Comments on: Martial Art is a Perspective, Not an Activity

By: Marc G.

Marc G. — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:02:19 +0000

A refreshing change of pace from trendy views on martial philosophy. I like it.

By: The History of Karate’s Future « Modern Karate Arts

The History of Karate’s Future « Modern Karate Arts — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:35:05 +0000

[...] [...]

By: dab

dab — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:12:39 +0000

I just stumbled on this, I agree with the view expressed in the post, and I edited the Wikipedia article to address the problem. You are most welcome to come to the article talkpage and provide further input.
As you can well imagine, it is an endless and thankless task to clean all sorts of bullshido from Wikipedia.
To the people who presented the “soldiers train to win wars” simile, you are confusing martial arts with self-defense. Self-defense is a subset, not a synonym of martial arts. Soldiers train shooting to win wars. But other people may train to shoot for all kinds of reasons, e.g. to participate in target shooting competitions, out of antiquarian interest (collectors of historical firearms), or just for the hell of it. You need to understand that “martial arts” is a term in its own right, it is more than the sum of “martial” plus “art”, and etymological definitions are futile. In fact, “martial arts” is in origin a translation of “bujutsu”. It is not opportune to exclude Taijiquan from the term just because it not applicable for self-defense: it is very clearly a discipline within the larger field of Chinese martial arts. Of course there will always be borderline cases such as Capoeira. This means that they should be discussed *as* borderline cases, not that a “true” definition should be aimed for which settles the question apodictically.

By: On McDojos and Mob Justice

On McDojos and Mob Justice — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:38:01 +0000

[...] This conflict is not a result of fraudulent and under-qualified teachers; quite the contrary, it is driven from the demand side. The majority of martial arts consumers in the United States are irrefutably content with an art that just “doesn’t work,” by Wikipedia standards. [...]

By: nate

nate — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:55:50 +0000

I responded to you original post not the comment thread, also this still implies it is a prerequisite not a subsequent thing.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:30:51 +0000

...Please read what people write rather than skim, I never said you were using a philosophy i said you defined martial arts as a Philosophy.

Then it is your turn to read rather than skim.

By: nate

nate — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:48:39 +0000

A design view is something you lay out before hand, not something you apply retrospectively – that’s a definition, you don’t build a see an olympic swimming pool then complain that it isn’t a real pool because it doesn’t have a wave machine like the ones you grew up seeing on TV…

Please read what people write rather than skim, I never said you were using a philosophy i said you defined martial arts as a Philosophy.

The intent in a martial art will vary between who is using/learning/teaching it, but to be a martial art it must have some element of preparation for combat, even if that is no longer the primary application and the preparation is now highly stylized.

Some schools of Aikido do not emphasise the spiritual aspects, these are generally ones descended form those who learnt from Morihei Ueshiba earlier on as he didn’t emphasise it then. Aikido is not a homogeneous lump.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:25:20 +0000

Nate, the purpose of citing historically recent examples, is to avoid claims that their “true intent” was lost ages ago–and that their “true intent” matched…whatever you like.

A design view is not a philosophy, and for a few hundred dollars the IEEE will happily explain the difference. I don’t believe they honor demands for free “evidence,” so you’ll get what you pay for.

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:22:43 +0000

Total Samurai: it translates to “war way” do = way art = jujtsu, the difference is sometimes negligible (especially in the modern world) other times it indicates motivation which is key in this context

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:17:46 +0000

As one of those who helped come up with that wording, you seem to have deliberately missed the point. The first line is a broad definition aimed at telling people they are in the right article to read about what they wanted to know.

As to “an ignorance of, or perhaps a malevolence towards historical facts” which ones?

The first paragraph goes on to say that martial arts may have auxiliary benefits, but the key part is based around combat training. Even if there is no intent to use that training for combat or the training is ineffective the concept is still there.

Systematization does not mean ‘Static’ or unchanging : Aikido was Founded around 60 years ago, and was primarily derived from Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu, i.e. a school of jujutsu that taught a selection of techniques.

Aikido in later years focused less and less on combat an more on spirituality, this is not common to all martial arts, one example does not make a rule!

How long does something need to be around to be ‘systematized’? The Marine Core Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) is less than ten years old but is a highly systematised set of techniques.

Modern Karate is recent but the tradition is reasonably easily traced back to China via Okwinawa in the 14 century! Again much has changed but really small parts at a time with clear continuity

The point being that neither saying “Martial arts should be ‘old’ if they are systematised ” or “these are martial arts and they are ‘new’” holds water leaving a gaping hole in the rest of your argument

What you are saying is that “Martial arts are a Philosophy” and dismissing any that are not philosophically based as not martial arts. Philosophy is closely associated with some eastern martial arts, but saying that a name meaning “arts of war” actually should be defined as “Philosophy” is just dumb