The identity principle, or someone is wrong.

"Obviously" means you're convinced. But reality is convinced by success. While you're pulling your dagger out of hiding, my small folder has slashed the mugger's arm open.
 
aguijonmagico said:
I agree, I like where you are going.
A hunter well, hunts.
Self defense can mean a lot of things...just thinking about Mr. Janich "responsible self defense" vs. pierce a vital organ mindset, for example.

Then, the answer could be that these very different knives DO HAVE reasons and logic behind them. But what changes is the point of departure, the axioms. So, what is debatable are those founding thoughts. The knives are only practical instrumentations of those thoughts.

Would you agree that the PHILOSOPHIES sustaining those knives are opposite? If so, one by logic must be wrong.
If don't, is simply because they are not opposite, but only merely different.
And the confusion comes, to me, if there is a confusion, from the knives themselves, wich seem opposite ends of the spectrum.

This is maybe prac tact, but I posted here because I'm talking about the spyderco knives. I would submit that zt has an unified philosophy behind his knives. Also, kershaw, benchmade, hk, Fox, Extrema Ratio, Busse, Esee, Hinderer.
And I would also wage that spyderco has CONTRADICTORY PHILOSOPHIES, wich szabo vs yojimbo 2 vs Civilian (I take the civilian example, thanks, you are spot on) I think prove.

That was my interest to explore. I don't want to bore you, americans have been called the romans of our time, you are practical people, you send rockets to the moon. We argentinians would debate if doing so is ethically right, while at the same time stealing the funds to do it.

I know it's wrong what I said about american, philosophy and theory are really big in America, you are a beacon of intellect for the rest of the world, we follow you.

Sadly, what I said about argentinians is true.

So I know there's bound to be in these great forums others not only like me, but way better, like the nice young fellas who posted above.
Peace out.
Click to expand...

It seems that you're making a very, very large amount of assumptions, as well as just making assertions of ideas that may or may not be true. Spyderco manufacturing more than one designer's design doesn't necessarily mean that they have any philosophies at all about self-defense. They could very well have no philosophy at all, but want to produce and sell a designer's design. Not necessarily the case either, but you're assertion is a shaky one, and one that doesn't give you as much a foundation as you may think.

Moreover, you say "Would you agree that the PHILOSOPHIES sustaining those knives are opposite? If so, one by logic must be wrong." That's another assertion that doesn't seem to be correct. I don't think the "philosophies" are opposite. I wouldn't call them philosophies at at all really, they're more like approaches to design. That being said, who says that "one by logic must be wrong"? It appears that you either don't know what logic actually means, don't know where and when to apply it, or don't know that something so simplistic as cutting something can naturally lead to different means to the end.

You take a beginning idea, scenario, or need, and throw it into a different locale, and you will get different results. You take self-defense in the Philippines and you have people from that locale defending themselves from others of that locale (presumably, maybe not) with knowledge that they've accrued from their time there. Then you've got self-defense in...wherever Szabo learned self-defense from...and the same evolution happens.

Take some Finches and toss them on different Galapagos islands... their notion is "eat food" and they end up with different ways of doing it. A short stubby beak is the "opposite" of a long thin one, it would seem. Neither is "wrong," because they clearly both get their respective task done. You make your own error when you apply a label that's not appropriate along with an assumption of meaning. To the finches, "eat food" could either mean crack tree nuts open, or pick bugs out of a tree or the ground. Very different approaches, both practically viable, both "correct". I don't see any marketing hype there.

Back to self-defense, you're using the idea of self-defense as having a specific approach, and that's just not accurate. There are too many variables in the cultural evolution of the idea of "self-defense" to place it in some area of "this notion is the correct one", especially when it really just focuses on cutting a person to harm them.
 
I think spyderco's only philosophy is "All of god's creatures have knives."

And guess what, there is a huge variation in how these natural "knives" are designed and work. Some are short and very curved, some are long and straighter, and everything in between.

I think the only single unified theory you will find across the board in the different self defense arts is that the mind is the single most powerful tool in your arsenal.

Are judo practitioners "more correct" in their style than kung fu practitioners? What about karate vs American kick boxing? Muay Thai vs boxing? Surely only one of these is "correct" and all the rest are wrong, no?

Or is it perhaps possible that if you just stretch your most powerful self defense tool a little bit, you'll come to understand how two different philosophies can be equally correct.
 
I like this thread, actually. There is good discussion to be had, here, if we could all stop being so defensive.

I know the Civillian concept is that you can place it in the hands of an inexperienced victim, they can swing it wildly at the attacker, and it is going to deal copious amounts of distressing damage because the blade is designed to do most of the work on it's own, hopefully giving the victim enough time and distraction to get away or get help.

As far as the other two, I'm not actually aware of the design philosophies behind them. I have read a bit about Janich and how he designs his blades in this fashion because he found that the orientation of the tip on a straight wharncliffe yields a significantly deeper slash than other blade styles.

I would love to learn more about the Janich and Szabo philosophies and perhaps draw a conclusion as to which is more practical.
 
J85909266 said:
I would love to learn more about the Janich and Szabo philosophies and perhaps draw a conclusion as to which is more practical.
Click to expand...

The practicality will depend on you.
Everyone moves differently. Everyone fights differently. Why be surprised that in our "one size does NOT fit all" world there would be different designs and methodologies to reach the same end-point?
 
By aguijonmagico's logic, I think I'll just by a set of Ginsu knives - they should meet all my needs for the next 30 years. Remember! They never have to be sharpened!

TedP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top