Quote:
Originally Posted by disgruntled
although i agree that we got to take into account that MAs change, they change regardless of where they are. TKD in Korea has evolved too..... so then do we need to start defining traditional korean TKD and modern TKD and western TKD etc....
i disagree that the philosphy would define the art. although i think that it is essential to an art, i do not see it as the defining thing. beliefs change with the times and adapt. and an idea is much more volitile and contextually dependent than a movement or the principal of the movement. so for example, just because i am not learning Muay Thai to prove my worthiness as a warrior and to shapen my skills for war, does not mean that i am not learning muay thai. the reasons for an art can change multiple tmes through out history, or even from person to person... the consistency and thus defining characteristic comes from the movements and the "martial" aspect.
|
__________________________________________________ _
I think that we already do classify them as separate forms, and styles (Ie modern, western, etc)... we just don't say it. By philosophy.... I mean the basic principals, values, and beliefs that the art was formed around.... if you lose those, or people ignore those, than in essence you have changed the art, and we come back to the definition of traditional vs modern (Does that make sense).... Interpreting the philosophy is an individual thing, but the basic will always be the basics. Even if the times define how the art is used or practiced, it is still grounded in its roots. In essence (For example)... you are learning Muay Thai, no two ways about it.... however you are not learning it in the way a traditionally trained Muay thai warrior would, as such you will never truly learn the whole art. That being said, the fact that you understand its original purpose, shows that you have respect for its philosophy.. thus bring us back to the root....