# Do you agree with this?



## Akidorina (Jun 13, 2005)

My teacher said this to me once and I agree with her on what she said. What are some of you'r views?

Martial arts is the study of violence so that all violence can be understood and ultimately brought to an end 
By_*Sabomnim Ms. Lundbom*


----------



## TKDKid (Jun 13, 2005)

I think that's acurate...on the street if someone attacks you, they're using violence against you. The only way to survive the violence being used against you is to use violence back.


----------



## mj_lover (Jun 13, 2005)

sounds good here, it is essentially what were doing, training to be violent, to be able to avoid conflict.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jun 13, 2005)

I didn't start martial arts only with the intent of self-defense.  Actually that was pretty far down on the list.  I don't practice or study Taekwondo intending to be violent against someone else in class, in other words harm them. 

One meaning from the dictionary:  Behavior involving physical force intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.  

While Taekwondo in its practice "can" hurt someone, the intent of the study is  for physical fitness, for sparring (sport), for the art itself, and for self-defense.  And the occurrence that we actually have the choice and make the decision to use it in a situation in our lifetime is very low actually.  Well, unless you invite the circumstance.  

So, martial arts is a study of the art or self defense, but not of violence.  It wouid be a perfect world if all people studied martial arts, were even-tempered, sane, and moral.  But it isn't a perfect world.


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 13, 2005)

i'd say its a pretty accurate description.. i joined all sorts of martial arts mainly to go against violence that i see ;p  i was actually in my college newspaper a couple months ago for stopping a guy who was attacking a woman on the street


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 13, 2005)

right on the money


----------



## arnisador (Jun 14, 2005)

Study of violence? I wouldn't say that. Violence is a much more general term...more like the study of ways to win, or at least escape, from a violent encounter.


----------



## Gemini (Jun 14, 2005)

I'll be the odd man out here. I don't agree with it. Though from a purely rhetorical point of view, it sounds good, but understanding violence has never brought it to an end. Look at Asian (along with everyone elses) history.


----------



## The Kai (Jun 14, 2005)

Can violence be understood?  Is violence a rational event? or any one of a number of irrational acts?

Will under violence neccassarly stop it?


----------



## hammer (Jun 14, 2005)

Akidorina said:
			
		

> My teacher said this to me once and I agree with her on what she said. What are some of you'r views?
> 
> Martial arts is the study of violence so that all violence can be understood and ultimately brought to an end
> By_*Sabomnim Ms. Lundbom*


Perhaps, although here is a thought, 
Whilst the Martial Arts primarily develops the physical self, *It is a great vehicle to show you who you are? *quote Hammer

*No validations required*

Cheers


----------



## foolbae1228 (Jun 14, 2005)

Gemini said:
			
		

> I'll be the odd man out here. I don't agree with it. Though from a purely rhetorical point of view, it sounds good, but understanding violence has never brought it to an end. Look at Asian (along with everyone elses) history.


I agree with gemini. Martial Arts is more of the study of self-perfection than self-pretection. The reason this is visually misunderstood is because there is no competition. Which one would you rather use, a knife that has the perfect edge that can cut diamonds, or a sword that would barely cut through bread? 

Farang-
Ryan


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jun 14, 2005)

Martial arts is the study of violence so that all violence can be understood and ultimately brought to an end 

It is not a study of but a study in violence. The aspect(s) of violence can never and will never be understood or brought to an end. Human nature, in it's many venues, has and will always embrace violence in some fashion. The most mild mannered, timid, shy, introverted person will at some point revert to violence, to either protect a loved one or save their own life. It's called self preservation and it's a part of everyone. On the other hand, the education of one to learn a martial art is based on self protection. I realize that some have stated that it was not their primary interest, self defense, but I find that rational slightly askew. If all someone wanted to do was to just get in shape or enjoy the company of other's or even challenge themselves, there are many other endeavors that they could have persued. Over the course of time, from the origins of martial arts, they have in general, degraded from their original concepts and by doing so have allowed that mindset to adhear. This is not the fault of the art itself, but rather the fault of those who profess to be teachers. Using TKD as a prime example. In it's original form, TKD encompassed all self defense. It had kicks, hand strikes, elbow strikes, knee spikes, takedowns, joint locks, throws and even some ground fighting. TKD today, in most dojangs, is nothing more than an afternoon babysitting service and a competition to win medals and trophies. Many other style are/have followed suit, because it's cost effective for the school owner.

The martial arts is a natural development of man, for man, to learn how to be and how to deal with violence, nothing more. We, (a generalization) have seen fit to enclude a host of extra's which in reality have nothing to do with the original intent of the arts. The easiest way to determine the validity of that statement is to be totally honest with yourself, if you have ever been in a real threat or physical encounter. The only thing on your mind was self preservation and by any means possible. Now if you are one of the fortunate one's that have never been in this position, feel grateful and lucky, but don't consider yourself remotely knowledgeable about anything associated with the mindset at the time. There was no Zen influence, no compassion for the attacker (perhaps after the fact), no religious aura enveloping or anything of the kind. Nothing but raw instinct to either fight or run away. Reality is sometimes a hard thing to embrace, but the reality of man from the beginning of time has been violence and it will continue to be so............So train for real folks.....:asian:


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 28, 2005)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> I didn't start martial arts only with the intent of self-defense. Actually that was pretty far down on the list. I don't practice or study Taekwondo intending to be violent against someone else in class, in other words harm them.
> 
> One meaning from the dictionary: Behavior involving physical force intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
> 
> ...


Amen! That was a great post.

Self-defence brought me to the martial arts, the idea of training my mind and body in excellence kept me.

The original quote does have a point, though; weakness, perceived or real, often invites agression. The Golden Mean seams applicable here, as well as the "Golden Rule".


----------



## searcher (Jun 28, 2005)

It is a nice thought, but violence will never come to an end.   There will always be somebody that needs to control someone or something by way of violence.


----------



## zac_duncan (Jul 1, 2005)

Akidorina said:
			
		

> Martial arts is the study of violence so that all violence can be understood and ultimately brought to an end


No, I don't. The arts in question weren't named after Mars for no reason. Martials is indeed the study of violence, but the reasons for studying are varied and deep.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 1, 2005)

> My teacher said this to me once and I agree with her on what she said. What are some of you'r views?



I disagree, martial arts were fundamentally about training students so that they won their battles.  Period.  Understand Violence?  Sure, but not just to end it, but to survive it, and when necessary, use it on someone else.  Most martial arts lineages are hip deep in blood from people who used it not just for self-defense, but simply because they wanted the other guys land.  

Lamont


----------



## swiftpete (Jul 1, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I disagree, martial arts were fundamentally about training students so that they won their battles. Period. Understand Violence? Sure, but not just to end it, but to survive it, and when necessary, use it on someone else. Most martial arts lineages are hip deep in blood from people who used it not just for self-defense, but simply because they wanted the other guys land.
> 
> Lamont


I agree with this, it's simple but true, battle winning is the main reason for martial arts, you can go deeper than that and say it's all about self improvement etc etc but that's how they originated.
Ps Asimov was cool, I've just got hold of the foundation trilogy again, looking forward to reading about asimov's heroworshipped alter ego (he wished!) again.


----------



## Spookey (Jul 1, 2005)

Dear Tiger Woman...



> While Taekwondo in its practice "can" hurt someone, the intent of the study is for physical fitness, for sparring (sport), for the art itself, and for self-defense.


I would greatly disagree with this in that the words Tae and Kwon actually dont reflect much of your theory. Smashing, stomping, striking, and kicking are hard to explain as adjectives describing sport and fitness...



> And the occurrence that we actually have the choice and make the decision to use it in a situation in our lifetime is very low actually. Well, unless you invite the circumstance.


Would you care to enlighten us on some statistics regarding this comment. Please fill in the blank...

One in ______ women will be the victim of sexual assault or abuse! 

I await your responce...

Need some statistics? 
http://www.mvwcs.com/factsrape.html
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm?printPage=1&#violentcrime


TAEKWON!
SpooKeY


----------

