A question

[jubaji]

In 1758, Claude Helvetius argued from an empiricist point of view that since man is completely molded by his environment, a perfect environment will inevitably produce perfect human beings. The job of the political and social order is to use the tools of education and legislation to reshape man and create a more virtuous being.

Now this kind of thinking, to one degree or another, influenced the socialist movements that were to spread throughout Europe and can, in a way, be seen in many of the assumptions of the modern welfare state.

My question is this: Has this kind of thinking also influenced the way that some people perceive the martial arts? We often hear people talking about how this or that system "works" (or not) as if the system itself determines the outcome of a struggle rather than the individuals involved. We often hear people claim that this or that system can negate any inherent physical advantages or disadvantages regardless of the individual practitioners involved ("dude, size and strength don't matter at all!"). People search for the "best" martial art to study as if finding the "perfect environment will inevitably produce perfect" martial artists. Is John Locke to blame for some of the unrealistic notions that people bring to the study of martial arts today?

[cam427]

I agree that this seems to be the case.

Everyone is looking for MA nirvana and many (like Uke) claim to have found it.

This kind of thinking is rediculous yet seems to be common among most people. I think that it is just something built into people that they like to believe there is always a perfect answer. If only "something" were to happen everything would be perfect.

It is not just MA either.

It could be "If only I had a good boyfriend/girlfriend then I would finally be happy" or just as easily "If only I had a better instructor I could beat up anyone despite the fact that I am four foot ten and 100 pounds". It just goes on forever.

When you lie to yourself you (subconciously) know it is a lie and this is why people who do this get so angry. They need to convince themselves so do not like to hear conflicting theories as what they tell themselves does not stand up to logical analysis. Religious zealots are a classic example of this.

Is it John Locke's (or anyone elses) fault. No. Everyone has the ability to be honest with themselves and sceptically analyse everything they are told but they find it easier not to.

My two cents.
Cam

[kiddbjj]

yeah i agree.

classic example is the ridiculous lengths that wing tsun/wing chun people go to prove 'scientifically' that there system works.

'its all maths, geometry, physics and science' they claim. (this is the jist of an actual quote by Emin Boztepe about his EBMAS style) there's all these books with schematic diagrams showing how a certain block is structurally sound and complies with the laws of this or that, and this is supposed to prove that they are teaching the ultimate style. yet they get creamed in MMA and then have to hide behind excuses to justify their failure rather than QUESTIONING THE SYSTEM. which is what it comes down to, either closing off your mind to new possibilities and blindly following the 'system' or trying to think outside the box.

[BoarSpear]

Nice post Jubaji!

I agree many people forget its the man, not the system.

But the only styles that sought a perfect environment are the ones that seek to limit techniques or targets by adding a safety zone and a ref. IE: The ring.
Everywhere else people realize there is no perfect technique or style and no one way is the right way. The very fact that martial systems incorporate weapons says they realize there is no perfect defense to ANYTHING, much less EVERYTHING.

[OmaPlata]

[ a perfect environment will inevitably produce perfect human beings]


then we are in the golden age of perfection.......Pamela Anderson, Britney Spears (young), Jessica Alba, Trish Stratus. etc

[EmptyneSs]

Originally Posted by OmaPlata

[ a perfect environment will inevitably produce perfect human beings]


then we are in the golden age of perfection.......Pamela Anderson, Britney Spears (young), Jessica Alba, Trish Stratus. etc

perfection? well jessica alba is close, but the rest i have to disagree with. these chicks are all style and no substance. they arent perfect cause they got plastic surgery and have tits that look like basketballs and will whore themselsves to the media and professional athletes just for money and fame. also i dont know if u noticed, but TITS ARENTS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE BASKETBALLS. breast implants always look rediculous. chicks need to realize what they already have is as good as its gonna get and accept that.

[pstevens]

Originally Posted by jubaji

In 1758, Claude Helvetius argued from an empiricist point of view that since man is completely molded by his environment, a perfect environment will inevitably produce perfect human beings. The job of the political and social order is to use the tools of education and legislation to reshape man and create a more virtuous being.

Now this kind of thinking, to one degree or another, influenced the socialist movements that were to spread throughout Europe and can, in a way, be seen in many of the assumptions of the modern welfare state.

My question is this: Has this kind of thinking also influenced the way that some people perceive the martial arts? We often hear people talking about how this or that system "works" (or not) as if the system itself determines the outcome of a struggle rather than the individuals involved. We often hear people claim that this or that system can negate any inherent physical advantages or disadvantages regardless of the individual practitioners involved ("dude, size and strength don't matter at all!"). People search for the "best" martial art to study as if finding the "perfect environment will inevitably produce perfect" martial artists. Is John Locke to blame for some of the unrealistic notions that people bring to the study of martial arts today?

Jubaji, you really are a monkey... There's nothing Locke or Helvetius wrote about that connects with our perception of martial arts today. Both were philosophers who were talking about social and political reforms. Neither said anything about people searching for the perfect environment to find the perfect form.

The reason people believe their martial art is the best is simple - bias. Who want's to go around and proclaim that what they're doing "stinks?!" Years ago it was boxing, then karate, then Muay Thai, then Jiu-jitsu, now MMA... But none of these were shaped by social or political reforms - It's all economics. The power of the dollar speaks!

Martial arts survive for three primary reasons:

(1) Need - In which case, the need of combat skills has now progressed into the military might of each country.

(2) Sports/entertainment venue - Martial arts like boxing and now MMA, wrestling/grappling, that can generate interest and money will prevail over all else.

(3) Tradition - somewhere out there, people are practicing martial arts that may have absolutely no merit, but represents a passing of the torch.

The fact that tons of people sit around talking about what style is better than which makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.