Do Martial Arts need to include philosophy

[Colin Linz]

Do Martial Arts need to include philosophy or some sort of ethical code, or is this just bull **** and gets in the way of learning how to fight?

So what are your thoughts? Is it necessary? Is it an important part? Do you enjoy it? Have you benefited by it?

[ns_oni]

I think philosophy plays a very important part. They teach you a right way to live :)

[Tatsumaru]

if you have no ethics/philosophy you have no thought of the consequences of your actions and that seems about as smart as giving a child a machine gun

[Vanir]

Every martial art has a philosophy, it cannot be avoided. Mostly it lay in the history of that style's development, the background of the founders, the political environment in which it was developed, etc. One should look deeply to appreciate the philosophy of the art they are studying.
if you have no ethics/philosophy you have no thought of the consequences of your actions and that seems about as smart as giving a child a machine gun
Although I appreciate it, I was never really big on say, kickboxing. But truth be told there's nothing really wrong with it. I just wanted something different.
To be fair kickboxing (and every socially accepted fighting sport) has an ethic, mind you.

[Andrew Green]

Not unique to the martial arts, it's just common sense.

Training with friends is ok.

Going out and beating people up is not, trained or not trained.

Same for machine guns. Shooting targets is ok. GOing to the mall and shooting shoppers is not. Trained or not.

Most of the time it is just pumped up for marketing purposes.

[nzric]

Learning to fight is a conscious decision, so any fighting art has to have a philosophy. Your philosophy could be "fight without reason, morals or conscience" but that's still a philosophy - i.e. you have thought of the options and chosen to adopt a certain set of principles to learning how to fight.

Army fighting styles are still martial arts, but even with the most extreme arts there are rules as to what degree you fight in different circumstances (even if you forego any ethics on a battlefield/mission). If you don't have at least that much ethical constraint, you'd be a psychopath/serial killer.

[Jody Butt]

Do Martial Arts need to include philosophy or some sort of ethical code, or is this just bull **** and gets in the way of learning how to fight?

So what are your thoughts? Is it necessary? Is it an important part? Do you enjoy it? Have you benefited by it?

Absolutely necessary for me. If it was just about fighting, it would not hold my interest.

Remember: No physical altercation exists outside of a moral context.

[acrawford]

Is it necessary to learn. Well No, however I feel that in order to understand the focus of the art the phylosophy of it must be embraced.

It would be like getting dressed for a party and then standing outside and listneing to the music.

[Colin Linz]

OK, can I then summarise by saying that we all study within the confines of some sort of rules, and all arts have a degree of ethics within them?

Can I then ask you, if you have found value in them? Do they mean more than just words? How have they shaped your lives?

[Tireces]

Do Martial Arts need to include philosophy or some sort of ethical code, or is this just bull **** and gets in the way of learning how to fight?


For the sake of increasing raw fighting ability, no, it is unnecessary. But, it is still important. If people are not taught to use wisely the things good martial arts training places at their disposal, then you might as well hand a sword to a child and tell them to have fun.

[Jody Butt]

For the sake of increasing raw fighting ability, no, it is unnecessary. But, it is still important. If people are not taught to use wisely the things good martial arts training places at their disposal, then you might as well hand a sword to a child and tell them to have fun.

. . . not to be contentious, or anything, but I would say that for some arts, actually, most arts, the philosophy is requisite to increasing your raw fighting power.

[Tireces]

Mike Tyson just strike me as the sort of guy who waxes philosophical on the side. Do you wanna fight him? I don't either.

[Colin Linz]

Mike Tyson just strike me as the sort of guy who waxes philosophical on the side. Do you wanna fight him? I don't either.


I’m sure Mike has a philosophy at some level that he trains by. Is it a useful lifestyle philosophy though? Results speak louder than words in his case. He may have won some battles through out his life, but he is on the ropes now, you could even say down for the count.

[totality]

i have my own moral and ethical codes, i don't need anyone else to tell me to change them.

[Mr Budo]

Personally, I think the philosophical element (along with the element of physical expression), is what makes a martial art an 'art'. Without the philosophy, a "martial art" merely becomes a method of fighting.

Western Boxing, for example, has no philosophical element as part of its training - it simply presented as a sport for someone to practice and compete. For this reason, I would define it as a "Fighting Sport", not a martial art. Its exponents are sportsmen, not martial artists.

Other styles, such as Gung Fu, Karate, Muay Thai, Capoeira etc can be classed as "martial arts", as they all have a deeply ingrained philosophical and spiritual component to them which is essential to their proper training. For example, one cannot fully study and completely understand Shaolin Gung Fu without also studying the philosophy behind it, because it was invented as a form of spiritual practice, not just a method of fighting. Also, the styles I have mentioned above are NOT focused purely around competition. The practice and perfection of them comes first, and sports competition is merely an optional extra.

[totality]

practice and perfection is an integral part of boxing, as much so as any of the styles you mentioned, and competition is an optional extra.

i feel that there is art in combat. morality and philosophy are not what makes it art, so much as the utilization of the human body as a weapon.

[Tireces]

Yep. The moral and philosophical and moral things are just on the side. They don't make martial art martial art, and they certainly don't determine how well you progress, unless your teacher is the sort who will do what they can to examine your character and not allow you to stay if they disapprove of it.

[Colin Linz]

Here we go, what is a martial art? As mentioned in some other treads Martial Arts are a very broad term. In Japan they don’t have this concept; you are studying budo, bujutsu, bugei or Kakutogi. If you’re studying budo, then you are studying a form of combat that has a philosophical side to it. If its bujutsu, well then no. While if you are boxing it would be kakutogi, or if you hang around street corners breaking stuff with your hands and bending spears with your throat then it would be bugei.

Personally I will only teach under the concept of budo. This is because I have a morale obligation towards my community. Once I teach a technique I can’t take it back, therefore I want some feeling of trust between me and who ever I teach. I get this by spending time with them, discussing subjects like ethics, watching how they behave under stressful circumstances and trying to prime their thoughts so that they look at wider issues, that they may not have considered before.

I have the luxury of doing this because I don’t teach for economic gain, but rather the belief in the benefit of my chosen art. Commerciality is not a factor in how I teach, or the measurement of my success. This gives me more control over my student’s progression. Please don’t confuse this as knocking those that teach as a profession, it is not my intent. I’m sure Martial Arts are big enough to accept all of us; I just thought I would throw something in from a personal perspective.

[Tireces]

Thats great, but martial art without the morals and philosophy is still martial art. The art is still there, as is the martial. I'm not advocating teaching people regardless of the character (or lack thereof) they display, only that those who do teach these people are not suddenly doing something that isn't martial art. Japanese terminology has zero effect on it. Bottom line, the philosophy isn't necessary to increase raw fighting ability, but it is to keep martial arts out of the hands of people who can't use their abilities responsibly. Simple as that.

[Colin Linz]

The point I was trying to get across is that we have a diverse understanding of the term martial art. That is why I prefer to describe what I teach as budo, by doing this there is no misconception. I teach an intergrated package; just as there is no separation of juho and goho, there is no separation between ken and zen; they are all part of a whole. The mind and body are not separate, if you doubt this look at the effects of mental stress to the body or look at the effect of a positive mind set on physical illness.

Further to this is how you go about defending yourself. Philosophy will determine what it is you will do, and the extant to witch you will go to do it. If we take raw fighting ability and view it as a weapon like a gun, it is useless until someone picks it up and forms a concept of how and when they should use it.

For me the philosophy that I have studied with Shorinji Kempo has proven to be more beneficial to me than the self defence techniques. I suppose it could be a matter of viewpoint. When does the battle begin?

[jroe52]

be like water!

[CKava]

I think Colin has a point. There is certainly a lot of debate that centers around what exactly constitutes an "art" or an "artist", one need only go have a look at this thread to get that point: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11578
Some people even seem to regard "art" as a more important word than "martial" however wasn't the term "martial art" just a Western invention to try and lump alot of foreign styles of fighting into a manageable concept? I mean Im be no means a supporter of the secret Eastern knowledge vs. Western ignorance arguments but I think the term "martial artist" should be taken with a pinch of salt. The word artist and art has several associations in English but if these are not present in the original terms used by the cultures they came from why do we think they are such an integral part of a style? Off course maybe Im wrong- does anyone know the origin of the term "martial artist"? (Please God don't let it be Bruce Lee!) ;)

Oh and Im also aware not all martial arts came from the East as the WMA forum on here is testament to but I dont think the Western fighting styles were called by the term "martial arts" prior to the arrival of the Asian styles. Can anyone else better informed tell me if this is right? (Louie Im looking at you)

[jroe52]

is there anything that can be taught that is, is not, has been, will be, or will not be philosophy?

[aikiMac]

Original question: "Do Martial Arts need to include philosophy or some sort of ethical code, or is this just bull **** and gets in the way of learning how to fight?"

Personally, I think the philosophical element (along with the element of physical expression), is what makes a martial art an 'art'. Without the philosophy, a "martial art" merely becomes a method of fighting.

At this point in time, that's my opinion also. I have pondered this question frequently on my own, and I still don't have a complete grasp of it. I am only interested in "budo" martial arts, as explained by Colin Linz. I do not believe for a second that philosophy is necessary to learning how to fight, but I do think it is necessary to elevate fighting skill from the level of "brute beast kills other brute beast" up to the level of art, and artist, and a master worth emulating.

[Colin Linz]

It occurred to me when re-reading this thread that we may want to develop a working definition of philosophy. I think it is true that any martial art will impart some degree of philosophy, even if it simply crush, kill, destroy. When I originally thought to start the thread I was thinking in terms of arts that have personal improvement or character development as structured and defined outcome.

Within Shorinji Kempo the teachings of technique and philosophy are interwoven you can’t learn one without the other. The way that we practice techniques has been purposely designed to act as an experiential learning tool for the philosophy. Even without studying the philosophy you could not progress far without gaining some understanding of it.

I’m sure this would be true of all forms of budo to a greater or lesser degree. How much of this is emphasized in your arts? Do you have a curriculum for the philosophy or do you allow understanding to build from your practice methods? Would you teach someone who came to your Dojo and said they only want to learn to fight, and are not interested in the philosophy?

[Taiso]

To find the answer you have to go back to martial arts roots most ancient forms which modern forms are from. They mainly come from a religious or philosophical background one the main being Tai Chi which is very much a spiritual martial art when done properly and was originally only taught in temples until wars started and it left the temples and spread and changed and from it has come various martial arts such as wing chun and even karate. So to truly use a martial art in its purer form philosophy is a major part in it, as has been said without philosophy martial arts merely become another way to hit someone with nothing else. Think of it like a tree a tree as a whole is good for the environment but without the whole tree there together it breaks down and and doesn't function the same can be used for martial arts (not martial arts for sport which are different) without the whole it doesn't work efficiently and isn't good for the environment just another thugs way of doing things.

[bcullen]

I think the determining factor is the addition or subtraction of philosohpy. To train someone to fight without it is to create a soldier. With philosophy you create a warrior. Soldiers do as their leader would have without being truly aware of their situation. Soldiers deal mostly with physical confrontations, the seen enemy. Warriors fight on many battlefields, and strive to understand and improve the world around them. They seek the great unseen enemies, the things that seek to rob you of both quantity and quality of life.

For much of our training not understanding the five element theory would hamper your training. The Baguazhang and Xing-Yi are also bound tightly to Daoist philosophy. You don't have to adopt it to make it work, but you do need to understand it.

We have a set of core principles we teach, but we also have different programs that allow students to choose their level of interest. For some students it is a hobby and for others it is a lifestyle.

I've been to schools where they posted their tenenants on the wall, or in a hand-out and expected you to memorize them and just left it at that. As Andrew said a marketing tool.

Teaching someone to fight is simple, teaching someone how to make the most out of their life is a challenge.

[AdriftQuasar]

I'm not sure if any of what I'm going to say has already been said or not becuase I'm simply too lazy to read all that....

Anyway...Martial Arts is not just about learning how to fight. Any idiot with a good right hook can win a fight, MA is about learning how not to fight.

[Nukite]

Do Martial Arts need to include philosophy or some sort of ethical code, or is this just bull **** and gets in the way of learning how to fight?

So what are your thoughts? Is it necessary? Is it an important part? Do you enjoy it? Have you benefited by it?
The mind is used for martial arts, and philosophy is the "old tradition of how it works" So the only thing that get,s in the way of learning how to fight is the mind. Ethical code is a guess as to how the mind works, so is philosophy so learning how to fight is to remove the guess work and apply this to one own mind, so that it can be use to it,s full capacity for fighting. :woo: :love: :Angel:

[Jim]

There needs to be a philosophy and 'ethics' to be considered being included in the title 'martial art', in my opinion. That's why I don't really consider western boxing or wrestling as being an art, rather they are a science.

Some self defence/close quarter combat systems could also fit into the science category if they don't go into the 'mindset' scenarios or look at the mentality of an attacker. Delving into these depths takes more than 'just' science. It takes a type of thinking outside of the box to look at the mind of aggressors. To do this you can't rely on the simple 'do this if they do that and you'll get this reaction' that science is known for.

It's the constant battle that instructing can be: where does the techniques end and the philosophy begin? Too much of either won't get the end solution which is a well rounded MAist who can teach and fight. Maybe you could call us priests of Mars? (sorry, borrowed that from a friend)

[Nukite]

philosophy reveals knowledge of oneself and responsibility of thoughts and action. Animals do not need philosophy but humans have a "mind that see,s itself and reflect upon it action".
Thus philosophy is a "reality of the mind". Without philosophy the mind is just "instinctive and lacks knowledge and spiritual growth as regarding (being a human being). The fear of philosophy is a modern one "consequense of actions, and
thought that are challenge as to be (humane and reality based).
The modern philosophical mind is "sick with it own thinking and science" that does not thing for itself but has no responsibility and consequenses but "what one think accomplish the goals" in a scientific or physical manner without (reflection and admiting to being a human being).

[cxw]

IMHO philosophy is not a necessary part of MA.

I agree with those who say the MAist needs to avoid figthing as much as possible, needs to treat people with respect etc.

But why is it necessary to learn from you instructor, sensei etc? Just because the instructor, sensei etc is good as his/her MA, this doesn't mean their philosophy is correct.

If you accept your arts philosophy blindly, then you've achieved sheep like thinking rather than true personal and spiritual development.

[Albert]

If there is no philosiphy at all, it is not martial-arts.. Just fighting.

[Andy Murray]

I think a lot of people turn to Martial Arts to fulfill something otherwise lacking in 'day to day' life.

If that means adopting outside philosophy/spirituality etc, then this can be both productive and indeed counter productive for each individual.

I dearly remember an experience many years ago on taking a new group of students, when after a gruelling two hour physical lesson, a new student asked me 'when I would start working on his mind?'
I told him 'I just had', and I never saw him again. *shrug. :)

[Nrv4evr]

the whole basic point of the martial arts was at first to improve oneself; the ability to fight was to ensure someone else didn't "deprove" you, as well as giving you the confidence and belief of your identity.

[Kwajman]

Well I think it does, at least it works for me! To me its a part of the MA experience.

[Nukite]

IMHO philosophy is not a necessary part of MA.

I agree with those who say the MAist needs to avoid figthing as much as possible, needs to treat people with respect etc.

But why is it necessary to learn from you instructor, sensei etc? Just because the instructor, sensei etc is good as his/her MA, this doesn't mean their philosophy is correct.

If you accept your arts philosophy blindly, then you've achieved sheep like thinking rather than true personal and spiritual development.
There a whole research into philosophy by many thinkers, instructor usually come from a school of thought already work out and proven to be realistic over thousand of years. Some people don.t like to admit they are human beings and have "fighting as not the human way of resolving problems". People with philosophy do not avoid fighting but deal with it in a human perspective, karma, responsibility and personal growth. Philosophy is development of the mind as applied before, after events, what does it mean to be human.

[cxw]

There a whole research into philosophy by many thinkers, instructor usually come from a school of thought already work out and proven to be realistic over thousand of years. Some people don.t like to admit they are human beings and have "fighting as not the human way of resolving problems". People with philosophy do not avoid fighting but deal with it in a human perspective, karma, responsibility and personal growth. Philosophy is development of the mind as applied before, after events, what does it mean to be human.

How's it been proven?

The statement that "fighting as not the humany way of resolving problems" is overly simplistic. If your walking home and someone jump on you and starts hitting you, then fighting is the way of resolving the problem of you been severly beaten/murdered.

99% of fights can and should be avoided, but if you are to say that you should never fight, then what's the point of learning how to?

[Happeh]

"99% of fights can and should be avoided, but if you are to say that you should never fight, then what's the point of learning how to?"

See? That is your mind boxing you in. You only see fighting and if there is no fighting,why bother with martial arts.

If I tell you that doing martial arts will make you stronger, smarter, healthier, do you still need to fight to do martial arts? Would you quit martial arts if they only made you stronger, smarter and healthier?

[Nukite]

How's it been proven?

The statement that "fighting as not the humany way of resolving problems" is overly simplistic. If your walking home and someone jump on you and starts hitting you, then fighting is the way of resolving the problem of you been severly beaten/murdered.

99% of fights can and should be avoided, but if you are to say that you should never fight, then what's the point of learning how to?

Fighting is the way to revolve the problems of fighting, but must acknowledge that there are psychological problems associatied with, fighting for one life and view of life afterwards, learning how to fight so as to deal with consequence, not like murderers and their psychological abnormality, needs superior philosophy to remain sane and fight again. That is the point of learning how to fight and still remaining a human being.

[cxw]

"If I tell you that doing martial arts will make you stronger, smarter, healthier, do you still need to fight to do martial arts? Would you quit martial arts if they only made you stronger, smarter and healthier?

There are other activities that can do this as well.

I personally would rather gain jitsu skills from MA and philosophy from elsewhere than combine them with some sort of TMA.

It's just my personal opinion. I have absolutely no problem with people who take MAs with large spiritual components.

[Nukite]

Well I think it does, at least it works for me! To me its a part of the MA experience.

Conciousness of action and thinking this is the reason that certain people attached philosophy to martial arts. Fighting, killing does not come naturally to humans, needs an explanation as to why what reason, and how to deal with it. Never heard of philosophical tiger or lion except some people would say a tame one. If fighting was so natural to human then we have all the capacities to finish the human race within a couple of days. Without philosophy the laws would be kill before you are killed. I think we have no choice but to have a philosophy of martial arts "or the monkey would have outsmarted us". Let these humans kill each other and we will have all the banana and food we need" If there is such a thing as a philosophical monkey, I doubt it that is my opinion. :woo: :woo: