PDA

View Full Version : What is a warrior?



soul_sword34
10th July 2006, 21:30
Hello,
I'm new to the forum so please be gentle. I was just wondering what truly does it mean to be a warrior. I have my own definition. Just want your input.

Prince Loeffler
10th July 2006, 22:13
Hello,
I'm new to the forum so please be gentle. I was just wondering what truly does it mean to be a warrior. I have my own definition. Just want your input.

a combatant who is engaged in or experienced in battle. A person willing to sacrifice his/her life on the line for everything.

Hope this helps ! and welcome to E-budo

Norbert Funke
11th July 2006, 12:44
Wikipedia has an excellent definition: A warrior is a person habitually engaged in war and/or skilled in the waging of war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior

I am wondering though, if you are looking for a more specific meaning? When do you feel more like a warrior vs. a soldier. But this can spark an entire new thread though.

Chris McLean
11th July 2006, 14:38
Warriors are not people who are habbitually engaged in battle. These are definitions of non warriors trying to understand warriors. They dont understand.
The following is only my oppion based on a lifetime of practice as a warrior.

A warrior is some one who does not wish to engage in conflict with another human being but is fully prepared to fight to the death to keep the peace. He will fight to the death to defend our highest Ideals and Values. He will fight to the death to defend the freedom of those who cannot defend themselfs. He is born with a gift that is only usefull when our cultures are engaged in war and during peace time he must train his mind, body, and spirit so he engages in the practice of such things as Martial Arts. Firing his weapons at the gun range.
Society turns to them when needed for her safety.

September 11, 2001 was a day in the United States that caused many warriors to surface and they continue to defend this Nation when her people have forgoten how deadly the threat to her is or even what the definition of a warrior is. He does not need recognition for his role as a warrior. We as a Nation take advantage of this and go on with out honoring these men.

I will step off the soap box now!!

MikeWilliams
11th July 2006, 14:42
Warrior - a tribal iron-age (or earlier) soldier.

Ron Tisdale
11th July 2006, 16:01
I think the whole issue of "warriors" in martial arts is over rated, mis-understood, and built on a lot of myth. And very, very, very few martial artists really come anywhere close to even that.

Best,
Ron

niten ninja
11th July 2006, 17:05
I like the wikipedia definition, though I might add that the way wikipedia use it is probably more of an archaic way. People nowadays use it as an idealised concept (as Chris was doing) while further back in history it might have been a term to simply designate what someone did.


When do you feel more like a warrior vs. a soldier.

I don't know exactly where warrior stops, but I believe you become a soldier when you are part of an army.

Inazuma
12th July 2006, 10:22
Warriors are not people who are habbitually engaged in battle. These are definitions of non warriors trying to understand warriors. They dont understand.
The following is only my oppion based on a lifetime of practice as a warrior.

A warrior is some one who does not wish to engage in conflict with another human being but is fully prepared to fight to the death to keep the peace. He will fight to the death to defend our highest Ideals and Values. He will fight to the death to defend the freedom of those who cannot defend themselfs. He is born with a gift that is only usefull when our cultures are engaged in war and during peace time he must train his mind, body, and spirit so he engages in the practice of such things as Martial Arts. Firing his weapons at the gun range.
Society turns to them when needed for her safety.

September 11, 2001 was a day in the United States that caused many warriors to surface and they continue to defend this Nation when her people have forgoten how deadly the threat to her is or even what the definition of a warrior is. He does not need recognition for his role as a warrior. We as a Nation take advantage of this and go on with out honoring these men.

I will step off the soap box now!!

Warriors wage war, they fight, that's what they do. Nothing to do with morals or ideals or heroics, those belong to a Hero. The men who smashed the planes into the twin towers were warriors as well, whether we like their point of view or not. For a warrior to be an effective warrior lofty ideas, mostly, can't be taken into play. It's a somewhat arrogent and self centered way of looking at the world, the good guys are the warriors while the bad guys are the cowards and the terrorists, misses the notion behind war I think. And makes for some very dangerous rationalizations...

Soldiers are warriors within a given organization.

Although, what do I know? :p

JamesD
12th July 2006, 16:45
Warriors are not people who are habbitually engaged in battle. These are definitions of non warriors trying to understand warriors. They dont understand.
The following is only my oppion based on a lifetime of practice as a warrior.

A warrior is some one who does not wish to engage in conflict with another human being but is fully prepared to fight to the death to keep the peace. He will fight to the death to defend our highest Ideals and Values. He will fight to the death to defend the freedom of those who cannot defend themselfs. He is born with a gift that is only usefull when our cultures are engaged in war and during peace time he must train his mind, body, and spirit so he engages in the practice of such things as Martial Arts. Firing his weapons at the gun range.
Society turns to them when needed for her safety.

September 11, 2001 was a day in the United States that caused many warriors to surface and they continue to defend this Nation when her people have forgoten how deadly the threat to her is or even what the definition of a warrior is. He does not need recognition for his role as a warrior. We as a Nation take advantage of this and go on with out honoring these men.

I will step off the soap box now!!

I think this is a decent definition--

Of course, I also believe that one can oppose war and be a warrior of sorts (Ghandi, etc).

OK, now I'm gonna need to get ready to put worms back into thier cans!

amadus
12th July 2006, 20:21
Can someone explain why this is a Gendai Budo thread?

Perhaps the semantic and etymological discussion of the word "warrior" and all the strong feelings it seems to be brewing up in people should be in the member's lounge...

Prince Loeffler
12th July 2006, 20:52
I think the whole issue of "warriors" in martial arts is over rated, mis-understood, and built on a lot of myth. And very, very, very few martial artists really come anywhere close to even that.

Best,
Ron


Ron

I agree ! I never even have a thought of considering myself a warrior or a soldier. I am simply a karateka plain and simple. I would consider John Lindsey a Soldier for sure.

Prince Loeffler
12th July 2006, 20:56
Can someone explain why this is a Gendai Budo thread?

Perhaps the semantic and etymological discussion of the word "warrior" and all the strong feelings it seems to be brewing up in people should be in the member's lounge...


I think for now, its stays here due the the fact that the terms being discussed relates to the modern definition of warriorships.

Andrew S
12th July 2006, 21:15
I'm afraid I'll have to go with Mike on the definition - a warrior is someone who fights battles but is not part of an organized military.
Part of the problem (IMHO) is post-modernism - modern Western culture based around technology has given us a lot of benefits and made our lives much easier. We also have more time to think, and we often feel that something is missing. One way we deal with the problem is to look back to times that we believe may have been more spiritually fulfilling.
Most of us in this forum are practitioners of Japanese martial arts - the temptation to make a link between what we do with the Bushi ideal (no matter how much our rational side tells us it's influenced by Niitobe) is strong. Besides, no-one wants to be a peasant.

Norbert Funke
12th July 2006, 21:27
I never even have a thought of considering myself a warrior or a soldier.Thats how I feel too (ok, I did my duties as soldier, but that was long time ago). Anyway, when I started in MA, I clearly did it for the interest in the Sport. However, by emerging more and more into MA I am wondering how the view might drift over time. (Prince, you obviously are much longer in MA then I am). I am starting to recognize, that MA is part of warrior/soldier training in some asian countries. Out of curiosity I just recently listened to one of the TKD internet radios and realized they were primarily talking about military application in Korea of TKD, how it is part of their training and I thought, wow I didn't know (or simply ignored) that when I started. Well, lets see where this one ends.

One thing is clear, the interested in MA as a sport expanded into the interest into the asian culture for me as well, lets see where this learning path leads me.

Prince Loeffler
12th July 2006, 21:39
Thats how I feel too (ok, I did my duties as soldier, but that was long time ago). Anyway, when I started in MA, I clearly did it for the interest in the Sport. However, by emerging more and more into MA I am wondering how the view might drift over time. (Prince, you obviously are much longer in MA then I am). I am starting to recognize, that MA is part of warrior/soldier training in some asian countries. Out of curiosity I just recently listened to one of the TKD internet radios and realized they were primarily talking about military application in Korea of TKD, how it is part of their training and I thought, wow I didn't know (or simply ignored) that when I started. Well, lets see where this one ends.

One thing is clear, the interested in MA as a sport expanded into the interest into the asian culture for me as well, lets see where this learning path leads me.


Hi Norbert, Yes you are correct about the MA being part of the Warrior / Soldier training. However, when we defined the concept of warriorship from feudal Japan to the modern concept in our generations. The meaning becomes far from the original philosophy. Personaly, in my opinion I believed that the modern budo teaches us to forge the mental , emotional, phychological and spiritual attitude of the olds.

Today, its hard for me to define myself as a soldeir or warrior due to the fact that I have never been in any combative situations or positions where I fought and killed others. Personal confrontations with drunks and phychopaths does not count as combat experiences. This are just my personal thoughts and I do respects others for what they think as well.

Frankly, I am lover not a fighter. and I just want to party likes it 1899........ :) :) :)

soul_sword34
12th July 2006, 21:51
So many ideas and hardly one of them is simular. This is what I thought. So there really is no standard.
If I may be so humble as to add my lacking definition just for meditation. What if a warrior was someone who chooses each day to live with the highest Integrity to always uphold Justice and to keep every Obligation. Highest perfection of character you might say. Now to truly remain undisturbed in this single purpose you must have courage and focus on the betterment of society as a whole. Always doing for the higher good.
From what I've learned is that a warrior is very different from your usual Karate-ka or other Martial Arts student who only trains 1 hour every other day. A warrior always keeps his enemy present. A warrior is always training. Even when one takes a shower a true aspiring Warrior sees this as an opportunity for Misogi-harai. When washing the dishes an opportunity for kibidachi. A warrior is consistent in his one purpose of perfection.
A true warrior has the capability to use a sword, in the sense of the word. He/She can deal death and judgement. He/She is also capable of great goodness in the world and the utmost compassion.
Now is a soldier a warrior? Maybe, it depends on how balanced the soldier is. I know some soldiers who are worthless to society any other way, nonetheless, very deadly.
Am I a warrior? No. This is my one purpose. To achieve the unperturbed mindset, perfection. Perfection can never be achieved, we all know that and have all struggled with it. Are you a master? Perfection like the warrior mindset is a guide to the way and not and end.
In conclusion a warrior is the highest ideal of one who wages war. Bushido.

niten ninja
13th July 2006, 10:55
I think there are two different uses for the word it would seem.

1. A term for someone who engages in war and fighting. It should though be qualified that this use of the word is generally only used in a historical context.

2. a modern philosophical ideal.

gr455h0pp3r
13th July 2006, 16:28
I have seen this question come up many times, it seems to be a very personal question as I believe many would like to think of themselves as warriors. It is a good question, and I can't really say I even know the true answer. Sure I could talk about it on a very basic level. So generally I would say a warrior is one who trains his mind and body for conflict, and is not affraid of death.

Norbert Funke
13th July 2006, 17:48
So generally I would say a warrior is one who trains his mind and body for conflict, and is not affraid of death.I like this definition. So that clearly identifies myself as not beeing a warrior. Just because we learn to practice warrior techniques and culture an emmerse into it does not make us a warrior.

hectokan
13th July 2006, 19:35
I think it's a toss up between the UFC & Pride fighters and the practicioners that are preocupied with learning every little detail & terminology,about folding a hakama correctly while seated in seiza position.

soul_sword34
13th July 2006, 22:22
If being a true warrior is the summit of Bugei then what do you expect of yourself on the street? Mediocrity will only get you hurt, I know when it comes down to life and death I will most certainly be a warrior or my best imitation of one.
In my mind I am only a student of the way, the way being Bushido and very humbly admit I am no warrior by any means just as I am no master. My first day in an Aikido Dojo was most enlightening in that it showed me for the first time the gentleness of martial arts too. Later, I learned the healing of touch and laughter. I picture the likes of Funakoshi, Oyama and Ueshiba to be great masters and truly at the summit of perfection (they'd say otherwise, lol). All 3 of those men have killed people and still chose the most gentle way of not fighting...well Oyama was a little different but still a gentleman.
Now if a summit is your purpose, something to strive for can you not call yourself a warrior in just walking the path? This is just means to an end and the end is only death. To quote Bruce Lee on pondering such subjects, "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory".

niten ninja
14th July 2006, 10:13
Who did Funakoshi kill?

soul_sword34
14th July 2006, 18:33
hmmmm...I might stand corrected there. I thought that Funkoshi joined the military, as Ueshiba did but briefly going over "My Way of Life" I'm not coming up with any reference to war. If not I stand corrected on Funakoshi. Sorry.

Inazuma
15th July 2006, 00:42
Do you want to be a warrior?

gr455h0pp3r
15th July 2006, 15:32
I want to be an exotic dancer

Sanzyuryu
15th July 2006, 16:56
if a warrior is someone who fights and is not part of a army then that would make any theif, mugger, street brawler ect. a warrior in modern deffinetion

Sanzyuryu
15th July 2006, 17:00
i just read soulsword's description at the top of this page and it's seem to be the basic ideals of bushido, can't name them right now but i have a general idea. But that definition has long since lost it's meaning and value(no disrespect to bushido).Ever since the samurai where long since "fired' from there job, their code was not needed in combat.

powerof0ne
15th July 2006, 19:01
I think it's a toss up between the UFC & Pride fighters and the practicioners that are preocupied with learning every little detail & terminology,about folding a hakama correctly while seated in seiza position.

Hector, the ones that are preoccupied with learning everylittle detail and terminlogy are obviously the ones following the right path ;) While UFC and Pride fighters aren't, they do a sport, not real fighting.... :rolleyes:

Auburn Leaves
15th July 2006, 19:10
A significant reason why the definition of warrior is difficult to agree upon is the difference between the literal definition of the word and the metaphorical or idealogical concept.

Literally, a warrior is simply one who practices/conducts war.
The root of the word itself comes from the Old North French word werreieur, from werreier - to make war.
There is no inherent, underlying moral standard for this. Warriors operate on every side of a war; whether good, bad, or the more common somewhere-in-between. Nor is fighting the only outlet in war. It is narrow-minded to view killing and dying as the only conduct in such a complex enigma as war.
Nor is every form of conflict or violent behavior necessarily war; literally, the term only applies to those who deal with war -- whether it be professionally or by chance or circumstance. Law enforcement officers, thieves, murderers, and many of the other examples mentioned would not fit into the literal definition of warrior, though their lives are often full of other forms of violence, unless they find themselves involved in war.
Soldiers, on the other hand, are a specific type of warrior; by the very nature of their occupation.
As a soldier currently serving in Iraq, I do not believe this literal definition to be archaic, at all.
As to what forms of violence would be considered war... no reason to open another can of worms just yet.

Metaphorically/ Idealogically, however, we find a much broader and morally-shaped understanding. Wars in the real world are fought for reasons beyond the war itself. Ideally, the cause is good. With this ideal, there comes a certain nobility with those who would endanger their lives and livelihood for this good purpose --that they risk their lives for the benefit of others. Metaphorically, a warrior could be anyone who gives of their time or energy for an unselfish or higher purpose; as one poster suggested considering the pacifist Gandhi a warrior. Considering the other side of the coin, the metaphorical warrior could be a blood-thirsty opportunist who revels in killing and plunder and avarice; as so many less-ideal warriors have most certainly been throughout history.

The term definition generally implies a literal meaning. That is, after all, the poignancy behind the metaphor.

niten ninja
15th July 2006, 19:28
Ever since the samurai where long since "fired' from there job, their code was not needed in combat.

Bushido is not why the samurai ceased to exist, and most of them never followed a code.

K Lee
15th July 2006, 19:40
Hector, the ones that are preoccupied with learning everylittle detail and terminlogy are obviously the ones following the right path ;) While UFC and Pride fighters aren't, they do a sport, not real fighting.... :rolleyes:


Just curious, I read this statement often online from TMAers. Why isn't it real fighting? Or was the :rolleyes: meant to indicate sarcasm? Hard to tell with just text.

Sanzyuryu
15th July 2006, 20:20
well michael your right, bushido was mabye more of a guide line as supposed to a 'code" or law. research on this would be very interesting

soul_sword34
15th July 2006, 21:35
Well now if the literal definition is one who is war or wages war then I guess it would be the next logical step to define war and see where that leads us. Can a war exist in the mind? The body? The spirit? As the Marines say, "the true battle is waged first in the mind". Obviously there is a war in Iraq right now. This is a good discussion. And yes I want to be a warrior, especially when the time is right. Better to die a warrior than a coward.

Andrew S
16th July 2006, 01:16
Too bad Ubermint is no longer with us to provide the ultimate definition. :p

niten ninja
16th July 2006, 11:18
Just curious, I read this statement often online from TMAers. Why isn't it real fighting? Or was the :rolleyes: meant to indicate sarcasm? Hard to tell with just text.

Yeah I'd say that's sarcasm.


Can a war exist in the mind? The body? The spirit?

You could perhaps call that a metaphorical war.

Moenstah
16th July 2006, 21:13
I think there are two different uses for the word it would seem.

1. A term for someone who engages in war and fighting. It should though be qualified that this use of the word is generally only used in a historical context.

2. a modern philosophical ideal.

I like your definition Michael, but I'd replace 'philosophical' with 'romantic'. Especially when reading through this thread. Some of the idealising (or rather: idolising) remarks make me laugh and feeling slightly sick at the same time. They remind me of the fantasies fostered by some of the top-nazis.

soul_sword34
16th July 2006, 23:23
I like your definition Michael, but I'd replace 'philosophical' with 'romantic'. Especially when reading through this thread. Some of the idealising (or rather: idolising) remarks make me laugh and feeling slightly sick at the same time. They remind me of the fantasies fostered by some of the top-nazis.
Explain please...

powerof0ne
17th July 2006, 19:32
Just curious, I read this statement often online from TMAers. Why isn't it real fighting? Or was the :rolleyes: meant to indicate sarcasm? Hard to tell with just text.

I was being sarcastic; I teach Karate and Muay Thai and practice BJJ(gracie-barra). Yeah, It's a statement that I see often and I really disagree with it but some of the nonTMAers also put down TMAers a loooooooooot. I know many BJJ practitioners that have little or no respect for Karate, TKD, and most Judo(which is funny to me).
I have respect for both types of martial artists but think some TMAers care too much about terminology, kata, and not enough about actually fighting. I also think that some non-TMAers care too much about fighting and not enough about history, terminology, and what are they going to practice when they're older? I have no misconception that in 20-30 years I won't be able to practice Muay Thai the way I am currently. Standing toe to toe with somebody, exchanging leg kicks, knees, etc..yeah, right.
However, I do believe that someone should compete at least once if they are to teach someone to fight or have some experience in fighting. I pesonally can't train under somebody that has never fought, but this is just my own perrogative.
Ossu

soul_sword34
20th July 2006, 22:02
In the Dojo about 1% or the students out of hundreds have been in an actual fight. You can tell by the way they focus and train. It comes out in their Kiai!!! I love to watch a student execute a form when he really, truly makes himself believe he is in a fight. In one of my old crappy Dojangs the "Master" told me to tone my Kiap down because it was so loud it was disturbing the rest of the class, LOL.
My philosophy on fighting is this and this is what I always told my students. "It matters not the outcome of battle for even the greatest warriors must meet their fate soon or late. What really matters is the reason you are fighting for and this must be Justice." Dustin
People have this grand idea that the good guy will always be left standing in the end. This is not always the case and usually the good guy, especially when outnumbered, will be beat down. Why was the "good guy" fighting? Sadly most actual hand to hand these days is for some mediocre reason. "He looked at me wrong", "he bumped into me", "she called me a bitch!" etc. In the matters of heaven and earth do these things matter? I have walked away from many fights without fighting and that is REALLY hard especially when you can really do him in good. I true warrior in every sense follows the way of honor. Can someone here answer me this? What is the difference between honor and face?

niten ninja
21st July 2006, 09:36
Different letters.

soul_sword34
21st July 2006, 17:11
Different letters.
Good one. :)

Ron Tisdale
21st July 2006, 18:44
Frankly, when I see a thread entitled What is a Warrior, and contributions by names like soul sword, niten ninja, kinokawa (I used that monicker myself once upon a time), etc., I know that I'm taking everything there with a large grain of salt. Big enough to choke on, in fact.

This romantic thing with warriors gets to be really puzzling. Almost everyone I know personally who was in a war...wants to move the heck on, not dwell on being or having been a warrior.

How many people in this thread have actually been to war?

Best,
Ron

M. McPherson
21st July 2006, 19:20
(Trying to apply the cyber-Heimlich to assist with that large chunk of salt...)

Gosh, Ron, I guess this isn't the best time to declare that I'm changing my forum name to "KagePowerOfDaitoNinjaDeath," is it? I even have the anime avatar ready...

Best regards,

Ron Tisdale
21st July 2006, 19:43
;) Hey Murray; nope, this wouldn't be a good time for that. Hope you are well...

B,
R

soul_sword34
21st July 2006, 19:46
Frankly, when I see a thread entitled What is a Warrior, and contributions by names like soul sword, niten ninja, kinokawa (I used that monicker myself once upon a time), etc., I know that I'm taking everything there with a large grain of salt. Big enough to choke on, in fact.

This romantic thing with warriors gets to be really puzzling. Almost everyone I know personally who was in a war...wants to move the heck on, not dwell on being or having been a warrior.

How many people in this thread have actually been to war?

Best,
Ron

Mr. Tisdale,
There is nothing romantic about a warrior in the least. This thread is intended for discussion on the way a modern warrior lives and the meaning of warrior. So what you are saying, essentially is, a warrior is someone who has been to war. That is your definition? Thank you for your post.
My definition is one who trains for war but is not war like. Meaning? When you are faced with a home invasion or some psycho armed with a knife you'd better hope that when you trained in your martial art you trained just as a warrior would train and not for a movie. Whether you are or are not a true warrior is not the point. No one here is claiming to be a true warrior. Myself especially.
When I study my martial art I often am found facing this question. Especially when meditating on the use of my body/mind as a weapon. When I'm staring down the back of my Katana in Iaido I often wonder about the way of what I am doing. When I'm at the range and squeezing off .45 caliber rounds I often wonder do I have the guts to shoot someone at point blank. What we train in is a "Martial Art" and it is no Olympic competition to me. Someday when it is necessary I hope that in all my training and study that I followed in the footsteps of a warrior. When I teach "Martial Arts" I hope that I train my students to follow this path. They may not be Rambo or I may not be a Navy Seal but it is my hope that they grasp the concept which may save their or my own life or protect our country in a time of need.
What is the concept? To train as warriors train. To live as warriors live. This country needs warriors now more than ever. Someone who stands up for the basic idealology of a warrior. Justice, obligation and courage. This can mean something as basic as preparedness. I train to that ideal as best as I can. Anything less than a warriors mentality and what is the point?
Does this mean that I sleep with my rifle in my bed? Does this mean that I'm always thinking about landmines? Does this mean that I wonder if I'll wake up in the morning with my throat cut? No. I have diapers to change, bills to pay a lawn to mow and poetry to write.
I have worked as a Law Enforcement Officer for 4 years. Trained in S.O.R.T. (Special Operation Response Team) I've been into a cell block that was over run with violent criminals outnumbered and armed with only blacks, armor, plexi shields, oleoresin capscium and a baton. I've been involved in a gang style melee where I was faced with knives and 9 mm rounds whizzing by my head. I sure as heck want to move on too. Nothing romantic about imagining your brains coming out your skull or your guts laying on your feet. Do I go around stating that I'm a warrior. Nope. Sure don't. I mostly tell people I'm a poet if you can believe that. Lol!!!
Point. If we don't train as warriors train then what is the point if all we do is fling our arms and legs about in some sort of "romantic" dance. I don't live every second as a warrior but I sure as heck guarantee you I train like one. I for one want to follow the path and I think this path is called Budo. Correct me if I'm wrong sir.

Dull Blade
21st July 2006, 20:02
Allo All,

Dustin, I believe a part of the confusion here is that you are trying to define a warrior-class, not just a warrior. A warrior-class such as Samurai, or the Medieval Knights are defined by set ideals. A warrior is defined by his/her martial training and the way they apply it to any and all situations.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,

Dave.

Ron Tisdale
21st July 2006, 21:09
I for one want to follow the path and I think this path is called Budo. Correct me if I'm wrong sir.

I just think over romantasizing this stuff we do is silly (so it's not so much of being right or wrong, or black or white). You may feel differently...that's fine. Budo to me is a pretty complex subject. And in spite of romantic ideas of 'stopping the halberd' (not an accurate translation necessarily), I tend to just do the keiko, and let it go at that these days. I've found that the less I imagine bad things happening, the less they happen. **If** some proverbial stuff hits the fan, I'll do the best I can under the circumstances. So far that has worked. But I still won't be a warrior. And frankly, I don't want to be one, either.

Do I take my training time seriously? Yep. Still no need for the romantic thrills of daring do...

Best,
Ron

Auburn Leaves
22nd July 2006, 01:19
Realize, please, that fighting is not the only - or even the major - feature of war. As I stated before, it is certainly a part of it (potentially, at least), but wars are fought for reasons beyond the war itself. By its very nature, war is a violent endeavor; but the individual engagements are not what define it.

powerof0ne
22nd July 2006, 01:23
In the Dojo about 1% or the students out of hundreds have been in an actual fight. You can tell by the way they focus and train. It comes out in their Kiai!!! I love to watch a student execute a form when he really, truly makes himself believe he is in a fight. In one of my old crappy Dojangs the "Master" told me to tone my Kiap down because it was so loud it was disturbing the rest of the class, LOL.
My philosophy on fighting is this and this is what I always told my students. "It matters not the outcome of battle for even the greatest warriors must meet their fate soon or late. What really matters is the reason you are fighting for and this must be Justice." Dustin
People have this grand idea that the good guy will always be left standing in the end. This is not always the case and usually the good guy, especially when outnumbered, will be beat down. Why was the "good guy" fighting? Sadly most actual hand to hand these days is for some mediocre reason. "He looked at me wrong", "he bumped into me", "she called me a bitch!" etc. In the matters of heaven and earth do these things matter? I have walked away from many fights without fighting and that is REALLY hard especially when you can really do him in good. I true warrior in every sense follows the way of honor. Can someone here answer me this? What is the difference between honor and face?

I really don't see how you can tell by soeone's audible Kiai/Kiap if they've been in a fight or not. What do yuo mean by fight, too? A street fight? I used to have a very loud kiai and I suppose I could still do it if I wanted to but why? I don't do point tournaments anymore and the only time I do a loud Kiai is during kata and kihon. I don't do the long drawn out xma style Kiai, though. I really don't see a purpose in it unless you're trying to intimidate your opponent.
If I'm facing someone I try to rely on letting my fists do the solving and not relying on my kiai. I can honestly say in the times I've been in street fights and what not I have never done a loud audible Kiai. I can't really say why but I just never have. I still Kiai, just not the kind to let the judges know I should get a waza ari/ippon ;)

Tanto
22nd July 2006, 03:06
Face: one's reputation in the community
Honor: one's sense of personal obligation, justice, and courage
Cheerfully plagiarized from Maj Forrest Morgan

soul_sword34
22nd July 2006, 03:37
I really don't see how you can tell by soeone's audible Kiai/Kiap if they've been in a fight or not. What do yuo mean by fight, too? A street fight? I used to have a very loud kiai and I suppose I could still do it if I wanted to but why? I don't do point tournaments anymore and the only time I do a loud Kiai is during kata and kihon. I don't do the long drawn out xma style Kiai, though. I really don't see a purpose in it unless you're trying to intimidate your opponent.
If I'm facing someone I try to rely on letting my fists do the solving and not relying on my kiai. I can honestly say in the times I've been in street fights and what not I have never done a loud audible Kiai. I can't really say why but I just never have. I still Kiai, just not the kind to let the judges know I should get a waza ari/ippon ;)
Whoah!! That is a whole new thread starter. :p

In the Dojo about 1% or the students out of hundreds have been in an actual fight. You can tell by the way they focus and train. It comes out in their Kiai!!!
You can tell by the way they focus and train. Anyone who has fought in reality will reflect that.
Kiai and Aiki go hand in hand. Yelling really loud is hardly a kiai/kiap. Just as twirling around in a Hakama is someone demonstrating Aiki. This is really not the thread for all of this so I'll end with this small tidbit. Research Kotonama & Haragei. Study it, even if for a few months. Also research something called Kiai-Jutsu & a Japanese sword art known as Toate-no-Jutsu, "art of striking at a distance" (roughly). Then try around 10-20 Kiai's utilizing what you've learned. You'll get a couple right. I've been studying Kiai for a while am by no means good at it either but have seen some neat things. I've also been told to "shut up!".

Inazuma
22nd July 2006, 08:20
If I do not involve in war?

If you train to fight, are you training to be a fighter then? what is the difference between a warrior and a fighter?

Your country, like every other one, needs less warriors not more.

Are my friends warriors, and the kids who join the armies? killing and fighting aren't hard, don't require that much training. Should the Warrior train not to fight, was Ghandi one then?

There is, it seems, a great confusion between the word and symbol to the actual reality of our world. What a warrior symbolizes to me, is not the same as any other, your warrior represents your ideals, your aspirations. Why do you seek to define the term so absolutely?

The question I'd like to ask (although you don't have to answer) is not what a warrior is, but rather why do you think that a warrior is that?
I believe (and said it before) that warrior is simply someone who wars. To me it is as simple as that because I've grown up in a society of conflict. I used to see ideals in it, and still sometimes I like imagining that it is easy to keep those lofty notions of chivalry. It was an ego boost, nothing else.

I've seen that in reality, there are no morals in war, nothing to be gained from fighting (not street fighting, never done that) and everything to lose. I had standards, I had morals, I had high ideals, I knew that I would never do anything to betray the concept of the true spirit of the Warrior. And the thing that I found is that with a gun in my hand I may be a warrior protecting a country, but I'm less than what I am without the weapon.

powerof0ne
22nd July 2006, 19:53
Whoah!! That is a whole new thread starter. :p

You can tell by the way they focus and train. Anyone who has fought in reality will reflect that.
Kiai and Aiki go hand in hand. Yelling really loud is hardly a kiai/kiap. Just as twirling around in a Hakama is someone demonstrating Aiki. This is really not the thread for all of this so I'll end with this small tidbit. Research Kotonama & Haragei. Study it, even if for a few months. Also research something called Kiai-Jutsu & a Japanese sword art known as Toate-no-Jutsu, "art of striking at a distance" (roughly). Then try around 10-20 Kiai's utilizing what you've learned. You'll get a couple right. I've been studying Kiai for a while am by no means good at it either but have seen some neat things. I've also been told to "shut up!".

Yes, I know what you're talking about but in the more full contact fighting disciplines we don't Kiai loud often. Also, in the Aiki arts I don't hear loud Kiai that often. I also own secret fighting arts of the world and remember the chapter on "kiai jutsu". I really don't take much stock in this book, too.
Focus and training are different than a loud Kiai. Lets put it this way, in my teens I had the loudest Kiai in my dojo. I can remember competing in a TKD tournament as a karateka and doing some type of warmups with the TKD practitioners competing. I had the loudest Kiai in this much larger group, too.
I've ended up training in other disciplines since this time and really don't think that a loud Kiai means much. In fact, many individuals I know that do a loud kiai aren't breathing correctly when they do so. Especially if they are doing a long drawn out kiai. To me a proper Kiai is more about breathing control to help focus your technique.
If I was to compete in Muay Thai again and do Kiais like I used to when I was competing in point Karate tournaments I would get laughed out of the ring. The same goes if I was to enter a Kyokushin tournament doing the same thing. I agree that the Kiai is important but don't think having a really loud one reflects on your fighting experience.(lord knows when I was a teen the only "fights" I had were afterschool or in point karate tournaments)

soul_sword34
22nd July 2006, 21:35
Kiai and Aiki go hand in hand. Yelling really loud is hardly a kiai/kiap. Just as twirling around in a Hakama is someone demonstrating Aiki.

Prince Loeffler
23rd July 2006, 01:04
Gentlemen ! Just a reminder thread topic: What is a warrior Currenty thread posts : Aiki and Kiai

Trevor Johnson
23rd July 2006, 01:14
Kiai and Aiki go hand in hand. Yelling really loud is hardly a kiai/kiap. Just as twirling around in a Hakama is someone demonstrating Aiki.

As a way to tie the thread topic and the digression together, has anyone read "Dueling with O'Sensei?" The notes on the use of the kiai gained from a fighting art, one started by warriors, might be useful to the discussion, or the digression.

My own view, those who don't train to fight as a way of life can't be warriors. I mean really fight, too, so boxers, UFCers et al are out.

powerof0ne
23rd July 2006, 18:02
In my opinion some people in the MMA, Kickboxers, etc. are warriors. The reason why, believe it or not, a few actually fight not caring if they die or not. Not many do, but a few do....this attitude has been held by the cream of the crop in BJJ. I know of Thaiboxers from Thailand and others that have this same attitude and if you ever saw them fight you wouldn't disagree.
Am I one of these individuals? hahaha, no, I'm not.
A traditional Thaiboxer does something similar to a Kiai but it's not loud..they do, however, make sounds. If any of you saw the MTV special on Muay Thai, the blonde, Ben Garcia. I was training next to him one time while he was on a body bag and he sounds like an animal growling. It's not loud and you have to be almost right near him to hear it.
So, any modern day warriors posting on this thread ;) Any DRN'ers? "holla!"

Chris Thompson
23rd July 2006, 19:20
>Face: one's reputation in the community
Honor: one's sense of personal obligation, justice, and courage
Cheerfully plagiarized from Maj Forrest Morgan>

Unfortunately, Major Morgan made that distinction without researching the history of the words involved. Historically, honor primarily meant "one's reputation in the community." Otherwise, how could someone take your honor away by calling you a liar, thus forcing you to call him out in order to retain it?

soul_sword34
23rd July 2006, 21:35
>Face: one's reputation in the community
Honor: one's sense of personal obligation, justice, and courage
Cheerfully plagiarized from Maj Forrest Morgan>

Unfortunately, Major Morgan made that distinction without researching the history of the words involved. Historically, honor primarily meant "one's reputation in the community." Otherwise, how could someone take your honor away by calling you a liar, thus forcing you to call him out in order to retain it?
This would lead us down the path of "Truth". What is the truth? In other words what is honor? Is it really ones reputation in the community. If someone calls you a liar have you really lost any part of yourself? Or just your ego? I think a warrior is much more complex and richer than just a UFC style fighter that is prepared to die. I think it goes very very deep. Warrior ways, to me, cross into the spiritual. Ones Giri (duty) must be to god.

niten ninja
23rd July 2006, 22:22
Frankly, when I see a thread entitled What is a Warrior, and contributions by names like soul sword, niten ninja,

Wo Wo Wo... the name is a joke (a subtle one perhaps)... read my posts, I'm not eing romantic about Warriors, I'm trying to be the opposite.


Almost everyone I know personally who was in a war...wants to move the heck on, not dwell on being or having been a warrior.

That's a thought that crosses my mind everytime I see threads like this. YOu make a very good point many miss, they forget that the point of a warrior is to kill people, perhaps for good reasons, perhaps for negative ones, but in the end it is still a terrible thing to have to do and not one I can imagine people coming out of particularly well.


How many people in this thread have actually been to war?

Not me, and I'm glad of it.

Auburn Leaves
23rd July 2006, 23:52
In my opinion some people in the MMA, Kickboxers, etc. are warriors. The reason why, believe it or not, a few actually fight not caring if they die or not. Not many do, but a few do....this attitude has been held by the cream of the crop in BJJ. I know of Thaiboxers from Thailand and others that have this same attitude and if you ever saw them fight you wouldn't disagree.
Am I one of these individuals? hahaha, no, I'm not.
A traditional Thaiboxer does something similar to a Kiai but it's not loud..they do, however, make sounds. If any of you saw the MTV special on Muay Thai, the blonde, Ben Garcia. I was training next to him one time while he was on a body bag and he sounds like an animal growling. It's not loud and you have to be almost right near him to hear it.
So, any modern day warriors posting on this thread ;) Any DRN'ers? "holla!"

Not caring if they live or die is the attribute of a warrior? Never, whether at home or over here, have I met a warrior who fought without caring if they survive. I know several that might put themselves in a 'dying-ground' kind of mind-set, but certainly that is not the same as fighting without concern for the outcome. I have met several self-proclaimed 'warriors' who are certainly willing to fight without such concern... I count my blessings that they are not anywhere near me, now.

soul_sword34
24th July 2006, 00:07
If I do not involve in war?

If you train to fight, are you training to be a fighter then? what is the difference between a warrior and a fighter?

Your country, like every other one, needs less warriors not more.

Are my friends warriors, and the kids who join the armies? killing and fighting aren't hard, don't require that much training. Should the Warrior train not to fight, was Ghandi one then?

There is, it seems, a great confusion between the word and symbol to the actual reality of our world. What a warrior symbolizes to me, is not the same as any other, your warrior represents your ideals, your aspirations. Why do you seek to define the term so absolutely?

The question I'd like to ask (although you don't have to answer) is not what a warrior is, but rather why do you think that a warrior is that?
I believe (and said it before) that warrior is simply someone who wars. To me it is as simple as that because I've grown up in a society of conflict. I used to see ideals in it, and still sometimes I like imagining that it is easy to keep those lofty notions of chivalry. It was an ego boost, nothing else.

I've seen that in reality, there are no morals in war, nothing to be gained from fighting (not street fighting, never done that) and everything to lose. I had standards, I had morals, I had high ideals, I knew that I would never do anything to betray the concept of the true spirit of the Warrior. And the thing that I found is that with a gun in my hand I may be a warrior protecting a country, but I'm less than what I am without the weapon.

I think that the ultimate warrior was Jesus. He had the power of god. And chose to heal rather than kill. He very well could have killed a lot of people maybe even destroyed the world if he so chose but in turn did otherwise. And god so loved the world. Ghandi showed us simular traits and showed us all the power of being passive and that it is possible to attain victory through non-resistance. I for one would not give the title of Warrior to anyone who commits genocide and preys upon the weak to me they are murderers or worse. I would give the title to someone who protects the weak and the freedoms of others being civil or in war. Being a warrior is not a self serving thing but a gift to the world. There are morals in war and a lot to be gained. There are no morals if your cause is unjust and unserving. There is nothing to be gained in tyranny. Look at Europe. Remember Normandy, Bastogne, etc. A lot was gained, a lot of people forget that and spit on those who died. Bring the Holocaust to mind. The warrior is as present today as it was centuries ago.

This thread has made me stretch into myself for answers. I came up with this. "Warrior" that is a title and it means nothing. I repeat it is a TITLE and means NOTHING. The embodyment of it's principals is what matters. Now I recognize from this thread that it means something different to everyone so it seems. So there can hardly be an absolute definition. It is as personal as my thoughts on what it means to be an American. Everyone has a different opinion, good or bad. I've worked in Law Enforcement for quite a while and I know now there is no fine line between good and evil, black and white. I know how easy it is to fall and lose yourself awash in a furry of principals and ideals and then have all those ideals turn black. Where once your intent was good it turned into something beyond control.

Martial Arts is a way for me to look at myself and those ideals and find what they mean to me. Justice? That is an ideal and one that cannot be defined but it can be a part of your life a part of your way. It can be pursued with courage and you can die protecting it or you can choose to hide from it and pretend it does not exist. Sometimes even hiding can be courageous because you live to fight another day. How courageous is it to act like a coward when you are not. Such is turning the other cheek. Even I feel so helpless in the world. What good can I do? Fighting is easy, living is not. Living is even more difficult when you have no fight or if you do fight know not what you are fighting for. Such is the world today. Why are we fighting? Can I make a difference? How? Can my ideals help guide me to truth? Are my ideals truth?

When I practice my Kata I do my best. That is my peace in the world today. I know not the truth but perhaps someday I may. Perhaps someday I may make a difference. Perhaps I am not a "Warrior" and just a man. Does this change my ideals. No. Perhaps I am the calm in the storm for someone else who may make a difference. Maybe I am just a waypoint for truth. Only god knows.

Ron Tisdale
24th July 2006, 14:01
Hi Michael (niten ninja),

I know you weren't one of the ones emoting...I just picked three names to make a point. ;)

For the record, I have never been to war, and hope never to go to war. My father was in WWII, and it's his example that registers most strongly with me.

Best,
Ron

P Goldsbury
24th July 2006, 14:28
Realize, please, that fighting is not the only - or even the major - feature of war. As I stated before, it is certainly a part of it (potentially, at least), but wars are fought for reasons beyond the war itself. By its very nature, war is a violent endeavor; but the individual engagements are not what define it.

Hello Auburn Leaves,

Please sign your posts with your full name. Otherwise the auburn (autumn) leaves you post will turn very wintry and you will disappear beneath the snowdrifts, never to surface.

Best wishes,

Auburn Leaves
24th July 2006, 14:53
Did I not sign my post? It's in my signature block, the box is checked.

lawman85
24th July 2006, 19:19
A warrior is someone who stands/fights for a cause. They are guided by this cause (defend country, defend tribe, fight evil) and will risk all for it. They have to be ego free to be a pure warrior. A soldier is simply someone who is part of an army. Soldiers can be warriors if they have the right mindset, drive, intent and discipline.

lawman85
24th July 2006, 19:24
If you train to fight, are you training to be a fighter then? what is the difference between a warrior and a fighter?

Your country, like every other one, needs less warriors not more.

Are my friends warriors, and the kids who join the armies? killing and fighting aren't hard, don't require that much training. Should the Warrior train not to fight, was Ghandi one then?

There is, it seems, a great confusion between the word and symbol to the actual reality of our world. What a warrior symbolizes to me, is not the same as any other, your warrior represents your ideals, your aspirations. Why do you seek to define the term so absolutely?

The question I'd like to ask (although you don't have to answer) is not what a warrior is, but rather why do you think that a warrior is that?
I believe (and said it before) that warrior is simply someone who wars. To me it is as simple as that because I've grown up in a society of conflict. I used to see ideals in it, and still sometimes I like imagining that it is easy to keep those lofty notions of chivalry. It was an ego boost, nothing else.

I've seen that in reality, there are no morals in war, nothing to be gained from fighting (not street fighting, never done that) and everything to lose. I had standards, I had morals, I had high ideals, I knew that I would never do anything to betray the concept of the true spirit of the Warrior. And the thing that I found is that with a gun in my hand I may be a warrior protecting a country, but I'm less than what I am without the weapon.

Fighters don't necessarily have a cause.. i.e. UFC figthers are fighting for money and themselves, not a cause such a piece or fighting evil. A warrior has a cause and a reason for having to fight, enforcing freedom, protect those that can't protect themselves, fighting evil..etc.

I believe our country needs more warriors and less soldiers. We need the protection of the warriors.

powerof0ne
24th July 2006, 19:50
I should have emphasized that the individuals that I talked about that risk there lives in competition give it 110%. Perhaps me saying that they don't care if they died wasn't the best way to put it but they understand the risk of death and accept it. They are fighting more for pride/honor of there camp, fighting system, etc. than to defend someone's well being. They are also fighting with empty hands and not weapons.
To me these are warriors, but this is just my opinion.

MikeWilliams
24th July 2006, 20:03
I'm just curious - where did these value-laden interpretations of the word spring from? Who first coined this particular usage?

It seems like an awful lot of baggage has been loaded onto such a simple (and to my eyes unambiguous) word.

And why "Warrior"? Why not "Fighter" or "Soldier" or "Combatant" or "Crusader" or "Defender" or "Idealist" or "Zealot" or "Guerilla"? - all these have certain values attached to them, but they all seem less ambiguous and open to personal interpretation than "Warrior".

Is it just a martial-arts thing? Some kind of English vocalisation of the term "Budo"? It seems to be peculiarly American too.

Ron Tisdale
24th July 2006, 21:23
I know what you mean Mike. I keep trying to bring a little down to earth common sense in here...but the post just go on...and on...

I think it's a MA thing, an American thing, a modern society thing...we so need to find some sense of importance in our lives. So now we want to be **Warriors**(TM)...

I've got to wonder what someone raised in a traditional Mauri village would think? I know what some of my Masai friends would think.

Best,
Ron

soul_sword34
24th July 2006, 21:32
My last post explains it all. It's a matter of opinion. Suprised me.

powerof0ne
24th July 2006, 22:34
I don't consider myself a warrior, I have never fought in anything close to a war. I have competed in full contact competition and been in some street fights, been a bouncer, and that's about it.
I consider guys like Ramon Dekkers, Royler Gracie and Francisco Filho, etc. to be the modern day equivalent of a warrior. Just my opinion, and the strange thing is I have never heard these individuals do really loud kiais in person, and yes, I have been around them in training. I also think they have been in a few fights before so kind of weird I couldn't detect this by there kiai ;) However by superior technique, combinations, composure and many other attributes it was fairly obvious they could fight.

Trevor Johnson
24th July 2006, 22:59
I'm just curious - where did these value-laden interpretations of the word spring from? Who first coined this particular usage?

It seems like an awful lot of baggage has been loaded onto such a simple (and to my eyes unambiguous) word.

And why "Warrior"? Why not "Fighter" or "Soldier" or "Combatant" or "Crusader" or "Defender" or "Idealist" or "Zealot" or "Guerilla"? - all these have certain values attached to them, but they all seem less ambiguous and open to personal interpretation than "Warrior".

Is it just a martial-arts thing? Some kind of English vocalisation of the term "Budo"? It seems to be peculiarly American too.

Warrior works probably because of the ambiguity. Soldier's unromantic. It sounds too much like work. Fighter implies that you've got to fight. Crusader's too, well, crusadey! Defender doesn't allow for attack, and idealist and zealot don't involve fighting. Guerilla implies something larger than a cause of one.

Warrior, on the other hand, conjures up such glorious things as the Norse Berserkers in full charge (leaving out such little things as blood and fleas) and is not all that specific in its meaning.

This is what I got when I googled it:

One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

See the second definition? Ambiguity itself!

You can be a warrior on your own, even without fighting, for no cause except what you consider glory! Same kind of thinking that inspired realultimatepower, except writ large on an adult brain.

Me, if I ever hear a definition of warrior that includes me, then either the world's changed considerably or someone's about to get dope slapped with a dictionary.

Unskilled_Blade
25th July 2006, 00:12
We don't have warriors anymore and we don't need them: we have a missile
for that, lol.

Trevor Johnson
25th July 2006, 06:18
I would say that we do have warriors still, even by the strictest definition of warrior, and that they're a vital part of having a military. On the other hand, most people who call themselves warriors today probably aren't.

Andrew S
25th July 2006, 06:44
I'm a worrier...



I'll get me coat...

niten ninja
25th July 2006, 13:50
I don't think the idealism of "warrior" is a new thing, read "Hagakure"... Now there's a wannabe warrior.


I think that the ultimate warrior was Jesus. He had the power of god. And chose to heal rather than kill.

... Why does a supreme being need to kill anyone? I mean he would be destroying his own creations...

Chris Thompson
25th July 2006, 19:15
If there's a word that doesn't mean anything specific but allows me to feel good about myself then I prefer not to use it, because those are the ingredients of an illusion.

soul_sword34
25th July 2006, 23:46
If there's a word that doesn't mean anything specific but allows me to feel good about myself then I prefer not to use it, because those are the ingredients of an illusion.
Or empowerment. You should feel good about yourself. :) When you say illusion you mean delusion.

soul_sword34
26th July 2006, 21:06
I don't think the idealism of "warrior" is a new thing, read "Hagakure"... Now there's a wannabe warrior.



... Why does a supreme being need to kill anyone? I mean he would be destroying his own creations...

That is pretty much how Aikido came about. Not only would he be destroying his own creations he'd be destroying himself. About the self proclaimation thing, I agree. Those who claim to be a warrior or at the very least tell everyone that they are are usually not. Same with someone claiming mastership. What I speak of is a path. From this thread I can see that I have been speaking of Bushido a warrior class.

Auburn Leaves
27th July 2006, 11:38
Many people here have used the term warrior in the same sense that others might say hero.

I don't believe these terms are interchangeable. I would consider Ghandi to be a hero, but not a warrior. Genghis Khan, I would consider him to be both a hero and a warrior. I would also consider Saddam Hussein to be a warrior -- though certainly not a hero.

Does anyone else see a distinction between what it means to be a warrior and what it means to be a hero?

Cufaol
27th July 2006, 13:58
A warrior is made, or rather forged in or under extreme circumstances. Though this may hold true for some warriors, the latter is usually someone following a path, a calling. Somewhat like the sacred mission of a shaman.
besides, a hero isn't always someone who can fight. Someone who is a warrior, is always a soldier, a fighter, with a deeper spiritual dimension of course.

Am I making any sense? It certainly is a fine line.

Cheers, C.

cxt
27th July 2006, 16:32
Cufaol


"A hero isnt always some that can fight"

VERY well said!

Norbert Funke
27th July 2006, 18:50
A hero isnt always some that can fightA hero could also be a warrior who chooses not to fight.

Auburn Leaves
28th July 2006, 06:46
So, do you see a warrior as a certain type of hero? Someone with the character traits and attributes that befit a hero, coupled with an inherently violent environment or nature?

Personally, I still see a warrior as nothing more than someone who practices war. No prerequisite for ethics or excellence; warriors may be good or bad, capable or incompetent. Simply, a person for whom the conduct of war is part of their vocation/avocation. Certainly capable of heroic acts or dedication, but not necessarily so.
A hero, on the other hand, does not need be a warrior (for example, Ghandi) but often is.

I do agree that a hero could be a warrior who chooses not to fight; but discretion is a trait that most successful (or surviving) warriors share, not just the heroic ones.

Cufaol
28th July 2006, 09:52
I suppose that warriors can indeed be hero's, but they don't have to be. As far as I'm concerned, a fireman is often a hero, while I yet have to meet the soldier I can dub heroic. heroïsm is often to be found in the simple things of life. Like neighbours trying to help or support eachother in though situations.

returning to the warrior-subject : is there any difference between a soldier and a warrior, and if any, what is it then?

cheers, C.

Moenstah
28th July 2006, 19:36
Explain please...

What do I have against the discussion of ‘warrior’?

Well first of all, when you’re reading here and there, browsing though some remarks, I’m getting the idea that quite some people are idealising a concept that is a mix of the ‘chivalrous knight’ and the ‘noble savage’. It is more a romantic, fancy concept.

I brought the Nazis to mention because some of the top, (Hitler, Goering and Himmler) were fascinated by the appeal of the same romanticised Warrior as some do today. And that is exactly the reason why I find any talk about ‘warriors’ somewhat distasteful.

Take for example the remarks about ‘the warriors of 9/11’. Warriors? Certainly not, the majority wasn’t tribal, or even had a military background or occupation. Could you call them heroes? Yes, but that’s another term, with different connotations.

It doesn’t fit the description of a philosophical concept. Since philosophy is primarily a science, and not an incoherent set of ideas (as is the case of ‘the warrior’).

I hope this hastily typed post makes some sense.

soul_sword34
28th July 2006, 21:07
I hope this hastily typed post makes some sense.
Not at all. Just kidding, Cheers!! :) "Warrior", certainly has gotten more of a review than I thought. Just about everyone has a different definition of what that means. One thing we can all agree on is this. They all are a practitioner of war. Depending on your definition the term can be used loosely or broadly. Saddam Hussein a warrior? Not to me. Put him in the ring with me and we'll see how much of a warrior he is. I wish. :rolleyes:

I also think a lot of us are using class descriptions along with the term warrior, i.e. knights, samurai, viking, etc. Each class of warrior had a way or a higher ideal that they followed to keep their honor and to give them purpose. Chivalry & Bushido kept a "warrior" very balanced, not all just the ones who truly followed it. So is a soldier required to practice flower arranging? Does a soldier need to read poetry or meditate? Why was it that in Bushido these things were held in high regards among the warrior class? Now an African "warlord" who orders his creeps to slaughter families and rival gangs for the sake of money/drugs, can he be called a warrior? In your opinion maybe.

The reason I ask all these questions is just a riddle. I study Bushido and the traditions of the orient. Bushido, meaning "way of the warrior". What is the way? What is a warrior? Obviously Bushido is the path of a particular warrior. Maybe I just study "Hero"-do. :p Thank you everyone for your posts to this thread. I am beginning to understand more and more.

I guess my #1 question to you is this. Do you practice for war/combat?

soul_sword34
28th July 2006, 21:20
"idealising a concept that is a mix of the ‘chivalrous knight’ and the ‘noble savage’."

"romanticised Warrior"

"Take for example the remarks about ‘the warriors of 9/11’. Warriors? Certainly not. Could you call them heroes? Yes, but that’s another term, with different connotations."

"It doesn’t fit the description of a philosophical concept. Since philosophy is primarily a science, and not an incoherent set of ideas (as is the case of ‘the warrior’)."


First your idea of philosophy is off. Philosophy is the birthchild of Science and the two schools are often squabbling about anything and everything. It's the difference between theory and fact.

Now you call so called warriors of 9/11 Heroes. Sure. But isn't a hero a romantic ideal as well? Isn't it a fact that a Knight followed an ideal that in fact made him a hero? You can't advocate one without the other. This next sentence of yours makes absolutely no sense. "It doesn't fit the description of a philosophical concept."? Everything fits into a philosophical concept. Name something that doesn't.

Moenstah
29th July 2006, 10:44
Your first question:

I don’t practise for war or combat. Karate will leave you empty handed on any battlefield. :p

At first I started for the fun and to better defend myself. At some stage I turned sceptic towards the effectiveness of MA training. Regarding bushido I am still in doubt. Is it the obligatory icing so that society and authorities swallow the fact that people are training to fight? Has it any merit? All this talk and ideas about training hard and becoming a better person… I don’t know.


First your idea of philosophy is off. Philosophy is the birthchild of Science and the two schools are often squabbling about anything and everything. It's the difference between theory and fact.

This misunderstanding is what happens when a non-native speaker lays his hands on a language. The dutch and the germans don't make a difference between 'science' and 'natural science' (a bit awkward). E.g.: your "science" is what the Germans call Naturwissenschaft, "science in general" is simply called Wissenschaft. That's why I wrote that philosophy is a science.

Offtopic: Philosophy is not an offshoot of science. It predates it (look up the Milesian school), and isn’t as neatly separated from empirical theory as many think.


Now you call so called warriors of 9/11 Heroes. Sure. But isn't a hero a romantic ideal as well?

A hero is a warrior-like figure as well, like Odysseus, Hercules and many others, so you have a point there. However, the term is in my opinion less connected with war than 'warrior'. That’s why I’d say that ‘hero’ is a more apt term, although I am hesitant to call them even that.


Isn't it a fact that a Knight followed an ideal that in fact made him a hero? You can't advocate one without the other.

I also think a lot of us are using class descriptions along with the term warrior, i.e. knights, samurai, viking, etc. Each class of warrior had a way or a higher ideal that they followed to keep their honor and to give them purpose. Chivalry & Bushido kept a "warrior" very balanced, not all just the ones who truly followed it.

I find it useless and historically incorrect to give any group in history the stamp of 'warrior' solely on the basis that they were (partially) active in martial affairs. The implicit idea behind it is that those groups were basically all the same.

Chivalry is a myth. It didn’t exist as a coherent set of values and ideals at the period when knights played a role of importance. Sure, there were martial values that many knights tried to possess: courage, shrewdness and prowess. But it wasn’t a system, nor a coherent ideal.
Those ideals and exhortations to follow them, did exist in the high and late medieval Romances, but weren’t lived up in real life. The same goes up for bushido. I have the suspicion that you link bushido with ‘being a warrior’. You might enjoy reading Karl Friday’s article (http://ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_friday_0301.htm) and then rereading this thread.

Is there a link between ‘honor’, ‘the ideal of the warrior’ etc.? You’re right that members of the groups mentioned would defend their personal honour, and tried to accumulate more of it. But I strongly object to the line of thought that they were trying to become an idealised type of warrior. Their "ideals" were predominantly: getting rich, powerful, fed, and (as a last resort) not killed.

This next sentence of yours makes absolutely no sense. "It doesn't fit the description of a philosophical concept."? Everything fits into a philosophical concept. Name something that doesn't.

It depends on the definition of philosophy that you’re using. My definition(s ) of philosophy comprise:

• Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
• A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
• The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
• The disciplines presented in university curriculums [SIC!] of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
• The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

In these definitions, ‘warrior’ doesn’t fit as a philosophical concept. However, it would fit in the next definitions:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
3. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy).
If we take bushido as an example, we’ll see it fits the latter group, not the first. It also has some religious undertones. That’s why I would not classify warrior as a philosophical concept of scientific thought, but rather as a (romanticised) ideal.

soul_sword34
30th July 2006, 09:33
Wow! I'll have to think about your words for a while. I'll just let you know though I'm more of a rationalist. And yes your correct on the science coming from philosophy. All facts derive from thought, philosophy giving birth to science.

If you take a look at Anaximander' Apeiron where the parts are derived from a whole it turns to parts again your correct in the empiricist thought, however; the Milesian school is limited.

I'll read up on Karl Friday's article and get back no time to finish right now. Very interesting but so far he seems to interject a lot of his own opinions mixed with the facts.

So far really everyones ideals are an opinion, such as your opinion on philosophy which, to me, is a system of thought(s) derived from a single idea or object, i.e. god, man, nature, ideals (bushido).
Ideal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal)

Joe Saunders
31st July 2006, 15:10
To me, a warrior is someone who fights (engages in war, if you like) to uphold that which he holds sacred. This does not mean the "fight" has to be on a battlefield. It could be in a courtroom, in a Church, on the street, in the home or even in his/her own mind.

I realise this is not the literal definition, but it is what comes to mind for me when I think of a "deeper" meaning for the term.