[lakan_sampu]

wow....................
I'll prepare for this one......

[zefff]

thanks Des, I missed the reply but it was a good one. I will have to read it back again later when Im not at work. Cheers.

zefff

[Tease T Tickle]

Zeff: No worries.
Li siao lung: What are you preparing for?

[8LimbsScientist]

Originally Posted by DeStRuCtIkOn

What does one do with martial arts? You fight people. How can fighting somebody be altruistic? If you do so for the benefit of others and if you do not harm the person(s) you fight. If you harm them, how can you say you took others' interests to heart, how can you say you fought for the benefit for others'? Generosity is only genorosity if you give to everyone, not if only give to a certain group of people and the same is true of altruism. If you fight so that you, your loved ones, your property or anything else connected to you is not harmed, you not altruistic because you have a vested interested in what you fight for. So, just like you cannot harm anyone, you must fight for everyone.

What about fighting to defend those that cannot defend themselves? What if you train so that, if the situation should arise, you can be a champion for the weak, or the abused?

I believe this is a case where one can find true altruism in MA. As a martial artist, most of the time you wouldn't consider yourself a member of the "weaker" group you strive to protect and serve.

[zefff]

As a martial artist, most of the time you wouldn't consider yourself a member of the "weaker" group you strive to protect and serve.

So do you strive to make yourself better than the weak ones?

Also it may be that the attackers are weak and abused too. What good does hurting them do?

Do you see what Im getting at? It is an odd question.

I do believe in 'the life giving sword' though... or whatever the phrase was. The death of a few for the good of the many.

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by 8LimbsScientist

What about fighting to defend those that cannot defend themselves? What if you train so that, if the situation should arise, you can be a champion for the weak, or the abused?

I believe this is a case where one can find true altruism in MA. As a martial artist, most of the time you wouldn't consider yourself a member of the "weaker" group you strive to protect and serve.

I guess that the simplest way to put it is to ask why you are fighting for the weak. This is the sort of over-abstraction that makes many people NOT like philosophy, and depending on one's individual exposure to philosophical speaking and thinking it may be difficult to follow. For instance, under Utilitarianism, if you can prove that the consequences of your actions will provide unquestionable benefit to a great number of people, it is okay to enslaves another number of people. At the superficial level, that seems frightening to us, that slavery might be moral in any instance. But, if you really dig into what Utilitarianism is about and follow the logic behind an argument like that, it almost seems intuitive.

I'm not going to tell you that you're immoral for fighting for the weak. I'm not going to say that you're selfish for fighting for the weak. However, if you, at the root of the matter, are really fighting for some benefit to yourself, then you are actually selfish. This is the idea behind a person donating to charity because he wants others to have what he did not; yes, it's still charity and applaudable, but you're really donating to alleviate some sense of inner pain over not having what you believe you should have had. It's convoluted and I don't expect you to buy into it, all I ask is that you see the logic used here. I'm not making any value judgments of anyone here, I'm just recited fairly standard stances among academic philosophers.

[lakan_sampu]

hmmmmmm.............
I believe one usually cannot/do not know what his/her reason for taking up MA at the beginning. As one trains further, that individual gradually discovers the meaning why he/she has entered MA.
In any sense, one benefits from doing something...however "selfless" it is. Although he/she has no intention of being selfish, an individual inevitably benefits a good deed whatsoever it may be, directly or not. any viewpoints?


O....Is there any MA out there that has no concrete philosophy of itself? I mean, an MA that doesn't have any idea behind it but fighting?

[lakan_sampu]

most of the time you would not consider yourself being with the "weaker group". Yet, eventually as you reach that state of "enlightenment" in MA, humility enters and you realize that you are just like everybody else. You are not sure 100% of what you know,,,you have found the core of your ignorance. This is what my Shihan used to tell us.

[zefff]

"O....Is there any MA out there that has no concrete philosophy of itself? I mean, an MA that doesn't have any idea behind it but fighting?"

yeah loads. Boxing is probably the most well known.

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by li_siao_lung

I believe one usually cannot/do not know what his/her reason for taking up MA at the beginning. As one trains further, that individual gradually discovers the meaning why he/she has entered MA.

Even if you do not consciously decide to act in a certain manner, even if you are not aware fully of your motivations, you are acting and you have motivations. If those actions and motivations are not entirely altruistic, you're buggered. I will iterate what I've stated a hundred times already, this only matters to somebody for whom selfishness is an issue. The VAST majority of people simply don't care. So, why do people get hung up on philosophers telling them they're selfish and didn't know it? Beats the hell out of me.

In any sense, one benefits from doing something...however "selfless" it is. Although he/she has no intention of being selfish, an individual inevitably benefits a good deed whatsoever it may be, directly or not. any viewpoints?

There is no evidence, as far as I know, that there is no situation in which one does not benefit. That is, I believe whole-heartedly that one will find circumstances when you behave altruisticly, purposefully or not. Most often, actually, not purposefully.

O....Is there any MA out there that has no concrete philosophy of itself? I mean, an MA that doesn't have any idea behind it but fighting?

That is a matter of perspective. Technically the answer is no, because as a human designed martial art it has to contain a concept of humanity as well as a concept of fighting. But, many people would consider things like that not really philosophical concepts within the framework of the art. So, for me, it's a toss up. Personally, I would agree with Zeff, there are many arts that care nothing about philosophical concepts and merely examine the act of fighting itself.