Your closing statement is downright silly. History teaches us that we are part of something larger than ourselves. It also teaches us lessons about conflict. The best instructors encourage students to dig deeper. However, most instructors, while they may be physically proficient and throw in an anecdotal story, skip the discussion of philosophy and history to the detriment of students. The real message of the martial arts/sports in modern America is about getting the next belt or trophy. So why bother to hang signs on the wall about "temperance," "justice," "self control," "honor," and "respect"? It is simply lip service if it is not truly made part of the curriculum.
Poor sense of philosophy and history
- Thread starter Rumy73
- Start date
Your closing statement is downright silly. History teaches us that we are part of something larger than ourselves. It also teaches us lessons about conflict. The best instructors encourage students to dig deeper. However, most instructors, while they may be physically proficient and throw in an anecdotal story, skip the discussion of philosophy and history to the detriment of students. The real message of the martial arts/sports in modern America is about getting the next belt or trophy. So why bother to hang signs on the wall about "temperance," "justice," "self control," "honor," and "respect"? It is simply lip service if it is not truly made part of the curriculum.
We have a different understanding of martial arts. Martial stems from the word Mars, referring to war. Martial arts are the tools of war.
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
So now to make your case of martial artist and the state of martial arts today you are referring to Greek hoplites, samurai and Cherokee braves....
So you are talking Greeks, Samurai and Cherokee and there for feel that covers all others martial artists....for the record…it doesn't. I have not read John Keegan's book, but I will take a look at it. But I have read many others and I suggest you do a little more study on things Chinese history, military and martial arts and you will find that they were not expected to be citizen soldiers, Fathers, Philosophers, They were not expected to expertly wield both a sword in battle and a pen for poetry. They not expected to guard the tribe, and not expected to be guardians of justice.
As for martial artist specifically…nope they were not expected to be citizen soldiers, Fathers, Philosophers, They were not expected to expertly wield both a sword in battle and a pen for poetry. They not expected to guard the tribe, and not expected to be guardians of justice either.
Well since that is only 3 examples from millions…more than 3 would be nice
And since you are talking soldiers now…ok then how about the Romans, Egyptians, Gauls, Goths, Mongols, Vikings, Persians, Celts, Mohawk, Cossacks, Apache, Mayan, Aztec, medieval knights, etc.
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. They are tools. I am not training soldiers, officers, cammandos, etc. in my dojang, although I've had many students go on to LE and the armed forces. As a general rule of thumb the primary purpose of traditional martial arts was for use in combat or war. But it was part of their training, not the all encompassing end result. I admit that I do teach a modern martial art, with Do as part of the name, and therefore I do put focus on personal development. I just argue that it was not the original intent of most traditional martial arts. Ask those MTer's that study the Koryu arts... .
My students do achieve personal growth through training in martial arts, but I do not spend class time lecturing on history lessons. This is not to say I don't use teaching moments, focusing on the moral, ethical, philosophical, and sometimes even historical aspects of my martial art. However, I cannot sacrifice the precious little time I have my students in class on lecture, it takes away from their physical training.
“The ultimate aim of karate lies not in victory nor defeat, but in the perfection of the character of its participants ”
― Gichin Funakoshi
― Gichin Funakoshi
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
Gichen Funakoshi Sensei's art: Shotokan Karate-Do, a relatively modern martial art. Late 1800's-early 1900's. Again, I am not arguing against your assertion that some martial arts combine the idea of personal development with combat training. I am arguing that it was NOT the sole purpose of martial arts in general, particularly older martial arts.
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
Since you have offered a few that do support your premise, allow me to point out more ancient arts that have no correlation with personal growth/spiritual development/philosophical development, etc.. .
8 century B.C. arts like boxing, wrestling, and pankration were popular due to the popularity of the Olympics.
Many martial arts in China, had no aspect of personal development until the late Ming to early Qing dynasties (16th -17th century AD). This changed because of the martial arts training by monks at Shoalin temples had become part of monastic life to such an extent that new Buddhist lore was created around it.
8 century B.C. arts like boxing, wrestling, and pankration were popular due to the popularity of the Olympics.
Many martial arts in China, had no aspect of personal development until the late Ming to early Qing dynasties (16th -17th century AD). This changed because of the martial arts training by monks at Shoalin temples had become part of monastic life to such an extent that new Buddhist lore was created around it.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Whenever you cross swords with an enemy you must not think of cutting him either strongly or weakly; just think of cutting and killing him. Be intent solely on killing the enemy. Do not try to cut strongly and, of course, do not think of cutting weakly. You should only be concerned with killing the enemy.- Miyamoto Musashi
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
Rather than derailing this conversation, I've started another thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ow-much-history-and-or-philosphy-do-you-teach
I'm curious Rumy73, how much time do you feel is adequate to spend on the history, philosophy in class compared to the physical training?
I'm curious Rumy73, how much time do you feel is adequate to spend on the history, philosophy in class compared to the physical training?
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Rumy
You want to teach these aspects of martial arts that is great but you do need a lot more research in order to truly teach what you claim to want to teach. But saying that you are "disappointed at the lack of scholarly and philosophical development in many of those who post here" and that your "thesis that the martials have devolved into merely a method of fighting" and then going about basing it on the little history you know and limited knowledge of the cultures the arts you are lumping together come from and using one book, that in my opinion is wrong, insulting and way off base. Additionally it shows that you did not "take an academic approach to historical investigation" since you appear to know so little of it.
Now I do feel that martial artists should know more of the history of the styles they train, heck I start a style I research the heck out of it, but I do not think that is a requirement or makes someone less of a martial artist or teacher if they do not.
I also agree that there are a lot of schools out there issuing belts to gain students and money with little interest in the actual martial art they claim to teach or the students they claim to teach and take money from. And those that do this I do feel are very bad for martial arts and those that train with them
You want to make your martial art better or help make someone else’s martial art better by stretching heart and soul as much as his body that is wonderful but do it based on the facts and the reality of the history of those arts and do it without belittling others along the way and you will be much more believable and come across as much more sincere.
Last words; it appears you are looking more at the Philosophy of “do” arts and a lot of that comes from Zen Buddhism and a bit from Shinto as well, maybe you should look into that as well, for more reasons than just the understanding of “do”.
You want to teach these aspects of martial arts that is great but you do need a lot more research in order to truly teach what you claim to want to teach. But saying that you are "disappointed at the lack of scholarly and philosophical development in many of those who post here" and that your "thesis that the martials have devolved into merely a method of fighting" and then going about basing it on the little history you know and limited knowledge of the cultures the arts you are lumping together come from and using one book, that in my opinion is wrong, insulting and way off base. Additionally it shows that you did not "take an academic approach to historical investigation" since you appear to know so little of it.
Now I do feel that martial artists should know more of the history of the styles they train, heck I start a style I research the heck out of it, but I do not think that is a requirement or makes someone less of a martial artist or teacher if they do not.
I also agree that there are a lot of schools out there issuing belts to gain students and money with little interest in the actual martial art they claim to teach or the students they claim to teach and take money from. And those that do this I do feel are very bad for martial arts and those that train with them
You want to make your martial art better or help make someone else’s martial art better by stretching heart and soul as much as his body that is wonderful but do it based on the facts and the reality of the history of those arts and do it without belittling others along the way and you will be much more believable and come across as much more sincere.
Last words; it appears you are looking more at the Philosophy of “do” arts and a lot of that comes from Zen Buddhism and a bit from Shinto as well, maybe you should look into that as well, for more reasons than just the understanding of “do”.
Actually, what facts do you have save your opinions of Chinese martial arts? None so right back at you.
Actually, what facts do you have save your opinions of Chinese martial arts? None so right back at you. I also will pray for you, as your hostility is sad.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
There is no hostility here at all, you have even misread me (twice now) and sadly you missed the point entirely in favor of arrogance, ego and the need to be right. Your thesis is flawed and your judgments are based in arrogance and your entire premise is historically inaccurate and I can say that with certainty based on real study.
As for my opinion, I could give you all the titles I have read on the subject in Chinese Martial Art, East Asian culture, religion and history all the way back to my college days (actually the first real good book I read on this was years before around the mid 70s), I have more than one bookshelf full on these topics and I have actually read them, so I am fairly sure my “opinion” is based much more in fact than yours since mine is based on verifiable historical fact, combine that with over 40 years in MA and over 20 in CMA I find I actually have a fairly good grasp on subject and the historical facts of it....but I will not waste my time here any longer because you would not listen since you are already convinced you are right... and that is truly sad because there is a lot of knowledge here on MT you could learn from, I have read some amazing things here from many people.
It most certainly does appear your knowledge on the "thesis" you put forth is based on a little internet checking, hearsay form friends, wuxia stories and reading one book.
And please, don't pray for me, it is not necessary, I am fine, you would do better spending some time in introspection and meditation on self, you need it more than I.
Lol. So I did hit a nerve after all. Pax.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Posted twice I see.... read the above post and you will see the facts I have a many and not opinion, so even in this you are wrong.
Dr. Rush, I would say it can be as simple as talking about a philosophical point that underpins excellence - for argument's sake, let us use "positive intent" as an example. Ask them to briefly meditate on the intention of his or her actions and moves. Ground the thought in a common drill, such as roundhouse partner kicking, but stressing them to see it through the lens of positive intent. For advanced students, I would suggest a short reading selection about the theme.
Why? I do discuss some philosophy or moral principles with my students, when appropriate. But I hope that the better lesson in that comes in how I teach, in how I live, and in how I work. Because ideas that never make it to actions are as beneficial as a castle made of and in the clouds...
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
I remember hearing from one of my teachers when I was young, that, "I can talk about <insert lesson>, and you may remember it, I can show you <insert lesson>, and you have a better chance at remembering, but you can experience <insert lesson> and you will never forget." In my understanding, it is the Zen way of teaching. Leading the student to finding the answer/experiencing the lesson on their own. This limits the necessity of lengthy talks/meditation/etc on many levels, IMHO.
I agree and disagree with this teaching style. A teacher should spark the imagination of students and serve to orient his/her direction; however, it is up to the student to make the journey. Omitting this step reduces the teacher to a trainer.
