mean I need to be the guy to wipe them out. In fact, when confronted by such an individual(s), I feel it is my moral and ethical duty to defuse the situation using the least violent tools at my disposal first. Ultimately, in order to preseve life (mien and others) I may have to put my hands on another....but I don;t have to injure them...if I have to injur ethem, I may not have to do so permanently, I certainly shoudl do whatever it takes to not kill them.
Moreover, I view the times in my life I've been physical with another (either in a fight or as a part of my job restraining an out of control person) as a failure. My actions were necessary to deal with a crisis...but they were not the solution to the underlying problem that spawned the crisis and with hinsight Imore often than not see where myself (or others) could have doen things differently and maybe had a different outcome.
So, somebody that robs me is goign ot get my money. I probably won't fight. Someone who threatens the lives of my child...I will stop using all the tools at my disposal...startign with the least violent and restrictive if at all possible. Moreover, I will try my damndest to love that person no matter how awful or hateful their behaviors are (for Quakers also say that the spark of God is in everyone....that needs to be cherished, honored and respected).
I keep referencing using tools. I feel that martial arts training gives me tools...as does my counseling and crisis intervention training. As an expereinced martial artist, I've got the option of grappling, locking, holding people....without that training...I'm swinging for the fences. In essence, my training gives me a choice. I can choose not to fight because I knwo exactly what I'm capable of...and I'm in control of my actions. That is a freedom and a responsibility afforded to me by my training.
In closing, pacifism is not cowardly. It takes courage to face down violence with love (most can't do it....I often fail myself...i"m wokring on it though). It takes courage and creativity to find other slolutions to problems when the "easy" path is right there...to see the bigger picture and the longer term effects of ones behaviors. However, it can be done and I wish more people would at least try.
Peace,
Erik
Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.
I will refrain from speculating regarding RBSD founder's status as a pacifist. Many people said a lot of things that they would not ordinarily have said in the days following 9/11, so I do not feel that that is the best gauge of the man's position. 9/11 tends to bring out reactions that we as Americans would otherwise not have.
I will say that by the copied wiki definition above,
"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage."
Defending one's self from an assailant does not fall into the category of war or dispute (in the general sense of the word).
I am not seeking to use violence to seek an advantage over someone in the event of an attack on my person.
I am trying to prevent them from using the advantage that they already have, which is the advantage of initiative and nonrestraint, and possibly superior armament (I am generally unarmed outside of kendo class).
If I have people with me, such a my girlfriend or kids, they have an even greater advantage in that I must protect not only myself, but others as well.
I do not consider an attack on my person as a dispute in the general sense of the word. My goal is to escape with as little injury as possible. That may require, in extreme circumstances, the use of potentially lethal force. This falls into the last category in the copied definition:
"to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others."
Now, it could be argued by some that RBSD founder's neutron bomb idea advances the cause of peace, thus he would still be, by definition a pacifist, though I would neither make nor agree with such an arguement.
Genocide of an entire region and multiple cultures is inexcusable, wholly immoral and wrong, and would plunge the US into war with probably the rest of the world who would consider such an act an attrocity of unprecedented proportions.
Daniel
I will refrain from speculating regarding RBSD founder's status as a pacifist. Many people said a lot of things that they would not ordinarily have said in the days following 9/11, so I do not feel that that is the best gauge of the man's position. 9/11 tends to bring out reactions that we as Americans would otherwise not have.
I will say that by the copied wiki definition above,
"Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage."
Defending one's self from an assailant does not fall into the category of war or dispute (in the general sense of the word).
I am not seeking to use violence to seek an advantage over someone in the event of an attack on my person.
I am trying to prevent them from using the advantage that they already have, which is the advantage of initiative and nonrestraint, and possibly superior armament (I am generally unarmed outside of kendo class).
If I have people with me, such a my girlfriend or kids, they have an even greater advantage in that I must protect not only myself, but others as well.
I do not consider an attack on my person as a dispute in the general sense of the word. My goal is to escape with as little injury as possible. That may require, in extreme circumstances, the use of potentially lethal force. This falls into the last category in the copied definition:
"to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others."
Now, it could be argued by some that RBSD founder's neutron bomb idea advances the cause of peace, thus he would still be, by definition a pacifist, though I would neither make nor agree with such an arguement.
Genocide of an entire region and multiple cultures is inexcusable, wholly immoral and wrong, and would plunge the US into war with probably the rest of the world who would consider such an act an attrocity of unprecedented proportions.
Daniel
Aiki Lee
Master of Arts
Pacifism is something that takes true strength. It is a total abhoration of violence, and has been used well to help solve problems just look a MLK and Ghandi.
I believe that pacifism should not be confused with idleness. Pacifism would not be refusing to physically stop a murder in progress (if you were capable). If you are willing to let yourself be killed for a greater cause then that is your choice and should come from a position of moral and spiritual strength, but that does not excuse not going to another's aid if they need it and you can provide it. A pacifist would do everything he could to bring about a peaceful situation, but should consider violent resistance better than total anhilation. Gahdi said it is better to use violence to stop evil than it is to do nothing. He used pacifism because it worked better for him in his mission than armed resistance would have.
It takes strength to lay down your life for a cause you believe in without raising a hand to your attacker, but it takes only weakness to allow it to happen to someone else.
I believe that pacifism should not be confused with idleness. Pacifism would not be refusing to physically stop a murder in progress (if you were capable). If you are willing to let yourself be killed for a greater cause then that is your choice and should come from a position of moral and spiritual strength, but that does not excuse not going to another's aid if they need it and you can provide it. A pacifist would do everything he could to bring about a peaceful situation, but should consider violent resistance better than total anhilation. Gahdi said it is better to use violence to stop evil than it is to do nothing. He used pacifism because it worked better for him in his mission than armed resistance would have.
It takes strength to lay down your life for a cause you believe in without raising a hand to your attacker, but it takes only weakness to allow it to happen to someone else.
searcher
Senior Master
IMO a pacifist MAist is equal to a unicorn. I have never seen one, but it may exist, though it is unlikely.
I have seen pacifists that claim to be MAists, but eh? I guess it depends on why you train. I know a bunch of people that take TaeBo classes, but they are NOT MAists(even though many claim to be).
I guess I am just to old school blood and guts to believe in a pacifist MAist. They may exist, but I am not one of them.
I have seen pacifists that claim to be MAists, but eh? I guess it depends on why you train. I know a bunch of people that take TaeBo classes, but they are NOT MAists(even though many claim to be).
I guess I am just to old school blood and guts to believe in a pacifist MAist. They may exist, but I am not one of them.
BLACK LION
Black Belt
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
"The greatest warrior is the one who wins without fighting"
"The greatest warrior is the one who wins without fighting"
Masshiro
Yellow Belt
pacifism is more a state of mind, I have won over a dozen fights without ever touching another person or even moving. I have trained for a very long time to be able to absorb punches and normally that is all it takes. it is easy for someone to want to quit fighting when they keep hitting you and you just laugh without moving. I am by no means a pacifist but the rule I live by is donÂ’t hurt someone unless they hurt me first.
I actually think most martial artists are pacifist. If I can try to explain... forgive me if this is not clear. I would widen the scope of pacifism in a martial context to incorporate situational avoidance, evasion, and non-destructive martial technique that seeks to deflate the situation and extract you from it. I think many of us practise these common-sense approaches and but yet do not regard them as pacifist. Yet that is essentially what most experienced and considered martial artists are. *Most* of us seek no deployment of our martial skills. And many of us will go to almost any lengths to avoid confrontation. It is NOT that we are unable to suppress an opponent and but simply that we have a greater appreciation of the damage we can do and the consequences of our suppressing actions (including the potential for serious physical harm to either us or the opponent, litigation and escalation). And so for that kind of deliberate and intentional avoidance, I would see that in fact MOST of us in the martial arts are pacifist.
Just a thought
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
Just a thought
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
Even pacifism has its boundaries. We may be able to refrain from reacting to an attack on ourselves but it becomes a totally different matter if someone is attacking defenceless older people or young children. In some instances pacifism is courageous but in other situations it could be seen as cowardice. :asian:
That doesn't seem like a smart plan... You get hit by the right (wrong?) person, you won't get to absorb the punishment because you'll already be seriously injured.
Nonviolence doesn't mean being a punching bag until an assailant gets bored. There's a story of a great master who got attacked by four street criminals. He evaded, dodged, and finally trapped or subdued two of them, and drove the other two off, without causing any of them serious harm. The two he subdued, he took in as disciples. That's non-violent martial arts.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
I actually think most martial artists are pacifist. If I can try to explain... forgive me if this is not clear. I would widen the scope of pacifism in a martial context to incorporate situational avoidance, evasion, and non-destructive martial technique that seeks to deflate the situation and extract you from it. I think many of us practise these common-sense approaches and but yet do not regard them as pacifist. Yet that is essentially what most experienced and considered martial artists are. *Most* of us seek no deployment of our martial skills. And many of us will go to almost any lengths to avoid confrontation. It is NOT that we are unable to suppress an opponent and but simply that we have a greater appreciation of the damage we can do and the consequences of our suppressing actions (including the potential for serious physical harm to either us or the opponent, litigation and escalation). And so for that kind of deliberate and intentional avoidance, I would see that in fact MOST of us in the martial arts are pacifist.
Just a thought
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
In other words most Traditional Martial Arts train not to fight and I agree with that. Fighting is not to be taken lightly it is a rather serious thing so it id better not to fight. Which, IMO, is being a pacifist to some degree.
Similar threads
