Gomez
Member
There's the question. I hear/read/see a lot about the individual being a "warrior". What does the word "warrior" mean to you? Do you consider yourself a warrior?
Why or why not?
Why or why not?
What is a Warrior?
- Thread starter Gomez
- Start date
- Status
From Webster's:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
war·ri·or (wôr-r, wr-) n.
1) One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
2) One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on #1, no. Even though I am a former Marine, I never saw combat. Based on definition #2, maybe, since I am passionate about a couple of causes.
GT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
war·ri·or (wôr-r, wr-) n.
1) One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
2) One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on #1, no. Even though I am a former Marine, I never saw combat. Based on definition #2, maybe, since I am passionate about a couple of causes.
GT
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Purely subjective notions, okay?
To me, the connotations of the word go beyond the dictionary. Mindset and attitude are a large part of the meaning. Lotsa folks are competent with weapons. Lotsa folks may be willing to use their weapons. I think the warrior mentality goes a step beyond this. A warrior is aware of the hazards and the realities of extreme violence; has studied the psychology of violence, and is knowledgeably willing to accept the risks.
$0.02,
Art
To me, the connotations of the word go beyond the dictionary. Mindset and attitude are a large part of the meaning. Lotsa folks are competent with weapons. Lotsa folks may be willing to use their weapons. I think the warrior mentality goes a step beyond this. A warrior is aware of the hazards and the realities of extreme violence; has studied the psychology of violence, and is knowledgeably willing to accept the risks.
$0.02,
Art
Personaly I think of a warrior as more of a soldier. Profesionaly trained in battle technic and such. Not necasarily any one using weapons. I do not consider myself one by any measure. I am just a guy w/ a few guns willing and capable of defending myself and those I care for.
I think of our soldiers and many LEO's as warriors people who train in battle as a profesion.
My simple thoughts.
I think of our soldiers and many LEO's as warriors people who train in battle as a profesion.
My simple thoughts.
If burping a Ma Deuce from a destroyer at some Iranian wack jobs on motor boats during the Tanker War, (Prelude to Gulf War I) counts, I am in.
I personally count myself more into the Coalition of the Willing. I know I can pull a trigger on bad humans and hit what I aim at, but beyond there I have no idea what it takes to be a warrior in the combat sense.
I keep getting visions of Arhnold grunting through Conan's dialogue.
I personally count myself more into the Coalition of the Willing. I know I can pull a trigger on bad humans and hit what I aim at, but beyond there I have no idea what it takes to be a warrior in the combat sense.
I keep getting visions of Arhnold grunting through Conan's dialogue.
This is one of my favorite essays. Its is very close to my own heart and expresses in words what I cannot.
http://www.bugei.com/virtue.html
http://www.bugei.com/virtue.html
triggertime
Member
To me, a modern warrior or 'warrior' is one who engages in the lifelong commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, spiritual growth and self-betterment (i.e. learning from ones mistakes) while dedicating themself to mastering their tools, being prepared and aware of their surroundings while operating on the principles of integrity and honesty while avoiding, deterring and de-escalating all personal conflict.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Who is the Happy Warrior
WHO is the happy Warrior? Who is he
That every man in arms should wish to be?
--It is the generous Spirit, who, when brought
Among the tasks of real life, hath wrought
Upon the plan that pleased his boyish thought:
Whose high endeavours are an inward light
That makes the path before him always bright:
Who, with a natural instinct to discern
What knowledge can perform, is diligent to learn;
Abides by this resolve, and stops not there, 10
But makes his moral being his prime care;
Who, doomed to go in company with Pain,
And Fear, and Bloodshed, miserable train!
Turns his necessity to glorious gain;
In face of these doth exercise a power
Which is our human nature's highest dower;
Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves
Of their bad influence, and their good receives:
By objects, which might force the soul to abate
Her feeling, rendered more compassionate; 20
Is placable--because occasions rise
So often that demand such sacrifice;
More skilful in self-knowledge, even more pure,
As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.
--'Tis he whose law is reason; who depends
Upon that law as on the best of friends;
Whence, in a state where men are tempted still
To evil for a guard against worse ill, 30
And what in quality or act is best
Doth seldom on a right foundation rest,
He labours good on good to fix, and owes
To virtue every triumph that he knows:
--Who, if he rise to station of command,
Rises by open means; and there will stand
On honourable terms, or else retire,
And in himself possess his own desire;
Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim; 40
And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait
For wealth, or honours, or for worldly state;
Whom they must follow; on whose head must fall,
Like showers of manna, if they come at all:
Whose powers shed round him in the common strife,
Or mild concerns of ordinary life,
A constant influence, a peculiar grace;
But who, if he be called upon to face
Some awful moment to which Heaven has joined
Great issues, good or bad for human kind, 50
Is happy as a Lover; and attired
With sudden brightness, like a Man inspired;
And, through the heat of conflict, keeps the law
In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw;
Or if an unexpected call succeed,
Come when it will, is equal to the need:
--He who, though thus endued as with a sense
And faculty for storm and turbulence,
Is yet a Soul whose master-bias leans
To homefelt pleasures and to gentle scenes; 60
Sweet images! which, wheresoe'er he be,
Are at his heart; and such fidelity
It is his darling passion to approve;
More brave for this, that he hath much to love:--
'Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high,
Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye,
Or left unthought-of in obscurity,--
Who, with a toward or untoward lot,
Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not--
Plays, in the many games of life, that one 70
Where what he most doth value must be won:
Whom neither shape of danger can dismay,
Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
Who, not content that former worth stand fast,
Looks forward, persevering to the last,
From well to better, daily self-surpast:
Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name-- 80
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause:
This is the happy Warrior; this is He
That every Man in arms should wish to be.
-William Wordsworth
Those old-school poets were just too cool!
WHO is the happy Warrior? Who is he
That every man in arms should wish to be?
--It is the generous Spirit, who, when brought
Among the tasks of real life, hath wrought
Upon the plan that pleased his boyish thought:
Whose high endeavours are an inward light
That makes the path before him always bright:
Who, with a natural instinct to discern
What knowledge can perform, is diligent to learn;
Abides by this resolve, and stops not there, 10
But makes his moral being his prime care;
Who, doomed to go in company with Pain,
And Fear, and Bloodshed, miserable train!
Turns his necessity to glorious gain;
In face of these doth exercise a power
Which is our human nature's highest dower;
Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves
Of their bad influence, and their good receives:
By objects, which might force the soul to abate
Her feeling, rendered more compassionate; 20
Is placable--because occasions rise
So often that demand such sacrifice;
More skilful in self-knowledge, even more pure,
As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.
--'Tis he whose law is reason; who depends
Upon that law as on the best of friends;
Whence, in a state where men are tempted still
To evil for a guard against worse ill, 30
And what in quality or act is best
Doth seldom on a right foundation rest,
He labours good on good to fix, and owes
To virtue every triumph that he knows:
--Who, if he rise to station of command,
Rises by open means; and there will stand
On honourable terms, or else retire,
And in himself possess his own desire;
Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim; 40
And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait
For wealth, or honours, or for worldly state;
Whom they must follow; on whose head must fall,
Like showers of manna, if they come at all:
Whose powers shed round him in the common strife,
Or mild concerns of ordinary life,
A constant influence, a peculiar grace;
But who, if he be called upon to face
Some awful moment to which Heaven has joined
Great issues, good or bad for human kind, 50
Is happy as a Lover; and attired
With sudden brightness, like a Man inspired;
And, through the heat of conflict, keeps the law
In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw;
Or if an unexpected call succeed,
Come when it will, is equal to the need:
--He who, though thus endued as with a sense
And faculty for storm and turbulence,
Is yet a Soul whose master-bias leans
To homefelt pleasures and to gentle scenes; 60
Sweet images! which, wheresoe'er he be,
Are at his heart; and such fidelity
It is his darling passion to approve;
More brave for this, that he hath much to love:--
'Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high,
Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye,
Or left unthought-of in obscurity,--
Who, with a toward or untoward lot,
Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not--
Plays, in the many games of life, that one 70
Where what he most doth value must be won:
Whom neither shape of danger can dismay,
Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
Who, not content that former worth stand fast,
Looks forward, persevering to the last,
From well to better, daily self-surpast:
Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name-- 80
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause:
This is the happy Warrior; this is He
That every Man in arms should wish to be.
-William Wordsworth
Those old-school poets were just too cool!
Seeker
Member
A warrior is one who continues to fight the good fight, when odds are against and the ground is wet and cold to overcome the trials set in front of you.
Persistance in the face of adversity.
I also think it is associated with having an internal locus of control.
re: use of weapons;
What is a weapon?
Only firearms and swords?
Time defeats granite.
Persistance in the face of adversity.
I also think it is associated with having an internal locus of control.
re: use of weapons;
What is a weapon?
Only firearms and swords?
Time defeats granite.
Still Learning
Member
Thanks for the essay, Daniel
I enjoyed that very much.
I enjoyed that very much.
Mute
Member
One who has accepted death as inevitable and does his best to make the inevitable happen to his enemy rather than himself, while seeking to make the inevitable happen to himself only by natural causes.
That sounds about right to me.
That sounds about right to me.
SemperFi83
Member
Boats
I was in that one too. What ship were you on? I spent time on the Lasalle, R.K.Turner (cruiser) and Iwo Jima. Got to play with some fun hardware too!
P.s. Sorry for the hi-jack of the thread.
I was in that one too. What ship were you on? I spent time on the Lasalle, R.K.Turner (cruiser) and Iwo Jima. Got to play with some fun hardware too!
P.s. Sorry for the hi-jack of the thread.
VaughnT
Member
A warrior is one who is willing to fight and die for a cause that is just and noble.
A warrior is one who trains mentally and physically to stack the odds in his favor so that the former goes well and the chances of the latter are minimized greatly.
Like the Bugei article. Wish more people believed likewise.
A warrior is one who trains mentally and physically to stack the odds in his favor so that the former goes well and the chances of the latter are minimized greatly.
Like the Bugei article. Wish more people believed likewise.
Daniel Flurry,
Thanks for the excellent link to Virtue of the Sword. I especially like the section about "Virtue as a Prerequisite for Freedom".
From Virtue:
"It is the very cultivation of virtue that ensures the will and ability to be a free people. A society degenerates with the loss of virtue and the high regard in which it is held. This has been the lesson of history. It is always surprising to me that the events and lessons learned from the past are so quickly forgotten. It is as if we deliberately purge them from our memory. Human history is fraught with the folly of this peculiar mechanism, yet we continue it at our peril."
Thanks for the excellent link to Virtue of the Sword. I especially like the section about "Virtue as a Prerequisite for Freedom".
From Virtue:
"It is the very cultivation of virtue that ensures the will and ability to be a free people. A society degenerates with the loss of virtue and the high regard in which it is held. This has been the lesson of history. It is always surprising to me that the events and lessons learned from the past are so quickly forgotten. It is as if we deliberately purge them from our memory. Human history is fraught with the folly of this peculiar mechanism, yet we continue it at our peril."
Well, here's Mick Strider's of Strider Knives personal opinion on the matter:
"A quick note on what it means to be a warrior. A warrior is not someone who has been to war. That is a combatant. A warrior is someone who loves something more than themselves, be it your children or what have you, and places their safety above that of his or her own. Someone who helps those in need, whether or not it may cause personal injury or death. A warrior is not a hero, just someone who does what it takes, and in doing so becomes a hero."
Edited to add:
Hmm, first post here too, recognize some names from TFL and other forums.
"A quick note on what it means to be a warrior. A warrior is not someone who has been to war. That is a combatant. A warrior is someone who loves something more than themselves, be it your children or what have you, and places their safety above that of his or her own. Someone who helps those in need, whether or not it may cause personal injury or death. A warrior is not a hero, just someone who does what it takes, and in doing so becomes a hero."
Edited to add:
Hmm, first post here too, recognize some names from TFL and other forums.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I offer a point of disagreement with some of the above posts: A warrior is not necessarily a Good Guy. Always remember your enemy probably thinks he's a GG and you're a Bad Guy. His own culture might be different enough that his martial habits might strike you as morally evil, as well--but he would strongly disagree with you.
Art
Art
TheMariner
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 154
I argee with Art. a warrior's status as good or evil is ilrelevant. So, on the whole, is his moral compass.
but lets break the word warrior to its base. WAR.
We can easily infer that a warrior is someone whose life is based around the pursuit, warding, or execution or war, in all forms... war means alot of things, despite the common thought that war is something between states and armies. War, for spans of time on this globe, was waged by as few people as those in a modern day company or platoon. Many roving bands of marauders waged war despite being less that a hundred in number.
but lets break the word warrior to its base. WAR.
We can easily infer that a warrior is someone whose life is based around the pursuit, warding, or execution or war, in all forms... war means alot of things, despite the common thought that war is something between states and armies. War, for spans of time on this globe, was waged by as few people as those in a modern day company or platoon. Many roving bands of marauders waged war despite being less that a hundred in number.
Wilhelm
Member
This came from a different forum, I pretty much agree with what Steve Vanderburg has to say here.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
. HerbG, your comment strikes me as appropriate if you believe that a warrior mentality is never to be needed. Now, in the modern US of A, you might well be right, thinking of the civilian world on a day-to-day basis.But move to present-day Afghanistan, or some parts of Africa. There are many Bad Guys seeking power and loot. Any tribe or sect with some warriors as members, seems to me, are a lot better off than otherwise.
Art
CTgunteacher
Member
I don't consider myself a warrior, despite being a qualified infantryman (and ex-airborne) in the National Guard. I've never been to war. Nor do I see myself as a defender of civilization when in the civilian world, despite the fact that I am always armed when in public. I think there's way too much Internet talk about being a "warrior" and "living the martial way" from people who have never faced anything more dangerous than an IDPA target or a light-contact sparring partner in the safe confines of the street-corner dojo.
I am fully prepared (both mentally and physically) to shoot or slice a deadly threat, be it an armed robber, the local chapter of the Trenchcoat Mafia, or an Islamist wearing an Afafat Tuxedo. Do I do this for some greater good of society? No. I do it for the selfish reason that I want to survive and I want my family to survive. If everybody felt this way, and took the actions I do, then the "greater good" of society would take care of itself, at least internally. I don't consider it my responsibility, when not in uniform, to protect those adults in society who have chosen not to take the necessary steps to protect themselves. (Children are an exception, since they cannot choose to protect themselves.)
True warriors, and I acknowledge that they do exist, are necessary to the continued survival of our way of life, since there are other warriors who are willing to destroy it. The warriors who defend America have my undying gratitude. But warriors can only protect and/or destroy. They do not build and create, though they may find better ways to fight. Yet here on the Internet, I see a lot of people who claim to be warriors sort of looking down their noses at the rest of society.
Philosophers, engineers, artists, computer programmers, farmers, construction workers, etc., and most of all the widely reviled trader/merchant, make a society. There is great nobility in all these people, because it is they who actually build and create the society that the warrior can only defend (or destroy). Without them and their work, the warrior has no purpose.
So, despite lots of Internet propaganda, I don't think it is necessarily better to be a warrior than a trader (i.e., a "regular person"). It is probably sufficient to be a shopkeeper with a ready .45, and possibly even more noble. In broad terms, the trader creates wealth, both for himself and for society, where the warrior can only protect and maintain that wealth, at best.
I have a couple of comments regarding the well-written essay linked by Mr. Flory. It certainly doesn't hurt to keep an eye on children not your own, or to take a minute to ensure a woman makes it safely to her car in a dark parking lot. It does not necessarily follow, though, that a person voluntarily schooled in the fighting arts has a moral obligation to enter into armed conflict to defend said woman, at the risk of his own life. The unarmed woman in the parking lot has no claim on the armed person's (the "warrior's") life or skills or work merely because she is unwilling to learn the fighting arts, or master the technology, that would enable her to defend herself.
The Spartans, while indeed fierce warriors, may have treated their own women well. They did not, however, accord the women of their enemies -- fellow Greeks -- the same level of respect, and performed the same raping and pillaging that has accompanied war over the millenia. They also lived in a regimented society that accepted torture, condoned the idea of killing young men who couldn't make the grade as warriors, and despised the trader and the concepts of monetary exchange upon which the prosperity of Western civilization is founded. So while they may have been civilized enough to give an old man a seat at the Olympics, they didn't actually uphold the ideas necessary to build a prosperous civilization, only a fascist state that stole from the Athenians and other Greeks. Leonidas and "The 300" may have indeed saved the budding Western civilization with their courage at Thermopylae, but they could never have built it, since the Spartans knew and celebrated only war -- which by definition is destruction.
As for our young men being a bunch of soft, unchallenged, video-game-playing crybabies...well, I think the skill and courage displayed recently in Iraq by our young Americans has demonstrated the speciousness of that argument.
I don't particularly want to be a "warrior," or "live the martial life," though if America needs me to fight, I will do so willingly. I would fight because America remains the last, best hope for a free and prosperous world, and I and my family deserve to live in such a world. I don't find it especially glamorous, nor do I think the traders and others who build society (rather than defend it) deserve the derision sometimes heaped upon them by the "warrior caste," whether they be real warriors or the all-too-prevalent armchair/Internet warriors.
Mike
I am fully prepared (both mentally and physically) to shoot or slice a deadly threat, be it an armed robber, the local chapter of the Trenchcoat Mafia, or an Islamist wearing an Afafat Tuxedo. Do I do this for some greater good of society? No. I do it for the selfish reason that I want to survive and I want my family to survive. If everybody felt this way, and took the actions I do, then the "greater good" of society would take care of itself, at least internally. I don't consider it my responsibility, when not in uniform, to protect those adults in society who have chosen not to take the necessary steps to protect themselves. (Children are an exception, since they cannot choose to protect themselves.)
True warriors, and I acknowledge that they do exist, are necessary to the continued survival of our way of life, since there are other warriors who are willing to destroy it. The warriors who defend America have my undying gratitude. But warriors can only protect and/or destroy. They do not build and create, though they may find better ways to fight. Yet here on the Internet, I see a lot of people who claim to be warriors sort of looking down their noses at the rest of society.
Philosophers, engineers, artists, computer programmers, farmers, construction workers, etc., and most of all the widely reviled trader/merchant, make a society. There is great nobility in all these people, because it is they who actually build and create the society that the warrior can only defend (or destroy). Without them and their work, the warrior has no purpose.
So, despite lots of Internet propaganda, I don't think it is necessarily better to be a warrior than a trader (i.e., a "regular person"). It is probably sufficient to be a shopkeeper with a ready .45, and possibly even more noble. In broad terms, the trader creates wealth, both for himself and for society, where the warrior can only protect and maintain that wealth, at best.
I have a couple of comments regarding the well-written essay linked by Mr. Flory. It certainly doesn't hurt to keep an eye on children not your own, or to take a minute to ensure a woman makes it safely to her car in a dark parking lot. It does not necessarily follow, though, that a person voluntarily schooled in the fighting arts has a moral obligation to enter into armed conflict to defend said woman, at the risk of his own life. The unarmed woman in the parking lot has no claim on the armed person's (the "warrior's") life or skills or work merely because she is unwilling to learn the fighting arts, or master the technology, that would enable her to defend herself.
The Spartans, while indeed fierce warriors, may have treated their own women well. They did not, however, accord the women of their enemies -- fellow Greeks -- the same level of respect, and performed the same raping and pillaging that has accompanied war over the millenia. They also lived in a regimented society that accepted torture, condoned the idea of killing young men who couldn't make the grade as warriors, and despised the trader and the concepts of monetary exchange upon which the prosperity of Western civilization is founded. So while they may have been civilized enough to give an old man a seat at the Olympics, they didn't actually uphold the ideas necessary to build a prosperous civilization, only a fascist state that stole from the Athenians and other Greeks. Leonidas and "The 300" may have indeed saved the budding Western civilization with their courage at Thermopylae, but they could never have built it, since the Spartans knew and celebrated only war -- which by definition is destruction.
As for our young men being a bunch of soft, unchallenged, video-game-playing crybabies...well, I think the skill and courage displayed recently in Iraq by our young Americans has demonstrated the speciousness of that argument.
I don't particularly want to be a "warrior," or "live the martial life," though if America needs me to fight, I will do so willingly. I would fight because America remains the last, best hope for a free and prosperous world, and I and my family deserve to live in such a world. I don't find it especially glamorous, nor do I think the traders and others who build society (rather than defend it) deserve the derision sometimes heaped upon them by the "warrior caste," whether they be real warriors or the all-too-prevalent armchair/Internet warriors.
Mike
A soldier is a person who chooses to serve in the military either for a short duration or for life, and who may or may not face combat. This isn't derogatory, as a supply clerk who gets his/her job done and keeps those on the sharp end of the stick is a soldier in my eyes and worthy of respect.
A warrior is a person who is either "born or bred" for combat. It is part of who they are, either through their inherent nature or their training. They can fulfill other roles, but they come alive in combat as it is the ultimate expression of their abilities.
A warrior is a person who is either "born or bred" for combat. It is part of who they are, either through their inherent nature or their training. They can fulfill other roles, but they come alive in combat as it is the ultimate expression of their abilities.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked