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. conducting yourself in everyday life in a certain way is one thing but resolving conflict is another. 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). these actions accomplish exactly the opposite of the notion of an art of fighting without fighting. 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? certainly bruce's actions in that scene avoided a fist fight but i do not think the new Zealander was happy with the outcome. 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'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.

My comment was informal and implicit for the sake of brevity. I was unaware that this forum was held to such high academic standards. Let me be crystal clear: I do not disagree with your premise and further i by no means take this personally.

I won’t bother quibbling of the details of my comments since after you’re nearly ad homonym response we both failed to notice that the example being discussed was highly scripted for a very specific purpose which is exactly what you used it for. On that note since it is a scripted event the only thing we can do is speculate and doing so based on the information available is a clear example of inductive argumentation. Inductive reasoning is the only tool we have to talking meaningfully about the intentions and possible actions of others. That being said it is still pure speculation but based on the experience I am drawing on I don’t think my tentative conclusions are unfounded. The nature of my comment was directed the contradiction found in many martial arts and not intended to undermine your position. The lesson in your article is sound, but because of my education and experience i don't think Bruce Lee is not the best example to prove your point.

“…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.”

Well I am glad you asked, albeit with a statement. Firstly if we don’t seek perfection in principle then the alternative is clearly that we are seeking imperfect. If you are compromising with regards to the maxims for your action then there is no foundation to rely on or refer to. Meaning if you are not shooting for the absolute best action in any scenario then you clearly could have done better. It sounds like I am bringing morality into the argument and in a sense I am: if it involves how we treat other rational agents then it involves morality. In Kant’s metaphysic of morals the formulation of the categorical imperative with regards to humanity goes something like “Treat others not merely as means, but ends in themselves,” which I think is a pretty reasonable approach to take. So in the case of this jerk on the boat I do care how he feels about how the conflict is resolved since I know I sure would rather feel like I had been treated as a human being rather then shamed and embarrassed. Also this view is entirely compatible with your articles lesson and in fact you use similar reasoning towards the end when you mention sensitivity towards the belief of others. However your insistence in your reply that the aggressor of a conflict should be vilified in some way is a primitive response to wring doing. Of course the jerk was not right in his actions but whether on not everyone recognizes it we all have the same right to be treated as free rational agents. This all being said it is not a misdirected stab at the lesson in your article.

See? Now I’m off making assumptions about what you think, believe and intend with your words, feels good yeah? I am sure your intentions are in line with what i have mentioned here with regards to treating people as ends in themselves. i think the only source for conflict between the two of us is your high standards for informal comments.

De Raaf this forum IS held to the highest academic standards. If you don't like that it isn't the place for you. Furthermore, when someone works hard on his material one may feel compelled to defend the premises behind that material.

after you’re nearly ad homonym response

I get it. If I were to say, I don't think you know what an ad hominem response is, you'd call that an ad hominem. When you say things that I think show a less than thorough knowledge of the subject matter, I might point that out. That is not ad hominem because I am not attacking you personally, but still your overall response.

See? Now I’m off making assumptions about what you think, believe and intend with your words, feels good yeah? I am sure your intentions are in line with what i have mentioned here with regards to treating people as ends in themselves. i think the only source for conflict between the two of us is your high standards for informal comments.

Not at all. I don't feel the need to be perfect. So the idea that I cannot write an article that perfectly reflects my whole self is not a concern to me. I take the time to share my thoughts with others and I put a lot of work into it. And when someone responds I put a lot of work into responding to them. I expect their standards to be as high as mine, otherwise I am wasting my time.

You have chosen to make this a moral debate and it is not about morality. Morality is not a subject that I intend to attack on this forum. This is about goals. It was the conversation which preceded the "boat" that I was using as an example. The outcome, with the guy being towed in the boat, became the focus and I responded to that but it was not the outcome I was focusing on but the "method" of achieving that outcome, which is the part that is in line with the lesson in my article. As before, you are suggesting that everything we do must be "perfect" and that I should be able to not only write a lesson on helping people help others (with their training) but one that also reflects a larger morality. I think that is silly because if I tried to do that I would spend more time philosophizing than teaching. As well-intentioned as your argument may be, it is impractical and entirely unnecessary. My actions reflect my philosophies. I prove it every day when I try to help people who come to this forum with injuries and questions.

I think you are absolutely right. I only introduced the moral debate in conjunction with something i thought was reasonably important to point out. Further I do not think what we do must BE perfect but rather that we ought to have it in mind as a goal of our actions. If one adopts a view containing compromise or imperfection (in the ideal only) then there is no real reason not to prefer one imperfect doctrine to another. I don't think thats what you are doing and yes it is a philosophical point which i am nearly certain has no clear resolution, but if we do not hold our selves to the highest standard then even our intentions are compromised. this is all neither here nor there. I like your final statement and it is indeed our actions that declare our intentions and this blog/forum is a testament to yours.

I appreciate that.

I only introduced the moral debate in conjunction with something i thought was reasonably important to point out.

Yeah I don't have any problem with things being pointed out of course but there comes a time when we point ourselves to whole nother country.

But you know if you look at what you said about Kant and treating "rational agents" as "an end in themselves" then you can see that it is the intrinsic value that you assign to the action you choose rather than the outcome that is important. In fact this is what I have been trying to say. It would be very difficult to put any clear intentions to things Kant said, of course, since like most Western philosophers he analyzed himself into corners, but one central maxim, disregarding the idea of "duty", was that the very act of rational action being intrinsically valued means that people will tend to act in accordance with a sort of rational morality. Remember, even Kant didn't care as much about the outcome but the internal value placed on the action at that time.

You are talking about imperfect doctrines but I feel that if I had not used the Bruce Lee example you would not have found any argument with the doctrine. I could be wrong but that is the idea I am getting from what you are saying. So what I am saying is that rational acts are acts that coincide with our goals. Lee's acts coincided with his goals. The outcome was not as important as the value he placed on maintaining his peaceful state of mind. This was the "intrinsic value" of his actions. And it just so happened that he engaged the person rather than confronting the person, albeit to trick him off the boat.

But engaging people is the point, not tricking them. And I do what to make that clear. I am not talking about manipulating people as an end in itself. Our intention is to help. However, wanting to help, as I have learned the hard way, is only a tiny fraction of helping. We have to make them psychologically receptive to that help. As Lee said, be a signpost. And one aspect of that is what this article is about. As far me, I place great value, as you have graciously recognized, in helping others. In fact, at the end of the day, I have one important question that I ask myself: "Did the things I did today have more value for others than they did for me? I don't ask myself that to be "morally superior" but because I believe the very act of placing that value on the effort rather than the rewards, or "outcome" means that I will compromise less and work harder, and in so doing be more successful in the long run. I think Kant probably would have agreed with that.

Absolutely, and since i have not met a moral doctrine that come apart under scrutiny I think the only thing that matters is what motivates you to do the right thing. It doesn't matter, to a point, who is right with regards to intentions/actions so long as your intentions match your actions and that they are as 'moral' as possible. Perhaps utilitarianism is a better example but even then I do not think there is a single permutation that works without contradicting our innate moral instincts.

Something i had thought to bring up earlier but neglected to was what I saw as perhaps a subtle emphasis on the winning of an argument. Now in the context of helping others have the best possible information on training techniques etc there is a sense in which we believe our information to be right and our opponents 'wrong' or just misinformed. i think a useful distinction would help here: it is not an argument we are trying to correct with this approach but rather what we perceive as an inaccurate perspective/approach that we wish to inform. You are perfectly correct to attribute Bruce's approach here and of course we are trying this argument or confrontation of beliefs with it. I suppose my worry is the occasional hint of right vs wrong. I think that I were to meant to help someone with proper technique or whatever i would maintain the grain of salt: there is a pretty good chance that what i am practicing and pointing out to my friend will seem just as incorrect down the road to someone else. And this is also present in the article so in the end i am not arguing anything but caution, i just thought it was worth bringing up.

what I saw as perhaps a subtle emphasis on the winning of an argument.

It was a an intentionally divisive choice on my part and it was exactly my intention to illustrate that the mistake is ending up trying to win an argument when your intention starts out as trying to help someone, which happens more often than not. By calling attention to the conflict between our intentions and our actions I hoped to make the point more strongly. So often, we enter into a discussion which immediate sets the other person on guard, especially when what we say makes them feel defensive. When someone feels defensive, of course, they go on the offense. So that we then feel compelled to "win" when we started out trying to help. My point was to avoid that by understanding how someone else would be made to feel defensive. I think you have seen that Bruce's actions were exactly in line with that and why I used the example even though, here, I am talking about helping people rather than dealing with bullies!

However, we have to be clear. The purpose of an argument IS TO WIN. If I am arguing then I am debating. My intention is to win that debate. It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong only that my arguments are better constructed than the other guys. Let's not forget that. It's a very important distinction. Everyday I find that people misunderstand the difference between the two. If I am arguing, then I don't care whether I turn out to be wrong in the long run…only that I win the argument!

There is but one purpose to fighting. To win. To survive. Perhaps your opponent will gain respect for you. Perhaps a mutual respect will grow from the contest. But respect is not the same as agreement!

Agreements do not come out of arguments. Only win, lose, or draw. You can respect your opponent without agreeing with him. You can agree with him but still argue with him, lol. But it is not about helping it is about winning. Pure and simple. If we are not clear about that then we will always be in danger of allowing our need to win over-ride our desire to help.

I don't know if you realize this..in fact I am sure that you don't and it was an unconscious thing but you used the term "opponent" to describe someone you are trying to help. This is exactly what I am trying to illustrate. When we think we are right and another person is wrong, and that they are in harm's way, we want to help. But feeling 'right' puts us in battle mode rather than helping mode and we all do it without realizing it. Suddenly they are an opponent. But an opponent is someone you beat, not help.

The mistake is not thinking you are right. There is nothing wrong with thinking we are correct about something. The mistake is not being aware of that internal switch that it triggers. The one that switches from "helping" to "winning".

think that I were to meant to help someone with proper technique or whatever i would maintain the grain of salt: there is a pretty good chance that what i am practicing and pointing out to my friend will seem just as incorrect down the road to someone else. And this is also present in the article so in the end i am not arguing anything but caution, i just thought it was worth bringing up.

There is always a chance that we are wrong. We must acknowledge that and refuse to be set in our beliefs. In the end that is all we can do. However, when you talk about technique and training practices, there is a cost benefit analysis. If you start out thinking that you can give advice based on "principles" and "laws" which are universal and without exception, you will never be able to give effective advice. Instead, you have to use your experience and knowledge to decide what is best based on that cost benefit analysis. When you gain new knowledge that should further inform that analysis but it will always be there. People are always thinking that there is this big line between "knowing" and "not knowing". That is not how it works.

Beyond that I can usually be sure that if my advice doesn't directly help the other person in terms of progression or any particular goals, you can be damn sure I won't get them hurt and that is always an over-riding goal in itself.

As far as there always being a chance that something I myself say being incorrect down the road to someone else, a lot of the things I say they think are incorrect right now, lol and a lot of the things I say right now I myself will think are incorrect down the road.

But I don't think that is your point; I think your point is more subtle and I think I can address it directly. Sometimes when I talk about helping people it seems like I am talking about always being on and trying to help everyone. The fact is, if I think I'll do more harm than good, I don't get involved. If I am not very confident in my ability to help, or to figure out how to help, I don't get that involved. If I do not think that the issue is of very great importance in the long run, or that the person is not in immediate or longterm danger, I may not get involved. Look at this key passage:

You've learned to pick your battles but this time you feel compelled to intervene.

Battle is the key word. Look at that expression. How many times have you heard that used? "You have to pick your battles." There are just as many social situations, and probably more, that are difficult and uncomfortable as are harmonious and comforting. And how are we geared to think of these social situations?

As BATTLES! It must be in our genes.

To help someone you have to be confident in your ability. A grain of salt is great for philosophical discussions but it isn't of very much direct help to someone. However, exactly what I try to avoid is "principles" and "laws" which, I think (but may be wrong), is what you would hope for to mitigate that "grain of salt". Seeking those laws is the actual trap because laws and principles do not allow for analysis and creativity. I was just saying (again) the other day that I'd rather have 7 guidelines that are specifically useful than one principle which is generally useful.