|
|
#1
08-08-2005, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
jeet kune do
"Nothingness cannot be defined; the softest thing cannot be snapped."
who here has read "Tao of Jeet Kune Do"? what are your thoughts on the philosophy of bruce lee? 
|
|
#2
08-08-2005, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
noone has read this?
|
|
#3
08-09-2005, 02:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
[ QUOTE ]
noone has read this? [/ QUOTE ] What about it? Are you talking about his philosophy towards fighting or his overall philosphical view of life? I agree with many of his martial arts insights that strayed from traditional chinese gung fu views, as do many people nowadays. Things like 1)Practicing "sets" or predetermined movements by yourself was a waste of time 2)Physical strength was more of a factor then people believed 3)It was important to make yourself a complete fighter with knowledge of striking AND grappling. Always important to be prepared for the unlikely 4)Its not "cheap" to hit the groin. Fighters that cant protect their private areas cant say they are good fighters or his general philosophy thats important to be "a tree that bends in the wind" or like you said "the softest thing cannot be snapped." I think he shows this philosophy fairly obviously in the movie, "Return of the Dragon." He is getting beaten up by Chuck Norris until he starts adjusting and modifying his stance/attacks. Chuck Norris remains rigid and unyielding in his ways and unable to find a way to counter Bruce Lee's flowing and adaptive movements with un-straightfoward attacks. He is showing the strength of his idea is its pliability and its ability to always adapt.
|
|
#4
08-09-2005, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
"Water can flow; and water can crash!"
|
|
#5
08-09-2005, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] noone has read this? [/ QUOTE ] What about it? Are you talking about his philosophy towards fighting or his overall philosphical view of life? I agree with many of his martial arts insights that strayed from traditional chinese gung fu views, as do many people nowadays. Things like 1)Practicing "sets" or predetermined movements by yourself was a waste of time 2)Physical strength was more of a factor then people believed 3)It was important to make yourself a complete fighter with knowledge of striking AND grappling. Always important to be prepared for the unlikely 4)Its not "cheap" to hit the groin. Fighters that cant protect their private areas cant say they are good fighters or his general philosophy thats important to be "a tree that bends in the wind" or like you said "the softest thing cannot be snapped." I think he shows this philosophy fairly obviously in the movie, "Return of the Dragon." He is getting beaten up by Chuck Norris until he starts adjusting and modifying his stance/attacks. Chuck Norris remains rigid and unyielding in his ways and unable to find a way to counter Bruce Lee's flowing and adaptive movements with un-straightfoward attacks. He is showing the strength of his idea is its pliability and its ability to always adapt. [/ QUOTE ] i was refering to his general philosophy as it can apply to anything, not just fighting. Althogh the book is mainly about training and fighting, the first couple dozen pages are general philosophy. I think the fundamentals of his philosophy are the good stuff. The stuff about simplicity and efficency. taking the path of least resistance, the "middle way", being able to see "what is" at any given moment and all that stuff.
|
|
#6
08-09-2005, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
I think musashi is reported as saying
"the art of kendo is about beating the other person in a fight" Too many people get hung up in the philosophy (this is backwards). Do what you do well, be it Poker, fighting or whatever else, and you will understand the art/philosophy stuff. Try not to do it the other way round. Also note that I have not met many westerners able to dedicate the same sort of time to the combat skills, that people like lee did. The whole practical approach is so different that I would suggest the philosophy is not entirely applicable. For the western person wanting to learn combat skills, I would hope he or she wants to be as effective as possible, in a short space of time, without training 10 hours a day for years just to make a little progress. Eastern arts may form a basis for this, but are not in themselves efficient in the typical western scenario. People are beautiful yet fragile things, it is far too easy to break them. After teaching pratical self-defence, kickboxing, and mixed fighting for many years, I have increasingly disregarded the eastern philosphy slant on the martial arts (as applied by westerners). IMHO It really amounts to turning violence into pseudo-religion. It's also innefficient in the western social context, with its time constraints on such training. In my view if you want to learn martial arts, then find someone who will teach you to beat the other guy on the street or in the competition (better still both - as they are distinct). You don't need any philosphy stuff to do that. If you want some pretty stuff you can always get him to teach you some nunchaku or other weapons (no you don't need to be an advanced grade to do this). Hopefully he will also spend enough time teaching you restraint, and how to avoid killing or maiming someone. Learn to fight well and you'll get some pretty cool insights of your own. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#7
08-09-2005, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
[ QUOTE ]
I think musashi is reported as saying "the art of kendo is about beating the other person in a fight" Too many people get hung up in the philosophy (this is backwards). Do what you do well, be it Poker, fighting or whatever else, and you will understand the art/philosophy stuff. Try not to do it the other way round. Also note that I have not met many westerners able to dedicate the same sort of time to the combat skills, that people like lee did. The whole practical approach is so different that I would suggest the philosophy is not entirely applicable. For the western person wanting to learn combat skills, I would hope he or she wants to be as effective as possible, in a short space of time, without training 10 hours a day for years just to make a little progress. Eastern arts may form a basis for this, but are not in themselves efficient in the typical western scenario. People are beautiful yet fragile things, it is far too easy to break them. After teaching pratical self-defence, kickboxing, and mixed fighting for many years, I have increasingly disregarded the eastern philosphy slant on the martial arts (as applied by westerners). IMHO It really amounts to turning violence into pseudo-religion. It's also innefficient in the western social context, with its time constraints on such training. In my view if you want to learn martial arts, then find someone who will teach you to beat the other guy on the street or in the competition (better still both - as they are distinct). You don't need any philosphy stuff to do that. If you want some pretty stuff you can always get him to teach you some nunchaku or other weapons (no you don't need to be an advanced grade to do this). Hopefully he will also spend enough time teaching you restraint, and how to avoid killing or maiming someone. Learn to fight well and you'll get some pretty cool insights of your own. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] once again, i am refering strictly to his phillosophical views. Disregaurd all the fighting stuff. I am not here to argue wether his methods of training etc would be sufficient for ass kicking. i want to know what peoples thoughts are on his eastern (and buhdism) influenced philosophies of life (i.e. middle way etc.)
|
|
#8
08-09-2005, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
[ QUOTE ]
once again, i am refering strictly to his phillosophical views. Disregaurd all the fighting stuff. I am not here to argue wether his methods of training etc would be sufficient for ass kicking. i want to know what peoples thoughts are on his eastern (and buhdism) influenced philosophies of life (i.e. middle way etc.) [/ QUOTE ] From what I understand, he studied Philosophy in college, but it seems he concentrated a lot on Chinese philosophy; mainly ideas of Taoism. Still, I dont see how you can really differentiate his philosophies on life vs his philosophies on fighting. They are intertwined.
|
|
#9
08-09-2005, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] once again, i am refering strictly to his phillosophical views. Disregaurd all the fighting stuff. I am not here to argue wether his methods of training etc would be sufficient for ass kicking. i want to know what peoples thoughts are on his eastern (and buhdism) influenced philosophies of life (i.e. middle way etc.) [/ QUOTE ] From what I understand, he studied Philosophy in college, but it seems he concentrated a lot on Chinese philosophy; mainly ideas of Taoism. Still, I dont see how you can really differentiate his philosophies on life vs his philosophies on fighting. They are intertwined. [/ QUOTE ] has anyone here actually read his book? the first part of it is filled w/ general philosophy. It can be and some of it is applied to fighting, but most of this section can be applied to anything really.
|
|
#10
08-09-2005, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: jeet kune do
[ QUOTE ]
has anyone here actually read his book? the first part of it is filled w/ general philosophy. It can be and some of it is applied to fighting, but most of this section can be applied to anything really. [/ QUOTE ] Yes! I have read his book. I thought I made that clear but it looks like I never mentioned it. After reading your post I tried looking for the book but its hidden somewhere in the garage. Anyway, I think you are reading too much into his "philosophy." Much of it was indeed used to explain his ideas for Jeet Kune Do and martial arts in general. If you are really looking to see if I agree with his philosophies, I would have to say yes. But thats only because he explains his ideas with adages, which are in essence something that has general truth. Please post more lines of things you found intriguing in that book that you thought could be applied to anything. Because I really dont see how you can apply the line that you posted earlier, "nothing cannot be defined; softness cannot be snapped" to anything and everything.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
