Most of us probably learn a bit outside of the pure realm of self-defense while training, though, don't we? I would imagine that blade fighters might learn not just the way of the knife, but perhaps consider the ramifications of taking a life or being killed in a skirmish. I'm just guessing, but I would think it would enter my mind. I've certainly considered the implications of applying a joint-destroying technique to an opponent that becomes life-altering for them. That's a form of philosophy, or at least introspection.
As far as what is properly constrained inside the boundaries of the term 'martial art', I am not quite so hard-and-fast about what the definition happens to be. Samurai were of course swordsmen, but they were also expected to be refined, educated, and cultured, where they not? I am no expert on Japanese history, but from what I've read, the Samurai were intended to be cultural exemplars, and were to be role models. It may not have always gone that way, but that was the original idea as I understand it. No one would argue that Samurai were not 'martial', I think.
I have read all of this, i am debating to do it quote by quote so i can refrence it easier or not, or just to bulk reply. (you will see which one i choose) I do agree on some points, so im not really considering this a argument just a dicussion.
I need to sort of seperate this from, lets be fair English and Japanese culture and history. So i need to sort of anglify the Japanese parts.
As far as i know the Samurai were equally expected to fight and lead armies, as to take many other tasks in the country. The nobility tended to take admistrative tasks and tasks that needed a pretty academic education, so manning courts, accountancy etc.
This can be drawn a parrellel to the English nobility being expected to do a great many things equally. A king would be expected to be compotent in many aspects, including leading a army, and they were all equally important. (apart from the glaring issue there is not a 1:1 comparision to how the nobility in both countries was made up, skillset for the ruling class globally are similar though)
As far as i know, Japan throughout the years has blurred the line between the martial compotent in their education (i would call martial arts the fighting part in a Samurais education, and Martial arts will be refering to that) and the other compotents. Where spirtuality would be distinctly seperate for say England, it has been blurred for Japan. See the previous example about going to pray, and that being a seperate thing entirely to learning to swordfight.
I hold the viewpoint that you can achive betterment by doing martial arts meant for function, as opposed to adapted to better suit bettering yourself.* Modern martial arts would have been adapted to betterment more, so to karatify that, as best as i know Karate. it would be adapting one of the combat kata to be a conditioning kata. Or if they are of lesser character, claiming a conditioning kata is a combat kata.
*That as far as i know is how it was viewed the longest and is a tradtional view on the subject, or a "old school" view. Because i mean you can do sports Karate, and better yourself all you want by getting good at sports karate and not really wanting or intenting to learn how to break someones arm. You can better yourself by doing non contact sports karate at that.
As for the "do", due to how translations work, there is probbly always going to be ambiguity and not a true idea of what it means, or what it should be translated as. I dont think Japanese translates to english all that well. Which to be fair, Karate was made in territory owned by Japan and catered to the Japanese until it was exported. The persons who have exported it have tried to adapt it into what ever culture they are in as best as possible. (and as much as they are willing to change)
and for the self defence claims, i dont think many things were made for "self defence" until recently. That does not mean self defence is not a subject inside the overarching term and study of "combat", but rather you cover it while studying the overarching field, rather than focus on it. I think that argument can be left for another day as i need to dwell on it more. As far as i got, as a Samurai, or Nobleman you would need the ability to defend yourself as a individual, against one or a small group. Due to your status, you were a target, either by bandits, political rivals, or potentially in war for a randsom. (although just surrender may be better, you would be treated fairly) If you were expected to campaign more i can imagine the neuances of how to campaign and lead armies might be better than individual fighting skills, if you were more in a admsitrative role at home, more individual focus. (this isnt accounting any guards you may or may not have, you could be a fairly poor nobleman) Battlefield weapons and weapons carried for self defence are also diffrent to reflect this.
Edit: i forgot to mention you could be a lesser nobleman in charge of guarding a greater one. Or you could not be a nobleman at all and shoved into the service of one and trained out of the pocket of one to guard them.
I think i covered everything there was to cover.
Addendum: Periods were not cited, but im sure we both know the neuances vary peroid by peroid. If the peorid if heavy in war, war would be the focus so most martial training would focus that, if peace then duels(individual fighting) may be the focus. this is more generalisations of trends than anything, with all the caviates that brings.
Addendum 2: Dont know where to put this, so i will tag it onto the end as a addition:
Id rather not get into the Karate politics of its "Okinawan" i am aware of the history, i know Karateka, (lack of better words) tend to rant and rave over that. But the facts are laid out, modern karate was made when it was a territory of japan, its been Japanese for 100 years ish, they speak Japanese and share a lot of Japanese culture. Id just rather not get into it, also i will just point out, some Karate styles are Japanese as opposed to Okinawan or a mix. Not saying anyone specfically will, just in case somone comes in with that.
Addendum 3: I think i overlooked the warrior poet point, i may have to revisit and post a seperate reply after i thought about it. i did have something of a intresting point i need to try and remember and remember how to articulate it.
Although, i wouldnt knock somone for having a intrest in conflcit and then persuing it. Even if they cant join any of the proffesions that do it, its a pretty intresting study. One has full right to persue their intrests to the best of their ability. Just looking into a modern war has a lot more caviates than looking into a medievil war. Largely because to wargame it you are by some defintiions doing paramilitary training. (roleplaying includes wargaming, there are lots of practical reasons to do wagaming and role playing, its the closest some people would get to actually experiencing it)
A warrior poet to me is just somone who has a academic education + a functional military one. Thw two wernt as divisive historically as they are now days. Or is poetically/philosophicallyminded and has been employed as a soldier. Edit: you tend to muse about what ever you are doing if you are even slightly inclined to both of those. Hell, i think even if you rent you tend to muse about somethings natually or everyone is natually inclided to it enough to muse about things.
(i hope i actually answered a question)
