People often believe when they study " Kung Fu " that they are studying some fighting art. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. " Kung Fu" is the modern, misunderstood, form of " K'ung Fu Tse ( there are other written forms.) " One common spelling is " K'ung Fu Tzu." I believe, the " K'ung Fu Tse" spelling is most accurate in this case. K'ung Fu Tse essentially means " Philisophy of K'ung." The ancient Romans name for the philisopher K'ung was " Confucious." "Confucious" is generally thought to mean " he who brings ( or preaches ) harmony." The fighting science and art people often call " Kung Fu " is actually called "Wushu." :bow1:
Confucius = Kǒng Zǐ/Kǒng Fūzǐ = 孔夫子 Kung Fu = Gōngfu = 功夫 K'ung Fu Tse is the Wade-Giles system of romanization for Chinese characters which is highly inaccurate. Nobody uses it anymore except in certain occasion, or if you live in Taiwan. You should actually read The Analects before commenting on Confucius. To label him together with Martial Arts is disrespectful to say the least. Oh, and this piece of gold: No, you are retarded.
Fish of Doom, Yes, I know what the link you sent says, but I know history. Many people who are unstudied write stuff like what was written in that link you sent me. I am not insulting you. I am only saying they are unstudied who wrote that article. I am aware that even in China the monks misuse the phrase ( mainly to make money for the communist party from tourists. ) " Kung Fu" is these days used generically. Still, it doesn't change the truth. I have certain advantages in this arena. Firstly, you may have noted in my profile that it states that I am a full-time student. I point this out because I study more than anything. I am focused on achieving a Ph.D. in Middle Ages Studies. I am not there yet. However, I am quite the researcher. Though, I study as a major the middle ages, I, in my own time, also study Chinese history in depth. My wife is from Hong Kong and her family has played a huge well documented part in pre-communist China ( as her family moved to Hong Kong before the communists arrived but are not originally from Hong Kong.) They are very educated in not only modern Chinese language but all the way back to China's beginnings. In addition, My wife and I have a friend in China who is a professor in Shanghai who deals with Chinese linguistics and also Chinese history. I understand these things well, as I travel in circles that are educated in this area. I am not trying to sound disrespectful to you "Fish of Doom," I am only defending my position.
...which in no way does anything to refute the issue that what you are saying is incorrect. see infrazael's post for where you got mixed up (going by romanizations instead of by hanzi).
Infrazael, I did not label Confucious with martial arts. I was differentiating between the two. In this case, explaining that " Kung Fu" has nothing to do with martial arts, but that Wushu does and is what most think of as "Kung Fu." By the way, calling someone retarded as you called me is disrespectful and attacking me. Attacking someone or there character does not prove a point, it only shows the attacker has nothing valid to say.
The Romans didn't know anything about him btw so that does kind of undermine the entire rest of your post
Infrazael, I do not except as doctrine anything on-line as you have done and as Fish of Doom has done. I am a bookworm. I only come on-line to socialize. Of course, I do not except much of what is written in books as doctrine either, but when when two or more sources claim the same thing, then I give some thought to it.
So wrong.... go learn Chinese. Whats written in English thats translated from Chinese is words that "sound" like each other. Not a literal translation. Its like saying a Witch and Which are the same words as it sounds the same!
Hannibal, Actually the Romans did know about him, just as they knew of the silk road! Much that is excepted history is not accurate. Remember the Roman empire existed for a long time. In addition, they knew of the notables of many places. It should not be assumed because Rome and China did not have much to do with the other that they did not know about each other.
You have the sheer audacity to claim you know anything about Chinese history and then make a senseless, baseless, and completely ignorant statement like this? 孔 - Kǒng is the family name of 孔夫子 - Kǒng Fūzǐ, who was born named 孔丘 - Kǒng Qiū. In Chinese, the surname is placed prior to the given name. Please note that I'm going out of my way to put ALL the tonal marks so you can SEE the PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE between the characters and their given pronunciations. The suffix Fūzǐ - 夫子 best translates to as "teacher," or "master." When combined with his given name 孔 - Kǒng, you get "孔夫子 - Kǒng Fūzǐ" (who would have thought?) Let's look again at what you wrote: No, it doesn't. I just explained to you what it means, and you should REALLY go read my explanation. Multiple times. The "ancient Romans" barely had any contact with the Chinese except by way of trade via the Silk Road. There was hardly any interaction or cultural borrowing. The Roman Empire died around the mid 1400's. The FIRST recorded contact of a Westerner learning about Confucian philosophy was over one hundred years later by the Jesuit missionary and priest Matteo Ricci, who was on a mission to China. He was the one that started the usage of "Confucius-like" terminology that the Europeans used back in the day. Regardless, contact with China was highly minimal. There was literally zero cultural borrowing between Europe and China at that point. Matteo Ricci lived in the Papal States. The Roman Empire was already dead by this point. You're REALLY bad at this history stuff, aren't you? I take it you're one of those people that hates being wrong. REALLY HATES BEING WRONG. The only impression I'm getting is some omega-male complex for trying to sound like a knowledgeable scholar and posting silly rants to people that you initially perceive as being intellectually inferior as you. Or that somehow specialized knowledge in one area (if you are a major in the Middle Ages Europe) somehow gives credibility and knowledge into a similar, yet ultimately un-related area. Or that by somehow being married to a Chinese woman or having association with a "Chinese professor from Shanghai" that yourself is somehow more credible? That's a logical fallacy right there. Anyhow I'd like also to point out that unless he's a respected professor from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, it means very little. There are LOTS of universities in Shanghai. Only four are ranked. Out of those four the other three are meaningless in terms of prestige. I hope you learned something from all this. Which is, I know more about Chinese history than you do. Also, I hope you realize how goddamn disrespectful you are with your incessant babbling, nonsensical rhetoric and flawed logic to the Chinese culture and history which you thought you understood. Have a nice day, my time is done here.
You have though (it seems) made the assumption that we are not bookworms or interested in the origin of our chosen arts. We have here on MAP doctors, lawyers, physicists, those with degrees in languages and so on. Don't therefore be surprised when your own research is called into question.
Mushroom, I am learning Chinese. I have been married to a Chinese for more than a decade. I have always felt that knowing Chinese would be a good. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next, I suppose you folks are going to claim that the American Civil War was over slavery? And that in the American Revolution years before,the " Americans" faced primarily British Army personell in the field?
Infrazael, I understand your points. But I don't have sufficient evidence to counter what I learned from the Chinese professor friend and his associates. The philosophy of K'ung was known to others outside China, despite the fact that Romans and Chinese had no intercourse virtually. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon s, I do not assume that no one here is not a bookworm. i only stated what I said about "on-line" because both things that were said earlier to me were on-line sources. I wasn't stating anything against any individual.
You are wrong - Period. Stick with Chinese history because your Ancient European history is way off (and yes I hold academic qualifications relating to the history of that period before you ask)
Nice. Appeal to authority AND a Red Herring completely ignoring what you ACTUALLY WROTE. Let me get it for you again, since you seem to have memory problems. You are so good at destroying your own arguments. (the sad thing is, his "authority" figure is ambiguous and purposefully vague as well. I also know of some "Chinese professors" in China. Herp derp.) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html This is what you wrote: Here's the thing. You made a claim that the name "K'ung Fu Tse" means "Philisophy (nice typo) of K'ung. Now you ignore that claim and make a NEW claim, claiming you were talking about the connection between the Romans and China. I wrote two paragraphs explaining to you why this is incorrect. Please go read it. Peruse heavily. Read it repeatedly. Don't be lazy and skim. If you are the intellectual giant you claim to be, then come back after you had read my points and try to counter them, point-by-point. Until then, empirical data and logical consistency is in in my court. The balls' in yours. What are you gonna do about it, SMALL SON???
I still hold my ground, that my Chinese professor friend and his associates would have a better understanding of these things than anyone who has proffered a thought on this topic in this thread so far ( myself included.) If anyone can show me evidence ( real evidence not 'wiki' evidence ) to contradict what i said I would be interested supremely in seeing it. I have not seen anything to contradict what I said earlier.
