Martial Arts, Violence and History


jts

Recommended Posts

Stefan has a theory about why some people are attracted to the martial arts. He got a lot of responses from people who are into the martial arts and don't like his theory. in this video, Stefan responds to those responses. Yes, this has to do with parenting.

7 minutes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Not sure what this has to do with Objectivism, but definitely interesting.

He seems to be talking mainly to immature people with a "video game" view of life, however. Just because one comes from a violent past doesn't mean the martial arts are to be avoided. In fact, I would argue that martial arts help a great deal in "handling" issues related to a violent past. One example: most martial arts are based upon an element Eastern philosophy of some kind, which emphasizes detachment. Detachment from a violent past is a good thing, is it not?

Another example: the "art" of marial arts is also a good thing, and ideally is motivated by a commitment to what the Japanese would call kaizen. Sharpening the saw in this way seems very consistent with the pursuit of happiness as an end in itself, and also consistent with Objectivism's emphasis on responding, with justice, to the initiation of force by others. This example relates to the first example, by the way. These are two examples right of the top of my head.

Side note: please tell me this isn't another conspiracy theory nut job video, ala the others you have a penchant for posting.

Having never heard of this cat before, it would be a shame if somebody that extemporaneously articulate was also a part of the conspiracy nut job crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have had discussion on Molyneux before. To my eyes he is a leader in a pseudo-psychotherapy cult. The mark of a therapy cult is found in his 'de-fooing' procedure, and its borrowings from RMT shibboleths of demonic parents. In line with standard cult retention strategies Molyneuyx recommends 'detachment' from the 'family of origin.' He may be ringing some bells in this video, but to my reckoning of the man, he is almost a grifter and I can't watch his smug certainty any more. He has hurt people and damaged their relationships through his therapeutic recommendations.

His income is from pay-counselling in groups via the web. Good cult marketing, iffy product, in my opinion. Mileage may vary.

PS -- one wag backstage says Molyneux and his ethically-challenged "Ask a Therapist" wife Christina are "the anarchist version of Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker."

_______________

To save the trip to the other thread, wherein OL member Sharon Presley gives a reasonable take on Molyneux and adds this:

He also claims that almost everyone has been abused and that everybody needs therapy. Since I am a real psychologist, unlike him, I have a problem with this. Namely, neither statement is true. I taught developmental psych for many years, have also taught abnormal, as well as social psych, and critical thinking too. This is just so much BS. He cannot provide evidence to support either statement because the evidence isn't there. I was not surprised to find these websites with people calling him a cultist. He also has fanboys who will attack those who criticize him. Hm-m-m. Where have we seen this before?

In fact, there is a video on YouTube which is meant to be tongue-in-cheek but it gave me the creeps. You'll see why...It's called "Stefan Molyneux is my lord and savior." It's a snippet filmed at PorcFest. You can hear one guy saying "I almost wet my pants" and the context makes it clear that he is talking about seeing SM. YUCK!

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is right in that historically, everyone was raised with violence. He ignores the genesis of martial arts as alternatives to that. I agree with his major premise, that people who are deeply drawn into martial arts have unresolved issues with personal violence. Having taken two college quarters of tae kwon do for a physical education requirement, I saw that the people most into it were the ones to avoid. Myself, once made yellow belt, I lost interest. I knew what it was, how it worked. I had no interest in beating people up or getting beaten up. And just to note that when you start in martial arts - serious martial arts like jiujitsu or karate, not Mixed Martial Arts street brawling - actual contact is avoided and denigrated as poor control. You learn to make minimal contact and most of the early learning is with "forms" (kata or strokes) in which there is no opponent. In that, it is like tai chi, which my wife and I have taken together. In tae kwon do, the proper state of mind as "like full moon on still pond." But it is also true that those who really get into it are people with problems.

That said, you could make the same claim about philosophers. I think that it is an individual thing, ultimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, you could make the same claim about philosophers.

I try to avoid full contact philosophy as much as possible.

Also yellow belt (karate, not philosophy)

Nice work, Grasshopper.

You are travelling The Way. Some day your belt will become white again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is right in that historically, everyone was raised with violence. He ignores the genesis of martial arts as alternatives to that. I agree with his major premise, that people who are deeply drawn into martial arts have unresolved issues with personal violence. Having taken two college quarters of tae kwon do for a physical education requirement, I saw that the people most into it were the ones to avoid. Myself, once made yellow belt, I lost interest. I knew what it was, how it worked. I had no interest in beating people up or getting beaten up. And just to note that when you start in martial arts - serious martial arts like jiujitsu or karate, not Mixed Martial Arts street brawling - actual contact is avoided and denigrated as poor control. You learn to make minimal contact and most of the early learning is with "forms" (kata or strokes) in which there is no opponent. In that, it is like tai chi, which my wife and I have taken together. In tae kwon do, the proper state of mind as "like full moon on still pond." But it is also true that those who really get into it are people with problems.

That said, you could make the same claim about philosophers. I think that it is an individual thing, ultimately.

I fear that much of what you have said above suffers from a small sample size. Two quarters in college--and based upon your avatar, it would appear that was some time ago--hardly qualifies a basis for the conclusions you are offering. For example, I took drawing classes a couple of years ago at our city's best art institute, and it seemed to me most of my fellow students were directionless hippies, mooching off their parents. Does that make most people interested in art moochers? Hippies?

Some of my best friends and mentors are martial artists. They are not "people with problems". I expect that I will be a martial artist the rest of my life, so forgive me if this seems defensive.

And, don't make me track you down and kick your ass... :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, you could make the same claim about philosophers.

I try to avoid full contact philosophy as much as possible.

Also yellow belt (karate, not philosophy)

Nice work, Grasshopper.

You are travelling The Way. Some day your belt will become white again.

Ahh, Sensei! You jest with this lowly Grasshopper.

May it become as dark as yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now