I'll respond to this piece by piece
as much as i love bruce lee there appears to be an inherent contradiction in his philosophy: a man advocating an art of fighting without fighting using aggression to resolve conflicts is hardly practicing what he preaches.
Couple of problems with this argument. One is that you seem to have missed the part where he did not actually use aggression to solve the "conflict" in this story. You also seem to be assuming that Bruce Lee, as a person, routinely used aggression to solve conflicts. He did not. You are also attempting to have this one phrase "fighting without fighting" run the gamut. It is just a phrase and not meant to encompass his, or anyone else's entire philosophy. Fighting is not always physical and in this case he used it as a clever turn of phrase and did not mean for it to be taken literally. If you'd like, you can say that he meant "the art of resolving a conflict by using your opponents momentum against him".
conducting yourself in everyday life in a certain way is one thing but resolving conflict is another.
This is a meaningless sentence and it does not seem to relate to the subject at hand. Conflict is a part of "everyday" life. How you conduct yourself in times of conflict is not separate but one and the same with "how you conduct yourself". For instance, I am conducting myself right now in "everday life" and there is a conflict in that I do not agree with your statements, or in fact, think they make any sense.
But here we have the central misunderstanding. You have responded to an article about "winning arguments" with a statement about "resolving conflicts". So there can be no meaningful exchange since your post does not actually respond to what the article says but simply expresses some feelings you have about conflict. The only way I conduct myself in those types of situations is to point out to the other person that they have failed to respond in a meaningful way. There is a conflict then, between the subject at hand and their response to it.
So if "how we conduct ourselves" is "one thing", then what is that "thing"? And if how we resolve conflicts is "another thing" what is that thing? How are they not related? Hard to defend such a statement since it lacks any direct content. Perhaps if commenters on blogs took as much time to frame their statements as the blog writers themselves we'd have a discussion. But here we don't even get capital letters, let alone well-thought and crafted statements.
certainly the example given was a social example since it did not come to fisticuffs, but had it evolved into a fist fight you can bet real money that bruce would have attacked with highly offensive aggressive intent (punches, kicks etc).
Again, a logical fallacy. Could have, would have..whatever. He solved the problem without a physical fight. If his attempt to solve the problem in this way had not succeeded he would have countered any physical attack or defended himself physically. In fact, his method of solving the conflict "socially" was in line with his method of doing it "physically" since both aim to use the other's own attack against him, in a way. But the fact that he might have had to resort to a physical conflict in no way undermines the lesson and your argument that it does is nonsense.
Perhaps you thought this article was saying that we are not allowed to defend ourselves? Or perhaps you thought this was an "anti-violence" argument. It was not. Sometimes, there is not other option but a physical confrontation.
Again, you take it too far. Bruce Lee never said that a person should never defend himself physically. He was only teaching that it is possible to defend oneself in other ways, by outmaneuvering you "adversary".
as a brief aside Aikido is the only martial art i know of that is a perfect harmony of this philosophy and action, i know this because i am a practitioner. the point is if you introduce additional aggression into a conflict what good are you serving?
Make up your mind. It is not clear what point you try to make at all except to try an sound like you have expertise in martial arts. What is aggression? Who was the "aggressor" in this scenario? It was not Bruce Lee. It was the NewZeanander. I would have thought that was clear. He "introduced" agression and Bruce avoided it. What good is your criticism serving, I wonder, since you clearly understood none of this article or its intent?
the point is if you introduce additional aggression into a conflict what good are you serving? certainly bruce's actions in that scene avoided a fist fight but i do not think the new Zealander was happy with the outcome.
Again you are raising the bar, attempting to deflate any significance of the lesson by saying that it failed to reach "perfection". First, why do you think it matters, in this scenario, whether the new Zealander was happy? Do you think that any resentment that guy would have felt was any worse that his belligerant attitude and propensity towards violence on the helpless? And beyond that what would you expect to happen. Bruce should have given him a bouquet of flowers and maybe a box of chocolates so he would feel better about the whole thing and not harbor resentment?
in fact i am sure he harbored great resentment about how the conflict was resolved. bruce didn't resolve the conflict, he tricked the man and postponed a fight.
anyone who who feels the need to enter a conflict can be diffused solely by means of what they bring to the conflict themselves. this holds true whether its a belligerent argument or right hook, there is no substitute for using their own aggression against them.
I don't understand what you are saying because you are talking in circles and you are also introducing the slippery slope. Bruce did this so this plus this plus this would have happened. It is not clear at all what you hope to accomplish with this post. Postponing a fight is all you can hope for sometimes. Are you saying that the guy would have felt better about the whole thing had Bruce kicked his ass? And then maybe they would have shaken hands, had a beer, and been best friends for life? You do not know what would have happened. Thus the slippery slope where you attempt to confound what DID happen with what you believe "might" happen.
As I pointed out in the article, Bruce did not want to allow the man to control Bruce's behavior or his mood. His goal was to avoid doing what he did not want to do at that time..be bothered by the guy. So he tricked him off the boat by a very clever means.
You have made very little sense here. I assure you, a lot more time and though went into writing this article than went into your knee-jerk response to it. Clearly, you seek to argue with the central tenants of the statements there-in so I responded with arguments to counter. I would appreciate, however, if more thought were put into future posts of this kind since it was very difficult to derive any meaning to what you said.
The biggest reason I responded in this manner though was this: YOU INSULTED BRUCE LEE and inferred he was a hypocrite. That, I just can't take. Bruce Lee was and will remain one of the most important philosophers to ever communicate to a western audience and he has had a profound influence on my and many other's lives. Before you criticize take the time to read his philosophy more thoroughly as any isolated statements can be unjustly criticized when we lack knowledge of their larger context.