The Warrior ar Servant

[searcher]

Though I do agree that some of those that "go" to war are warriors and they ARE servants, not all that go to war are warriors. A bunch of those that go to war just happen to be in a place at a particular time and are there to fight for/defend what they have. It is MY OPINION that a warrior is one who makes a study of warfare and lives the life of a warmaker. A student of the fighting arts and a serant of the people(though they sometimes forget it). Just a random thought and my opinion.

 

[Bigshadow]

Though I do agree that some of those that "go" to war are warriors and they ARE servants, not all that go to war are warriors. A bunch of those that go to war just happen to be in a place at a particular time and are there to fight for/defend what they have. It is MY OPINION that a warrior is one who makes a study of warfare and lives the life of a warmaker. A student of the fighting arts and a serant of the people(though they sometimes forget it). Just a random thought and my opinion.

You make a great point. A warrior is not defined by one's actions alone. It is a combination of spirit and actions. As others have alluded to, the spirit is involved. Not everyone has the warrior spirit. That spirit, is not only found on the battlefield, but life in general.

A warrior can be seen as a servant, but a servant isn't a warrior.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I don't think the word matters. It seems like a title to me. There are selfless people and selfish people. Because the word warrior seems to have no concrete meaning, I guess we can say that it's whatever we want to believe based on our own individual perspectives. I'll stick to the literal meaning.

 

[kidswarrior]

Thanks Bigshadow, you're the first to support my thesis. I'm glad somebody agrees with me.

I agree with you too. Just too tired to take this on, since tomorrow at 5 AM another week begins in a classroom full of adolescents who have recently been released from juvenile hall; who may try to smuggle a weapon into the school/class (as a girl last week); who may bring in drugs and try to sell them during school hours (can't keep the drugs out completely without strip searches, which would never fly for juveniles, but can prevent sales with enough vigilance); who may have childhood scars most of us can't even imagine, and if we read the story in a novel, would not believe; who may be hard core, fully-inked gang members; who may have... well, I could write a book, but you get the idea. Warrior? Naw, just a teacher--who's been in the middle of gang shootouts, gang ambushes, myriad one-on-one and two-on-one fights, seen more kids hauled away in handcuffs than I can remember, and been to one too many funerals for 16 year olds.

Way back in another lifetime when I gave my four years to Uncle Sam, served with a lot of guys. Some were there for the purpose of going to war. Most were just working stiffs who did the job in front of them--maybe shooting at the enemy, maybe working on machinery or electronics, maybe cooking for large numbers of others. Who were the warriors? Damned if I know. But I do know we called it the service. I still do.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Thoughts? Expansions? Ideas? Books I should read that explore this?

If you have not already read it I reccomend
Living the Martial Arts Way - Forest E. Morgan

It talks a lot about being a warrior.

But with that I also want to say that a Warrior by definition is

1. a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier.
2. a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics

And not all warriors are honorable and not all fight for altruistic reasons. Some both now and in the past fought for greed, arrogance, power, etc. Attila and Genghis are both warriors but there reasons for fighting in many cases had nothing to do with serving anyone but themselves.

 

[Sukerkin]

As usual, can't rep because of a Gnome-Lock .

All I can say is that I shall never moan about my job again, Kidswarrior . You make some insightful points about relative danger and also, by inference, the amount of courage necesary to do a job that few would volunteer to take on :rei:.

The plain and simple definition remains tho' that the term 'warrior' is only applicable to those trained and practised in the arts of war. All else is semantics, metaphor and linguistic shading.

That doesn't mean that other 'professions' can't exhibit similar required qualities. Firemen have been mentioned but they're such a good example that they bear being referenced again. They have courage (both physical and mental), selflessness, compassion et al. All good warrior-like attributes ... and heroic traits too ... but ... they are not warriors.

Perhaps I'm too fixed in my views as I really can't see how something as straightforward as a clearly defined word can come to be so debated .

 

[kidswarrior]

Perhaps I'm too fixed in my views as I really can't see how something as straightforward as a clearly defined word can come to be so debated .

Guess it has a two-fold use. The narrow, literal usage of one prepared for or involved in war, which is what most people on this thread are adhering to. And the application (probably often hyperbolic in America) to anyone who does something physically difficult or courageous, such as calling a footabll player a warrior. Happens all the time. My view is that neither extreme is correct: not the cut and dried, limited view only involving war, and not the hyperbole of attaching the label to so many. :asian:

 

[qi-tah]

So I'm working on my thesis for an upcoming rank promotion, and the following idea is rattling around in my head.

So the Warrior (a word most martial artists tend to capitalize) is a strong archetype. Whether you're talking about a samurai, a templar or a navy SEAL, we have this image of a dangerous human standing ready to defend others. A Warrior is somebody who's willing to step up and take risks so others don't have to.

What if we expand on that theme a bit and say a Warrior is somebody who's wililng to do all the necessary things that others don't want to. That sort of service would include rescue work, charity fundraising. It would even include being the person who acts like a grownup when you're fussing with your spouse.

Perhaps being a Warrior is ultimately about service. About being willing to put our egos away completely and surrender to needful things, rather than enforcing our egos on those around us.

Thoughts? Expansions? Ideas? Books I should read that explore this?

When i read yr post i was immediately reminded of Pema Chodron's book "The Places that Scare You - a guide to fearlessness". Chodron is an American Buddhist nun, and her idea of warriorship is quite similar to the model that you have put forward - "entering challanging situations in order to alleviate suffering." She also makes reference to the compassionate warrior's "willingness to cut through personal reactivity and self-deception." I whole-heartedly recommend this book, i often find myself going back to it.

As for the debate on what the word warrior means, there is no debate. It means what the dictionary says it means. But it doesn't follow that we can't use the word to illustrate other ways of being. A word is just a word after all. Personally, what i think you are talking about is much bigger than any one word.

Good luck with your thesis!

 

[kidswarrior]

When i read yr post i was immediately reminded of Pema Chodron's book "The Places that Scare You - a guide to fearlessness". Chodron is an American Buddhist nun, and her idea of warriorship is quite similar to the model that you have put forward - "entering challanging situations in order to alleviate suffering." She also makes reference to the compassionate warrior's "willingness to cut through personal reactivity and self-deception." I whole-heartedly recommend this book, i often find myself going back to it.

Yes, a great little book, which resonates with me, too.

 

[Bigshadow]

My view is that neither extreme is correct: not the cut and dried, limited view only involving war, and not the hyperbole of attaching the label to so many. :asian:

I agree with this. IMO ones actions or training alone does not make a warrior. I think there is more to it. To see battle only on the battlefield is short sighted IMO. There are many wars to fight from the board-rooms to the bedrooms. To be successful in them requires a certain spirit. This spirit is what makes a warrior in my opinion.

Someone can have a warrior spirit and never in their lifetime see battle as most think of it.

To me, to talk about the warrior as someone trained for war and uses weapons is on par with talking about proper basic techniques and ignoring the more subtle universal principles of human physiology and tactics. I think it is simply a matter of perspective.

 

[SKB]

The word has lost most of the original meaning. People want to be attached to the word so they find ways to use the word. People understand what the word means, yet they try to twist or rework the word so they can be included in the meaning. A janitor is a janitor, teacher a teacher, fireman a fireman and so on. Each of us might take on diffrent roles at diffrent times and each of us has a bit of each inside of us. All of us have the ability to be a warrior yet few are. Here is link to an article I think brings some light to the subject...

http://www.bujinkanatl.com/articles/sheepdogs.html

 

[bushidomartialarts]

As one might have guessed, I find that level of literalism unfortunate and limiting. For the concept of 'warrior' to require experience in combat makes it a useless image for most people.

The image in your article is a strong one -- a protector, somebody willing to take risks for the greater common good. But let's face it, if you limit the arena to combat you wind up with very few people involved. What's worse, the emphasis on combat can derail people into thinking combat is all it's about (go read 'The Martialist' for an example of what that can become).

By extending the metaphor beyond combat, we expand our ability to make a difference in the world. A warrior should absolutely be willing to step into combat for the right reasons -- but if he gets knee deep in fundraising for a local orphanage, is he less of a warrior? I say no.

 

[Xue Sheng]

As one might have guessed, I find that level of literalism unfortunate and limiting. For the concept of 'warrior' to require experience in combat makes it a useless image for most people.

The image in your article is a strong one -- a protector, somebody willing to take risks for the greater common good. But let's face it, if you limit the arena to combat you wind up with very few people involved. What's worse, the emphasis on combat can derail people into thinking combat is all it's about (go read 'The Martialist' for an example of what that can become).

By extending the metaphor beyond combat, we expand our ability to make a difference in the world. A warrior should absolutely be willing to step into combat for the right reasons -- but if he gets knee deep in fundraising for a local orphanage, is he less of a warrior? I say no.

Why even bother with the term warrior at all, you are first limiting yourself and second looking only at the sanitized view of what or who a warrior is.

There is a very big negative side to the term that you are completely ignoring in your definition. And not all of the people that you are attempting to give warrior status to would want it.

You appear to be attempting to include the public servant and the Good Samaritan in the definition and I do not think that is the way to go, but then again this is only my opinion.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Why even bother with the term warrior at all, you are first limiting yourself and second looking only at the sanitized view of what or who a warrior is.

That's the ticket right there. I've chosen the term because so many people I respect think it's an important thing to be. If I tell one of my teens "To do this is part of the good samaritan way" they'll chuckle. If I tell them "To do this is part of the warrior's way" they get right on it.

Semantically I agree with you, but it's a useful metaphor and the word has power.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

The word has lost most of the original meaning. People want to be attached to the word so they find ways to use the word. People understand what the word means, yet they try to twist or rework the word so they can be included in the meaning. A janitor is a janitor, teacher a teacher, fireman a fireman and so on. Each of us might take on diffrent roles at diffrent times and each of us has a bit of each inside of us. All of us have the ability to be a warrior yet few are.quote]

That's two of us.

 

[Xue Sheng]

That's the ticket right there. I've chosen the term because so many people I respect think it's an important thing to be. If I tell one of my teens "To do this is part of the good samaritan way" they'll chuckle. If I tell them "To do this is part of the warrior's way" they get right on it.

Semantically I agree with you, but it's a useful metaphor and the word has power.

Ahh now I think I understand what you are doing and terminology is the key. OK, I have no further comment, I hope it works :asian:

 

[SKB]

If your manipulating the word to have people do what you want them to do, ok. I thnik the word is missed used and the majority of people who claim they are warriors are not. The word has power and they want to be connected to it. Each of us has all of the archtypes inside of us but all of us are not each archtype. Tiger Woods is not a warrior of the golf course, a cabbie is not a warrior of the road, etc etc. If everyone was a warrior would we need the word warrior?

Also a warrior can go their whole life without being in combat, combat is only part of the equation.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I gotta agree again

 

[bushidomartialarts]

If everyone was a warrior would we need the word warrior?

Also a warrior can go their whole life without being in combat, combat is only part of the equation.

Exactly my point. 'Warrior' has a set of defining characteristics. A willingness to fight, and training for the fight is one of those characteristics. What are the others? Courage? Personal integrity?

I posit that one is a desire to serve -- to put the needs of others above the wants of self.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

If title's are all the rage, why not pit fighter. Sounds pretty mean to me.