How many train to be warriors and don't believe in fighting?

[tallgeese]

The definition of "warrior" and "martial" can be debated to death. But, it's still a good topic to measure yourself against from time to time.

Some would argue that only those going to war, soldiers, ect. classify as warriors. I'd suggest that going to the root of the definition that's probabily true. Likewise, some suggest that "martial" only to those arts that were specifically designed for warfare. Again, technically speaking this is probibly true.

However, definations and connotations change over the years, something to consider.

Forrest Morgan in his book, Living the Martial Way specifically states that when we look at all that connotatively goes into the word "warrior" that many soldiers, cops, ect. aren't truely warriors today. Just because one's job and duty demands that they not have to option to flee from a fight does not autotomatically mean that that individual is more than a paid employee.

His thesis is that there is more that goes into warriorhood than simply fighting. I don't know that I agree, but he's certainly got interesing points.

In the end, I think we get hung up too much on themes and titles like this. In the end, if you're training to take care of yourself in a fight, are you getting that done? Are you testing this in a realistic manner? That's the core of it I think.

Now, as to if we, and the arts we study having outlived our usefulness, that is an interesting question. Given the prevalance of firearms in many socities, certainly amoung the criminal element and the advent of the volunteer army, the opportunities for the average person in todays society is rare given the sheer number of people in relation to the number of violent offenses. Unless one seeks out a profession of arms (military, police, ect.) then your odds are good as surviving as a sheep.

Sad, but true. But occassionally it does us all good to look at the reality of the situation.

So, have they (and we) outlived our usefullness. Well, if you're one of the unhappy few that falls into the assult victim catagory probably not if you've trained for that possibilty. If you are one of those who chooses a profession that takes you into unaviodable conflict with another human being, certainly not. But aside from those, the true "usefulness" become an internal matter of fulfillment.

I know, shocking coming from me, but true on the utilitarian side of things. Now, if you're training for that possible assault, then it's best to not forget that in training-ever- or you stand to loose the focus you'll need to train to survive that conflict.

[Shizentai]

I think that the meaning of "warrior" compared to "fighter" is neither mutually exclusive nor necessarily synonymous.

The key difference in my opinion is a sense of purpose when facing a threatening situation.

We all know the scenario of a warrior who has a noble purpose when fighting (protecting oneself, one's family, comrades). Still, if a person is able to beat one hundred opponents in the street but does it for no reason or for superficial ones (money, fame, revenge), then in my book he is a fighter but not a warrior. However, if when faced with a violent situation a person can end the conflict peacefully without harm coming to anyone, then while he is not a fighter, I would consider him the greatest warrior of all.

Granted, this doesn't really coincide with the Japanese Waring-states era definition of "warrior"

Still, I have been in a few close calls before. This is probably owing to where I live, and the increased likelihood of small females like myself being targeted by people desperate for money or drunk men wandering around where they shouldn't at night. Win or lose, fights are not noble. They are pathetic and sad, and tear you up inside. On the other hand, having the confidence to talk one's attacker away from doing something terrible, though I've only ever been able to do it once, is something I would gladly train the rest of my life to perfect.

That is all I know.

[bushido_man96]

I think that all too often, many people will readily tie in "noble deeds and character" to the term "warrior." I think is a gross mistake. A warrior is someone who, quite simply, has made a career out of war, combat, battle, etc. And you have to remember, the bad guys are out there fighting for a cause they think is right, too. It would be tough to make a career as a warrior if those other warriors out there oposing them all of a sudden disappeared. And the key, I think, is the fact that a warrior knows that he/she may have to kill someone to do his/her job.

A fighter, on the other hand, may not have to. I do think that fighters may be predisposed to being good warriors, though. You don't even have to be a good fighter to be a warrior, just like to fight.

[JiuJitsuNation]

I think that all too often, many people will readily tie in "noble deeds and character" to the term "warrior." I think is a gross mistake. A warrior is someone who, quite simply, has made a career out of war, combat, battle, etc. And you have to remember, the bad guys are out there fighting for a cause they think is right, too. It would be tough to make a career as a warrior if those other warriors out there oposing them all of a sudden disappeared. And the key, I think, is the fact that a warrior knows that he/she may have to kill someone to do his/her job.

A fighter, on the other hand, may not have to. I do think that fighters may be predisposed to being good warriors, though. You don't even have to be a good fighter to be a warrior, just like to fight.

I like!

[bushido_man96]

Thank you, sir.

[isshinryu5toforever]

I like Heraclitus' definition:

"For every one hundred men you send us,

Ten should not even be here.

Eighty are nothing but targets.

Nine of them are real fighters;

We are lucky to have them, they the battle make.

Ah, but the one. One of them is a warrior.

And he will bring the others back."

A warrior is not only someone that makes war and is good at it, he is someone with courage and conviction. He is also an example among men. You could say there is even a difference between soldiers and warriors.

[bushido_man96]

Nice. It adds a more interesting twist to the discussion here.

[lit-arate]

I see martial arts rather more as drag (I mean that in a good way) rather than training to be of any "warrior class." It's cathartic, a chance to blow off steam, release pressure of contemporary society by transporting ourselves to a different one: credit-based consumerism is unstable, convoluted, not at all meritocratic; martial arts are structured, hierarchical, and based on ability (mostly). Most of us, I suggest, will never be in any "warrior" situation, since even an intense bar brawl or gang attack is hardly a lifestyle, but rather, a moment of combat in a life probably not dedicated to constant warfare. This is not to say that what we do isn't life defining--it gives us responsibility, order, fortitude--but that the life we take on when we enter the dojo is a different life, a different character than the rest of our lives.

[bushido_man96]

I don't know. I don't really take on a different character or culture in the TKD school. I do blow off a bit of steam at times, but usually, its just another part of a day for me.

[formless]

Soldiers can fight without knowing why. A warrior won't fight unless s/he knows exactly why. That's the difference.