232761 Bullies, 3626 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 19 of 19
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. igorsfinger is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6

    Posted On:
    10/04/2009 4:32pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I dont practice martial arts, or religion. But I think both of them are worthy things to spend some time on. Its good to think about that stuff. But are you advocating it? I knew a devout christian, who was always going on about how he used to be this badass, and beat on fools, and one time (back when he worshiped the devil) he pointed this magic ring at a house, and burned it down. Then I beat up a kid who was always on about what a karate badass he was. So, I guess it depends on the person, and if they are good joes, or complete fucktards.
  2. Libertad is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Perth, Aus
    Posts
    294

    Posted On:
    10/04/2009 6:04pm


     Style: Jiu Jits, MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Lights out
    What you just posted is articulated and stuff, but it is nothing new under the sun. It basically outlines what this site strives for: to promote critical thinking in the MA.
    Fair call, this thread was more of a response to other threads than original thought. Critical thinking has been around, in my opinion since Kant and Hegel, and probably to a lesser extent before them.

    atom
    the actual skills learned in martial arts are not applicable outside a dojo or competition
    I disagree, confidence in your ability to defend yourself whether physically or mentally changes your interactions with people, mostly, I think for the better.

    Unless you're military or LEO or really like going for long walks alone in bad parts of town at night or are an asshole around drunk douchebags, its quite unlikely that you will ever need to fight anybody, much less defend your life.
    Pehaps Atlanta is a nicer city than I thought, have you ever caught public transport?

    Thanks for your Input/s, My only goal was a discussion of the points I raised, if you agree, thats great so do I.

    I knew a devout christian, who was always going on about how he used to be this badass, and beat on fools, and one time (back when he worshiped the devil) he pointed this magic ring at a house
    Sorry, What?
    Stay away from metaphysics / crack cocaine.
  3. kanegs is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Just north of Pittsburgh, PA USA
    Posts
    102

    Posted On:
    10/04/2009 7:17pm

    supporting member
     Style: Se-Jong TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think the absence of critical thinking extends far beyond MA.

    Much of the diet, exercise, and alternative medicine industry would not exist if critical thinking was more widespread.
  4. atom is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    sw va
    Posts
    386

    Posted On:
    10/04/2009 9:13pm


     Style: bum rush karate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I disagree, confidence in your ability to defend yourself whether physically or mentally changes your interactions with people, mostly, I think for the better.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertad View Post
    Pehaps Atlanta is a nicer city than I thought, have you ever caught public transport?
    I've lived in mostly "transitional" neighborhoods since I've been here. I've gotten around by bicycle and scooter as my main means of transportation for a while. I've taken the train a number of times. I've never had to armbar someone or even seen a real fight other than high schoolers jumping each other. I've never found any reason to be afraid.

    We should apply critical thinking to the things we are afraid of as well.
  5. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    10/04/2009 10:55pm

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    To the OP:

    Your analysis is much ado about nothing. You do however succeed in exposing a very big flaw in your thinking in your OP. You make certain assumptions about what a martial art should look like when put under the monolithic microscope of Western rationality. And Hegel was not rational BTW, he was an idealist.

    When you pick up the mantle of critical thought you give up the luxury of assuming the results will equal what you imagine them to be... after all we are all prejudice motherfuckers in respect to the laws of analysis that claim objectivity.

    If you think results justify a claim to rational exigesis I would ask you to read HUme's critique. It clearly shows that if Helio Gracie had told people to pray to the gods, palm strike the head of their partner to activate the inner brazilian chi..... Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would still be as effective in the ring.
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
  6. Libertad is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Perth, Aus
    Posts
    294

    Posted On:
    10/05/2009 1:10am


     Style: Jiu Jits, MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    To the OP:

    Your analysis is much ado about nothing.
    I disagree, it is much ado about the correlation between successful martial artists and critical thought.

    You do however succeed in exposing a very big flaw in your thinking in your OP. You make certain assumptions about what a martial art should look like when put under the monolithic microscope of Western rationality.
    I had three separate citations explaining the definition of martial arts, If you disagree please post your views.

    And Hegel was not rational BTW, he was an idealist.
    Justifiable,

    “Truth in philosophy means that concept and external reality correspond.”
    Hegel

    When you pick up the mantle of critical thought you give up the luxury of assuming the results will equal what you imagine them to be
    This goes without saying, we can however make assertions using scientific method, empirical thought and trial and error.

    ... after all we are all prejudice motherfuckers in respect to the laws of analysis that claim objectivity.
    Like science?
    Please cite sources and/or references.

    Have you read Hegel?
    "All objectivity is mediated by subjectivity" I think Hegel abbreviates your point quite well.

    If you think results justify a claim to rational exigesis
    Spelling?
    Sorry I also don't understand your choice of words.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exigency

    I would ask you to read HUme's critique.
    Which one?

    http://www.truthawakens.com/hume.asp
    http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=210&pid=9100
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=241515

    Wikipedia
    According to Hume, we reason inductively by associating constantly conjoined events, and it is the mental act of association that is the basis of our concept of causation
    Learn Ninjitsu, don't learn how to fight.
    Learn Ninjitsu, don't learn how to fight.
    Learn Ninjitsu, ????

    It clearly shows that if Helio Gracie had told people to pray to the gods, palm strike the head of their partner to activate the inner brazilian chi..... Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would still be as effective in the ring.
    Rascism

    Please cite the books/chapters/paragraphs where you feel Hume makes this link.

    Is this a stab at me because I do MT and BJJ? That's quite immature. I was a ninjer once, until I applied critical thought to my training.

    If you want to do ninjitsu that's great, as long as you know there are more effective ways to learn to "fight".
  7. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    10/05/2009 1:50am

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertad View Post
    I disagree, it is much ado about the correlation between successful martial artists and critical thought.

    I had three separate citations explaining the definition of martial arts, If you disagree please post your views.

    Justifiable,

    “Truth in philosophy means that concept and external reality correspond.”
    Hegel

    This goes without saying, we can however make assertions using scientific method, empirical thought and trial and error.

    Like science?
    Please cite sources and/or references.

    Have you read Hegel?
    "All objectivity is mediated by subjectivity" I think Hegel abbreviates your point quite well.

    Spelling?
    Sorry I also don't understand your choice of words.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exigency

    Which one?

    http://www.truthawakens.com/hume.asp
    http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=210&pid=9100
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=241515

    Learn Ninjitsu, don't learn how to fight.
    Learn Ninjitsu, don't learn how to fight.
    Learn Ninjitsu, ????

    Rascism

    Please cite the books/chapters/paragraphs where you feel Hume makes this link.

    Is this a stab at me because I do MT and BJJ? That's quite immature. I was a ninjer once, until I applied critical thought to my training.

    If you want to do ninjitsu that's great, as long as you know there are more effective ways to learn to "fight".
    Ok there is a lot to unpack here so bear with me. Best if I respnd to each point as you parlay it:

    1)Citations mean nothing in and of themselves. You can propose to be objective and then do the opposite. You are applying frameworks to martial arts while simulteonously saying outright that some martial arts are good and some are bad? Thats a stupid thing to do. Its like me writing a constitution to a country saying all men are created equal except black men... you see a problem with that statement? If your framework suffices then IT and not your own subjectivitiy should determine what is effective martial arts wise. You will see why it is such a bonehead thing to do if you read the rest of this post carefully.

    2) You runderstanding of Hegal and scientific method is really flawed. Hegel was not interested in truth he was interested in a process of epistemology where spririt goes through a history of stages in recognizing the other as itself (the dialectic)... Hegel threatened to subsume all rational thought under the history of his dialectic... he was a subjegator not a liberator of rationale thought. If Husserl hadn't made philosophy proto scientific again Hegel might have destroyed it and turned it into faux history... marx happened to hegel and thank god! (sorry Marx)

    The scientific method is not a bunch of fucking steps you take off the internet, it is a method of falsifying knowledge if you can to antagonistically prove that an idea is false. You subject an idea to it once you think your idea is consistant under certain conditions. Hence it is not an apriori basis to start an inquiry into martial arts, it is a final step to simply test and establish a method as workable under a certain hypothesis vis a vis under certain conditions... Many scientists are religious and martial artists, they can still do critical thinking using scientific investigation... sorry I hate when people get this wrong.

    For example, If a person is stupid and decides to be a scientologist it is not because the scientific method can make a fucking statement about scientology or any religion because it can't it is not designed too! Seperate like church and state... Ice cream and liver and onions, good but not eaten together on the same plate!!

    Hegal is my sworn enemy I can assure you I have read all his major works and that he abbreviates nothing I believe in or stand for he was a crypto fascist who almost destroyed my beloved Philos-- You would be more popular with me if you referred to me as a pedophiliac wife beating dog fucker than a Hegal sympathesizer.

    Read all of Hume including his critique of religion... You won't go wrong for the rest of this life. The point I want you to take from him is that when we make assumptions that a priori some scientific process governs our predicitions we are wrong. Hume's famous argument is that we know the sun will rise tomorrow hardly because of celestial mechanics, but rather because it has risen for all the days we are aware of. You like a lot of people prior to Hume's argument (perhaps the strongest ever to come out of the philosophical tradition of the WEst BTW) assume science can dictate a method of analysis or validity... repeat it cannot, it can only verify a method. So to practice a "good martial art" and not a bad one and to do so based on scientifically derived principles decided before hand is a fallicy. Let your experience be your guide and then test it. Study all the ninjutsu you want and test it... you might be suprised that in truth like all arts some of the principles work some don't. Yes there are arts where non of the principles work, and they are bad so nobody please start **** with me on that one!

    I was not insulting you... look above to see me insulting you... I was simply pointing out that Gracie Jiu Jutsu is not good because of any a priori scientific points about the art... it is good because it functions well under the conditions it was designed for. So if I was trying to get the best martial art based on a scientific analysis I would have no claim to finding BJJ or any of the other arts you objectively label so subjectively in your conceite... no what would get me the best art would be to try things and test them as they came up in all the arts and understand the environment vis a vis conditions in which different principles from the different arts flourished and when they did not do so well. In a word the scientific method at work! Hey! in a ring grappling does really well! hey! against a knife.. not so well but this FMA stuff is grand! science tells you that conditions will dictate what arts are best under what circumstances not an apriori method of martial analysis!! And science does this through testing the principle under different conditions.

    Here is one last tip and believe me I like that you care abou this stuf which is why I just wrote you a real response..... study things that work in all arts... I practice a lot of chokes.... I do Ju Jutsu but I practice chokes because thwy work under conditions I need them too work under. No style, chokes. I like knifves for the same reason... 5 against 1? give me a blade and the trianing and I can even those odds out quite a bit. See where i am going? I still do some Buj stuff but I pick and choose based on experience and testing through training experiences... so I don't feel I need a perfect or even a good style of martial arts anymore... I do however feel a great need to practice effective techniques!!! think about it.
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
  8. Libertad is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Perth, Aus
    Posts
    294

    Posted On:
    10/05/2009 2:06am


     Style: Jiu Jits, MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    You are applying frameworks to martial arts while simulteonously saying outright that some martial arts are good and some are bad? Thats a stupid thing to do. Its like me writing a constitution to a country saying all men are created equal except black men
    I applied subjective framework based on a few definitions I was happy with, yes. I do not think some martial arts are good and some are bad, just that some ways of learning and some techniques are far better than others.

    These two statements are nothing alike.

    Men are born as much as practically necessary, the same, it is the conditions of their upbringing that changes themselves.

    Martial arts have different methodologies and techniques,
    Karate has no ground game, Judo has no striking game. It is not that they are misunderstood, it is that they are different.

    Hegel threatened to subsume all rational thought under the history of his dialectic
    Hegel was not intelligent, influential or powerful enough to do any such thing.

    Apart from that, you have made some very good and interesting points, thank you for your contribution, I will read Hume's work.

    What is your opinion on Kant?
  9. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    10/05/2009 3:06am

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertad View Post
    I applied subjective framework based on a few definitions I was happy with, yes. I do not think some martial arts are good and some are bad, just that some ways of learning and some techniques are far better than others.

    These two statements are nothing alike.

    Men are born as much as practically necessary, the same, it is the conditions of their upbringing that changes themselves.

    Martial arts have different methodologies and techniques,
    Karate has no ground game, Judo has no striking game. It is not that they are misunderstood, it is that they are different.



    Hegel was not intelligent, influential or powerful enough to do any such thing.

    Apart from that, you have made some very good and interesting points, thank you for your contribution, I will read Hume's work.

    What is your opinion on Kant?
    Well like Kant or not he did find a way around Hume. Thing with Kant is that depending on his area he is the first modern philosopher or simply a Greek thinker. His ideas on categories of knowledge while brilliant are essentially similar to what Socrates argues in the Meno (with a lot more bells and whistles). His ideas about Ethics on the other hand are somewhat distinct and not Greek at all. Kant was duty bound and did not believe that what makes us happy is necessarily good (like the Greeks did believe).

    Kant was the first modern systematizer. HUme was scary intelligent but Hume never invented a system of thought and it is easier to tear something down than build one... After Kant Heidegger was the next system builder and he was imo better than Kant, but inconsistant. Heidegger is also very hard to grasp so people get scared to tackle his stuff.

    one thing should point out is that Hegel had tremendous politicla sway. At his height of popularity his class had more students than he could handle while a gentleman named Arthur Schopenheur could not buy a student. The Young hegalians became nationalistic in a way that some may say influenced the subsequent direction of National Socialism also known as Naziism. It has become a new fad to talk of Hegel's Lord and Bondsman as though it is in some way modern... I don't buy it. Some do.
    Last edited by Dsimon3387; 10/05/2009 3:10am at .
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.