While it might seem odd at first to include atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism in a series on religion, these three systems of thought should be addressed here. Religion is sometimes defined as whatever about which a man is deeply concerned,1 and it is to such concerns that we now turn. Everyone, even the nontheist, attempts to make sense of and explain the reality around him While those who believe in some form of God attribute this world's existence in some way to that God (or gods); the atheist, agnostic, and skeptic form an alternative naturalistic explanation for this world.
Since our space is limited, we usually will refer to the three views as one, recognizing the great overlap among them. Where their distinctions are important we will point them out. After defining the three terms we will review briefly the history of the nontheistic (apart from God) movement. Then we will discuss five kinds of objections which represent most of the arguments brought by nonbelievers against a belief in God. These five objections include problems in the areas of language, knowledge, moral concepts, scientific method, and logic. Since this is to be a survey of nontheistic religions, and not a presentation of Christianity, we will not present systematic proofs for the existence of God, but we will present short theistic resolutions to the five problems mentioned. We have included the names of the major philosophers whose writings would be helpful in understanding these areas of belief.
Definitions
Atheism
The word atheism comes from the Greek prefix a (no or non-) and the noun theos (god or God). An atheist is one who believes that there exists positive evidence that there is no God. To the atheist, all of existence can be explained naturally rather than supernaturally. An atheist is convinced that all religious belief, evidence, and faith are false.
Popular authors and philosophy professors William and Mabel Sahakian explain it as follows:
Unlike Agnostics, the Atheist takes a definite stand, arguing that proof regarding God's existence or nonexistence is available, but that the evidence favors the assumption of nonexistence (William and Mabel Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966, p. 100).
Bishop Charles Gore summarizes atheistic belief as presupposing
that we see in the world of which we form a part no signs of anything corresponding to the mind or spirit or purposes which indisputably exist in man – no signs of a universal spirit or reason with which we can hold communion, nothing but blind and unconscious force (Charles Gore, The Reconstruction of Belief, London: John Murray, 1926, pp. 45,46).
Historically, atheism sometimes refers to a rejection of only particular gods or a particular God. Hans Schwarz informs us that :
When the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, for instance, declared that the sun was an incandescent stone somewhat larger than the Peloponesus, he was accused of impiety or atheism and forced to leave his hometown Athens (Hans Schwarz, The Search for God, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1975, p. 16).
Plato in his Laws X (c. 352-350 B C ) defined two basic kinds of atheists: those who are sincerely convinced God (or gods) does not exist; and those who assert that there is no place for God (or gods) in this world. The first kind of atheist is considered moral and upright while the second kind is seen as an anarchistic (without law) threat to society.2 Socrates may have been put to death for being this second kind of atheist. Again, Schwarz notes,
...when Socrates was indicted for "impiety" in 399 B.C. on grounds that he had corrupted the young and neglected the gods during worship ceremonies ordered by the city and had introduced religious novelties, he was sentenced to death and was condemned to drink the hemlock within twenty-four hours. But Socrates' position and that of other atheists was far from being atheistic in the modern sense (ibid., p. 17).
Agnosticism
Agnosticism comes from the Greek prefix a- (no or non-) and the noun gnosis (knowledge, usually by experience). An agnostic is one who believes there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God or gods. Agnostics criticize the theist and the atheist for their dogmatism and their presumption of such knowledge.
William and Mabel Sahakian say that agnosticism "refers to a neutralist view on the question of the existence of God; it is the view of the person who elects to remain in a state of suspended judgment" (Sahakian and Sahakian, Ideas, p. 100}.
The Runes Dictionary of Phi1osophy defines agnosticism as:
l. (epist.} that theory of knowledge which asserts that it is impossible for man to attain knowledge of a certain subject-matter. 2. (theol.) that theory of religious knowledge which asserts that it is impossible for man to attain knowledge of God (Dagobert D. Runes, ed, Dictionary of Philosophy, Totowa, NJ. Littlefield, Adams 8. Company, 1960, 1962, p.&).
This is complemented by Peter Angeles' Dictionary of Phi1osophy, which defines agnosticism as:
1. The belief (a) that we cannot have knowledge of God and (b) that it is impossible to prove that God exists or does not exist. 2. Sometimes used to refer to the suspension of judgment ..about some types of knowledge such as about the soul, immortality, spirits, heaven, hell, extraterrestrial life (Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, New York: Harper S Row, Publishers, 1981, p. 20).
There are two types of agnostics. One type says there is insufficient evidence but leaves open the possibility of sometime obtaining enough evidence to know with certainty. The second type is convinced that it is objectively impossible for anyone to ever know with certainty the existence or non-existence of God or gods.
William and Mabel Sahakian add this distinction to their definition of agnosticism (see above):
One group of Agnostics assumes that it merely lacks the facts necessary to form a judgment and defers any conclusion pending the acquisition of such facts; another group assumes a more dogmatic position, contending that facts are not available because it is impossible now (and will continue to be impossible) to obtain these facts – a view exemplified in Immanuel Kant's attacks upon the traditional arguments for the existence of God (Sahakian and Sahakian, Ideas, p. 100)
Christian authors Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg also point out the distinction between the two kinds of agnostics:
One form of agnosticism claims that we do not know if God exists; the other insists that we cannot know. The first we'll call "soft" and the second "hard" agnosticism We are not here concerned about "soft" agnosticism, since it does not eliminate in principle the possibility of knowing whether God exists. It says in effect, "I do not know whether God exists but it is not impossible to know. I simply do not have enough evidence to make a rational decision on the question." We turn, then, to the "hard" form which claims that it is impossible to know whether God exists (Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 296)
Skepticism
Skepticism is derived from the Latin scepticus (inquiring, reflective, doubting). The Latin in turn comes from the Greek scepsis (inquiry, hesitation, doubt). The Greeks used the word to refer to a certain school of philosophical thought, the Skeptics3 (see History below), who taught that because real knowledge is unattainable, one should suspend judgment on matters of truth. This meaning is carried in Runes' Dictionary of Phi1osophy:
A proposition about a method of obtaining knowledge: that every hypothesis should be subjected to continual testing; that the only or the best or a reliable method of obtaining the knowledge of one or more of the above kinds is to doubt until something indubitable or as nearly indubitable as possible is found; that wherever evidence is indecisive, judgment should be suspended; that knowledge of all or certain kinds at some point rests on unproved postulates or assumptions (Runes, Philosophy, p. 278).
This is confirmed by B. A. G. Fuller's A History of Philosophy, where he reminds us that the "role of skepticism is to remind men that knowing with absolute certainty is impossible" (B. A G. Fuller, A History of Philosophy, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955, vol. II, p. 581).
Peter Angeles shows in his definition of skepticism that there is a range of belief within the system He writes that skepticism is:
l. A state of doubting. 2. A state of suspension of judgment. 3. A state of unbelief or nonbelief. Skepticism ranges from complete, total disbelief in everything, to a tentative doubt in a process of reaching certainty [Angeles, Philosophy, p. 258).
While skepticism is sometimes synonymous with certain definitions of agnosticism, other writers distinguish between skepticism and agnosticism as does Warren Young, who writes:
Skepticism carries the negative attitude a step farther than agnosticism, denying the possibility of human knowledge. Truth in an objective sense is unattainable by any means within man's reach (Warren Young, A Christian Approach to Philosophy, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954, p.61)
Keeping in mind Geisler and Feinberg's two kinds of agnosticism (see above under the definition of agnosticism), their comments on the differences between agnosticism and skepticism are important. They write,
The skeptic neither affirms nor denies God's existence. And in contrast to the (hard) agnostic, the skeptic does not say it is impossible to know. For (hard} agnosticism too is a form of dogmatism – negative dogmatism The skeptic claims to take a much more tentative attitude toward knowledge. He is not sure whether a man can or cannot know God. In fact, the complete skeptic is not sure of anything (Geisler and Fein-berg, Philosophy, p. 299).
Because of the overlap of definitions for atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, it is at times difficult and even unnecessary to distinguish one's usage of the terms. What is most important to remember is that most nonreligious people, while they may label themselves with one of the three terms, usually have no clear understanding of how their own views fit one category but not the others. A person may be regarded as an atheist but, in actual practice, fall under the common definition of an agnostic. Another person may be regarded as a skeptic but admit to the possibility of change to accept some universal truths. If someone questions everything, the title "skeptic" can be applied. But since certainty might be found someday it would be appropriate to be seen as an agnostic. However, if at this time that person does not believe in God, is "atheist" the proper term'. While the three terms are useful to us (as in reading other philosophy works), the terms are relatively unimportant in most personal encounters. If we can establish what someone believes about knowledge, about obtaining knowledge, and about the ultimate meaning of existence, then we can deal with that person on the level at which he is comfortable. In such a situation, the label of atheist, agnostic, or skeptic is unimportant.
History
As we look at brief histories of atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, we will reverse our order of discussion to reflect the chronological development of these three areas of philosophical thought. There have been skeptics, atheists, and agnostics throughout the history of mankind, and we will treat skepticism first, then atheism, and finally agnosticism
Skepticism
The Greek schools of Skepticism began around 365 B.C. The first skeptic philosopher of note was Pyrrho of Elis (365-275 B.C.). The Pyrrhonic School held that skepticism was so pervasive that even their theory of skepticism was not certain. Skepticism was adopted as a way to avoid mental and emotional distress caused by conflicting data.
... the central idea of the early Skeptics was to avoid mental insecurity or doubt by abstaining from judgment on issues; suspension of judgment (epoche) became the fundamental theory of Skepticism. The policy of withholding judgment applied not only to metaphysical and logical questions, but also to value judgments pertaining to right conduct, the good, and the desirable....
The Skeptics, who were called the doubters, suspenders of judgment, and inquirers, based their philosophy on the premise that since we can know nothing of ultimate reality, then such basic things are matters of indifference to us, and they must be treated as inconsequential (William Sahakian, History of Philosophy, New York: Harper 8. Row, Publishers, 1968, pp. 48,49).
A second school of Skepticism is called Academic Skepticism, or the Middle Academy. Its leaders were Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolia (315-241 B.C ), Carneades of Cyrene (214-129 B.C.), and Clitomachus (187-109 B.C.). The basic premise of Academic Skepticism is summarized well by Sahakian:
The Academic Skeptics set forth the fundamental premise that they could know only one thing, namely, that nothing is knowable (ibid., pp. 49,50).
The Academics spent most of their efforts attacking the teachings of the Stoics,4 and their presentation of Skepticism was often done in direct contrast to Stoicism. Arcesilaus stated that, while one could not know, even about ethics, one could judge probability and that, in fact, one should order his life by probability. He was followed by Carneades, who postulated three degrees of probability.
l. In the first place, we have mere probability, where we act with little or no observation of similar situations to help us, and where the chances therefore are about fifty-fifty, but seem worth taking in view of what we shall gain if we win.
2. Secondly, we have undisputed probability, where empirical observation shows us that other people have repeatedly taken the same chances successfully and to their advantage, and have never lost. Here the face-value of the probable truth and reliability of an impression is backed up by all the other impressions and notions related to it.
3. Finally, we may be able to act upon chances that not only look worth taking on a fifty-fifty basis and are uncontradicted and backed up by the experiences of other people, but have been thoroughly investigated and found to have solid reasons for taking them. In other words, we may be able to discover a "system" for life's gamble that mathematically, so to speak, ought to work. Then, says Carneades, we have a basis for action that is probable, undisputed, and tested (Fuller, Philosophy, pp. 277,278}.
Clitomachus (sometimes spelled Cleitomachus) was the third leader. He attacked the three degrees of probability, opting for a more uniform system of Skepticism
Sensationalistic Skepticism was the last of the classical schools of Skepticism. Its two most prominent leaders were Aenesidemus of Gnossus (first century B.C.) and Sextus Empiricus (200 A.D.). Aenesidemus exposed what he felt were fallacious tests for truth: sensation and confirmed opinion. He felt that these were subjective tests and could not be trusted. However, he had no objective tests for truth and instead was a confirmed skeptic, viewing life and existence as uncertain but livable on the basis of custom and probability. Sextus Empiricus was a doctor, from the empiricist school of doctors, and he put forth the maxim that life should be ordered by observation, or empiricism. Loyal to skepticism, Sextus promoted the study of Socrates' remark, "All that I know is that I know nothing." Sextus set forth his skepticism as follows:
The arche, or motive, for skepticism was the hope of reaching ataraxia, the state of "unperturbedness." .. Sextus Empiricus' skepticism had three stages: antithesis, epode (suspension of judgment), and ataraxia. The first stage involved a presentation of contradictory claims about the same subject. These claims were so constructed that they were in opposition to one another, and appeared equally probable or improbable.... The second state is epode, or the suspension of judgment. Instead of either asserting or denying any one claim about the subject at hand, one must embrace all mutually inconsistent claims and withhold judgment on each of them The final stage is ataraxia, a state of unperturbedness, happiness, and peace of mind. When that occurs one is freed from dogmatism. He can live peacefully and un-dogmatically in the world, following his natural inclinations and the laws or customs of society (Geisler and Feinberg, Philosophy, pp. 85, 86).
Skepticism died out for the most part during the ascendancy of Christianity. It did not become a noticeable philosophical movement again until the post-Reformation period of western European thought with Bishop John Wilkins (1614-1672) and Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680). They are sometimes called "mitigated skeptics." While clinging tenaciously to one area of skepticism, they compromised by not embracing skepticism as the answer to all knowledge problems in all fields. They distinguished between two types of knowledge. The first type, which they agreed was unreliable, was called "in-fallibly certain knowledge." Nothing, in other words, could be known infallibly and certainly. However, the second type of knowledge, by which one could order life, was called "indubitably certain knowledge." This was knowledge that one had no reason, experience, evidence, or report by which to doubt its veracity. Using this knowledge, Wilkins and Glanvill developed their own system of determining truth within the limits of "reasonable doubt."
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) wrote at the same time as Wilkins and Glanvill, although he is not considered to be a "mitigated skeptic." As a Christian theist, he used skepticism as a tool to prove the existence of God. Rather than seeing skepticism as an end in itself, he saw it as the way to begin to show the undeniability of the existence of God.
For Descartes, skepticism was not the conclusion of some argument, but the method whereby all doubt could be overcome. Descartes claimed that it is possible to arrive at indubitable knowledge through the rigorous and systematic application of doubt to one's beliefs (ibid., p. 91) .
From the time of Descartes, the majority of such thinkers have been atheists or agnostics. We will treat some of these skeptical thinkers more thoroughly in the historical sections on atheism and agnosticism. However, we will mention them briefly here.
David Hume (1711-1776) is known as a metaphysical5 skeptic. He believed that it was impossible to have any accurate knowledge about anything metaphysical. He pointed out that standards of probability for beliefs go beyond our immediate experience and must be accepted with some measure of faith.
Nicholas Horvath in his book, Philosophy, explains that: Hume claimed that only sense-knowledge based on experience is possible. Ideas are mere copies of sense impressions. Impressions and ideas constitute the human intellect. Ideas are not entirely unconnected; there is a bond of union between them and one calls up another. This phenomenon is called association of ideas.
Neither material nor spiritual substances exist in reality; their ideas are purely imaginative concepts, being nothing other than a constant association of impressions. Likewise there is nothing in man's experience that justifies a notion of necessary connection or causation; cause and effect designate merely a regular succession of ideas. Since the principle of causality is mere expectation due to custom, no facts outside consciousness are known to man.
Granted the negation of substance, the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul are only hypothetical. Freedom of will is an illusion; virtue is that which pleases, and vice is that which displeases (Nicholas A. Horvath, Phi1osophy, Woodbury, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1974, pp. 88,89).
More recently, A. J. Ayer (1910-1970), a limited skeptic, taught that any talk about metaphysics is meaningless. In addition, Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important of all the so-called "irrational" skeptics, asserted that there is no meaning, no knowledge that is objectively true, and no objective value. The entire history of skepticism has the same basic theme. It suspends judgment about truth. At various times skeptics have said that even their statement of skepticism is doubtful. At other times they have said that the one non-skeptical statement is the same statement, that skepticism is doubtful.
Atheism
Although the term atheism as a reference to the belief that God (or gods) does (do) not exist dates from the late sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli (d 1527) had already promoted a social ethic which did not depend on belief in, or the existence of, a supreme God. In his satirical essay, The Prince, he taught that the ruler ought to rule wisely and justly in order to secure his position and to satisfy his ego, rather than to satisfy some divine mandate. Machiavelli was one of the first to champion the then novel idea that "the end justifies the means." He argued that a ruler should not burden his subjects too much, not because it would be morally wrong to do so, but because it would not be expedient, for his oppressed subjects would then be more likely to revolt, depose him, and perhaps even kill him for his cruelty. Although Machiavelli cannot be termed an actual atheist, his system for successful governorship does not depend on, or presuppose, any divine order to this world.
Ideas from many philosophers, not all of whom were actually atheists, helped shape the atheistic philosophy of today.
During the enlightenment of the eighteenth century, Baron P H. T. d'Holbach referred to an atheist as
a man who destroys the dreams and chimerical beings that are dangerous to the human race so that men can be brought back to nature, to experience, and to reason (Enclyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, et. al. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1978, Macropaedia, II, p. 2,59).
As a brief and circumscribed overview of the history of atheism, we will review some of the contributions to modern atheism made by Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, Nietzsche, Jaspers, and Sartre. Ideas from philosophers such as Bayle, Spinoza, Fichte, and Hume, although not mentioned here, also contributed to the development of modern atheistic thought.
Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) was the man whose writings became an inspiration for the modern atheistic movement. He was one of the first prominent philosophers to advance the idea that God6 was dependent upon the world at least as much as the world was dependent upon God. He said that without the world God is not God. In some way, God needed His creation. This was the first step in saying that, since God was not sufficient in Himself, He was then unnecessary and ultimately imaginary.
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) was an early prominent atheistic philosopher. He denied all supernaturalism and attributed all talk about God to talk about nature. Man, he said, is dependent not on God, but on nature. Feuerbach promoted what is sometimes referred to as the wish-fulfillment idea of God He postulated that the idea of God arose as a result of men desiring to have some sort of supernatural Being as an explanation for their own existence and the events they observed around them This wish, or desire, was the seed from which the God-myth grew. Feuerbach thought this hypothesis proved that God actually did not exist.
Hegel and Feuerbach strongly influenced Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his collaborator, Frederich Engels (1820-1895). Marx, an avowed atheist, preached that religion is the opiate of the people and the enemy of all progress. Part of the task of the great proletariat revolution is the destruction of all religion.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was an early contemporary of Marx and Engels. He believed that God was an irrelevant superstition. As a result, Comte divided human development into three main stages:
"the Theological, or fictitious," "the Metaphysical, or ab-stract" and the Scientific, or positive." In the first the human mind looks for first causes and "supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings." The second is a transitional stage where the mind searches for "abstract forces" behind phenomena. But in the third and ultimate stage man's mind applies itself to the scientific study of the laws according to which things work. God and the supernatural are left behind as irrelevant superstition (Colin Brown, Phi1osophy and the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 241, 142).
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is often called the Father of the Death of God School. He laid the cornerstone for later nihilists by teaching that since God does not exist, man must devise his own way of life.
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1971} were two prominent existentialist thinkers who discussed the ambiguous (and therefore meaningless) nature of religious transcendence. In addition, Heidegger stressed that one's salvation lay in his own independence as an individual separated from every other individual, including, of course, any sort of God.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1981} was the most popular proponent of existentialism. He argued that man not only creates his own destiny, but that each man has only himself as the sole justification for his existence. There is no ultimate, objective, eternal meaning to life. An individual simply exists without reference to others.
A good example of atheistic perspective is contained in the Humanist Manifesto (1933). It was composed and signed by leading secular humanists who declared, in part, that "Humanism is faith in the supreme value and selfperfectability of human personality " Although there have been many other important thinkers in the history of atheism, these are representative of the most influential contributors shaping modern atheistic thought. Other modern atheistic thinkers are discussed in some of the references mentioned in the bibliography.
Agnosticism
Although agnosticism is a very broad field, we have chosen to limit our historical discussion of it to three of the most influential philosophers in its recent expressions. As we stated before, there is some overlap among atheism, agnosticism and skepticism, and many of the philosophers important in the development of one are also important to the others.
David Hume (1711-1776}, known for promoting metaphysical skepticism, showed the close marriage between skepticism and agnosticism. As a British Empiricist, he declared that the probabilistic standards for beliefs go beyond our immediate experience. We act on faith, then, not on knowledge. We do not know for sure: we are agnostic. However, we still act, having chosen to trust faith while at the same time being prepared for faith to let us down. Belief is not to be confused with ultimate truth, which is unknowable.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), although a theist, developed Hume's skepticism into metaphysical agnosticism. He believed it was impossible to know reality and consequently impossible to know metaphysical reality.
Colin Brown credits T. H. Huxley (1825-1895) with the term agnostic.
The word agnosticism is of much more recent coinage. It is generally ascribed to T. H. Huxley, the Victorian scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, who devised it to describe his own state of mind. He used it, not to deny God altogether, but to express doubt as to whether knowledge could be attained, and to protest ignorance on 'a great many things that the-ists and the-ites about me professed to be familiar with' (ibid., p. 132) .
Hume, Kant and Huxley represent a short history of contemporary agnosticism, which is distinguished by its assertion that one cannot know. Other prominent agnostics include Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Difference and Equation of Philosophy, Science Philosophy and Science
Difference and equation of philosophy, science philosophy and science; Four Philosophy Science question: characteristic, procedure, condition of, cognate status; Four dot look into science philosophy: consistent, presentation (exposition), discipline, criteriolog order second; Constructivist; Basis for erudite research: deductive and inductive; Logic: formal (material and shape) content.
Difference and equation of philosophy, science philosophy and science
Its equation: philosophy goodness and science and also science philosophy have same items object that is, human being, eternity and world. Evaluate about human being will bear human being philosophy. Evaluate about world bear natural philosophy. Evaluation about God and eternity will bear the infinite philosophy. Human being wandering in world have directionally (internationalities) to that good God in for in life, hence delivering birth ethics philosophy. Human being wandering that have desire to know and recognize, hence delivering birth science philosophy, confessed by its truth.
Its difference: philosophy is an effort thinked systematically, methodical and comprehensif-holistic to look for because inmost from a problem of to its roots. Philosophize to mean to think radically to find truth root by base. Science philosophy is an research of continuation about itself science to question the way of its acquirement, erudite knowledge base and ground, erudite knowledge marking so that that knowledge can be justified theoretically and reflective. Science is an study experience of physical world regularly and systematic pass/through perception process, subdividing, estimate, examination, verification, to increase mind. That science goes into effect public, having the basis for justification and continues to expand. Difference of Science and science philosophy: can be differentiated pursuant to its intensity. Science represents one of much knowledge and has the character of eruditely (knowledge scientific), while science philosophy domicile it reside in to the other science. Science philosophy (science of science) and represent criteriology order second. Basis for the truth of science is erudite thinked that is thinking inductive and deductive and also intersubjective. Its Meaning Intersubyektive of its truth rate is confessed by man of science humanity.
Science philosophy raise four question that is: characteristic: what differentiating erudite research with other research; Procedure what have to be gone through by man of science; Condition of kinds of what have to reach by erudite clarification; Cognate status: how cognate status of erudite laws or principles. Who study that thing? Clear that one who is handicap bounce not possible to study that thing is.
Science continue to expand and all kinds of, but remain to have four approach dot. Fourth of dot look into that is consistence; presentation (exposition); discipline; a [n directive both (critelogy order second). Consistent of its meaning remain to be relied on important erudite theory. Here science philosophy has duty for the elaboration of that broader implication from science expanding. Presentation (exposition): it’s meaning leave from argument (exposition) anticipation (tendency and presupposition) all mans of science to nature which does not change, having regularity in nature with whole its implication. Philosophy science duty is to determine principal method so that do not be trapped by at target and appliance. Certain discipline: its meaning science discipline of have conception and clear theory and analyses and classification so that there are erudite clarity, so that clear progressively benefit and meaning from various erudite theory and concept. An directive both ( Order criteriology Second): There is three knowledge level that is: [both/ second] that is knowledge analysis, after first storey; level that is explaining fact ( science / fact of explanation) and storey; level zero that is knowledge of fact. related/relevant Science philosophy at directive mount two ( second - order-criteriology).
Constructivist: knowledge woke up to the occurrence observation inferences perceived. Inferences: is afirmation to one or some proposes to other pursuant to understanding of that proposes relation which undoubtedly in character. Process construction knowledge of human being for example our construkst, our experience domain and our experience structure network. Constructivism says that knowledge of result human being is result of human being construction. Their Construction knowledge human is being through their interaction with object, environment and experience. Its figures is Jean Piaget, Vygotsky.
Logic: Study Structure and aqal prinsip. Studied by non by mistake or truth, but valid. Become logic is efficiency to think valid. Logic investigates mind laws. That investigation happened by elaborating human being mind elements. Idea of that human being consists of congeniality element (word), decision element (recapitulating element and sentences) (conclusion). Logic converse about congeniality, recapitulating and decision - verification or recapitulating. Logic consists of: Formal logic: that is respective of aqal form (syllogism). Material logic: (fill): study about prepositions, ideas, opinion
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Filsafat Manusia: Teknologi Mendeterminasikan Manusia sebagai Penciptanya sendiri
TESIS POKOK FILSAFAT MANUSIA:
Proses teknologi menciptakan kebutuhan yang hanya dapat dipuaskan oleh teknologi. Teknologi mengubah masyarakat sehingga masyarakat tersebut harus menyesuaikan dirinya secara terbalik dengan perkembangan teknologi.
Di satu pihak teknologi membawa nilai-nilai manusia, di lain pihak teknologi menciptakan determinasi baru dalam kehidupan.
Pada konteks filsafat manusia, tesis ini hendak mengatakan :
Teknologi (modern) sebagai ciptaan manusia memiliki relasi tertentu dengan sang penciptanya (manusia), yaitu dapat semakin membantu, mempermudah, dan membangun kehidupan manusia atau dapat mengancam atau bahkan merusak manusia itu sendiri.
Penjelasan:
“Teknologi” tidak hanya berarti penerapan ilmu pengetahuan (tidak terpaku pada alat-alat) tetapi keseluruhan metode yang dicapai secara rasional dan memiliki efisiensi mutlak (dalam tahap perkembangan tertentu) dalam tiap kegiatan manusia. Perkembangan teknologi mengalami beberapa tahap: 1. tahap peralatan (berfungsi membantu organ-organ manusia), 2. tahap teknik energi (diciptakannya mesin sebagai sumber tenaga sebagai menggantikan kerja manusia), 3. tahap informasi (sebagai pengganti ingatan manusia untuk mengarahkan dan mengatur kerja mesin bagi manusia, juga informasi yang membantu mengorganisasikan hidup manusia).
Teknologi juga tidak lepas dari teknik dan struktur. Dalam hal teknik, teknologi mengandung alat, ketrampilan, serta pengetahuan. Dalam hal struktur meliputi ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya, yaitu asumsi-asumsi dasar tentang kenyatan dunia. Dengan demikian teknologi tidaklah netral secara politis, tidak berada dalam vakum, tetapi dalam struktur ekonomi, sosial, budaya.
Teknologi (modern) bersifat artifisial (non alamiah), otomatis (dengan sendirinya dan teknis matematis), kemajuan (pertambahan aplikasi, daya guna), monistis (teknik adalah “metode kerja” dengan berdasarkan hubungan bersama dari berbagai teknik lingkungan yang bermacam-macam, seperti industri dan keuangan, olahraga, kesehatan, dan pendidikan, dll), universal (kesatuan terjadi baik dalam lingkungan geografis maupun lingkungan perbedaan kualitatif tindakan-tindakan manusia, mis: teknologi komunikasi, otomotif, teknologi pertanian mengarungi alam, mensiasati iklim, maupun generasi). Kemudian teknologi juga memiliki otonominya sendiri, disebut otonomi teknik. Arti istilah ini adalah teknologi dapat berdiri, berkembang, dan memiliki kandungan potensi untuk mempengaruhi pengguna masuk ke dalam mekanisme yang ada padanya hingga menciptakan bentuk-bentuk ketentuan baru (mis. teknik transportasi menciptakan iklim jadual bagi pemakai jasanya).
Maka, oleh potensi otonomi yang mampu mengkondisikan penggunanya, proses (perkembangan) teknologi menciptakan kebutuhan manusia sejauh radius pengkondisian teknologi yang bersangkutan. Begitu teknologi diciptakan, maka suatu struktur permintaan yang berangkat akan terbentuk: dibutuhkan suku cadang, pengetahuan dan ketrampilan, serta teknologi baru. Artinya, kebutuhan-kebutuhan yang muncul akibat efek teknologi berjalan dalam koridor relasi manusia dengan teknologi tersebut. Misal:
- 1. untuk menjawab tantangan global maka sistem pengajaran disusun, standar pendidikan ditingkatkan, kaderisasi tenaga pengajar.
- 2. ketika transjakarta muncul lantas diperlukan tenaga supir, keamanan, sirkulasi karcis, hingga penambahan koridor baru. Dengan demikian teknologi menciptakan ketergantungan berefek. Aplikasi yang muncul kemudian tidak bisa lepas dari pengaruh sebelumnya dan masing-masing berdiri dalam kesatuan sistem.
Misalnya,
- Siaran bola langsung dari Inggris di Indoensia membuat orang mesti bangun dini hari, efeknya adalah kinerja kerja keesokan harinya (keadaan jelas berbeda dengan lingkungan geografis yang semakin dekat dengan tempat berlangsungnya pertandingan).
- Polusi udara dari kendaraan bermotor atau asap rokok lambat laun memunculkan undang-undang anti polusi (sebagai teknik kontrol atasnya) sehingga pemilik kendaraan bermotor: 1. membeli kendaraan yang ramah lingkungan, 2. menguji emisi gas kendaraannya dan semakin perhatian dengan kesehatan kendaraannya agar sesuai dengan aturan yang berlaku, atau 3. mungkin semakin was-was dengan petugas tramtib (sebagai perwujudan teknik pengorganisasian polusi) ketika memilih tempat yang tepat untuk merokok.
- Teknologi komputer dan teknik informasi yang masuk dalam lingkungan industri dan perkantoran membuat orang giat untuk menyesuaikan kemampuannya secara formal/informal guna masuk dalam persaingan lowongan kerja dan memperoleh penghasilan.
- Teknologi Barat membawa nilai-nilai manusiawi atau bahkan mengganggunya. Rasionalitas dalam teknologi yang berarti melihat pengalaman sebagai masalah yang dapat dianalisis, dan akibat-akibatnya dapat diukur dan dimanipulasi. Hal ini kontras terhadap cara berpikir Timur yang menekankn makna, mitos, dan simbol.
- Teknologi Barat juga menekankan efisiensi, produktivitas dalam perhitungan seksama input dan output. Sedangkan efisiensi bagi Timur diukur menurut estetik, rekreasional, persaudaraan.
- Teknologi Barat menekankan problem-solving dalam pendekatan terhadap alam dan peristiwa. Sedangkan Timur mendekatinya secara kontemplatif dan keselarasan alam. Dapat dilihat bahwa Barat menekankan penguasan terhadap alam sedang Timur memberi porsi kepada harmonitas hidup dengan alam.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Proyek Harmonisasi Korelasi Iman (Wahyu) dan Rasio (Akal)
Dalam usaha untuk mencari kaitan atau korelasi antara agama (syari’at) dengan filsafat, Ibn Rusyd kemudian menghasilkan tiga karya besar, antara lain: Hubungan antara Filsafat dan Syari’at (Fals al-Mafa fi ma bain-a I’Hikmah wa’l syari’ah mina-‘l- Ittishal); Penyingkapan tentang metode penalaran dalam Doktrin Agama (al-Khasyf ‘an Manhij al-‘Adilah fi’ ‘Aqa-id al-Millah l, serta Kerancuan dalam Kerancuan (Tahafut al-Tahafut).
Prinsip-prinsip umum Ibn Rusyd tentang korelasi antara agama dan filsafat.
1). Syari’at atau agama mengharuskan Kegiatan Berfilsafat
Dia mengawali filsafatnya dengan pembuktian bahwa Syari’at (al-Qur’an dan Hadis ) mengharuskan penalaran filsafat,
sebagaimana ia mengharuskan penggunaan demonstrasi logika-rasional (burhan manthiqi) untuk mengenal Allah dan segala ciptaan-Nya. Ibn Rusyd mencoba melakukan sebuah I’tibar yaitu penalaran untuk mencari tahu sesuatu yang tidak diketahui (majhul) dari sesutu yang diketahui.
Menurutnya, bila agama mengharuskan penalaran filosofis, maka diperlukan penakwilan atas nash-nash yang pada lahirnya tidak sesuai dengan akal, tapi tetntunya dengan syarat agara metode penakwilan atau ta’wil tidak bertentangan dengan kaidah-kaidah bahasa Arab. Maka segala sesuatu yang dicapai melalui penalaran logis , tapi bertentangan dengan makna lahir dari agama, maka makna lahir ini harus ditakwilkan, agar tidak terjadi benturan antara agama dengan rasio. Ditekankan juga bahwa sebuah upaya menakwil teks berdasarkan penalaran logis itu bisa saja bertentangan dengan sebuah ijma (kesepakatan umat) dalam persoalan-persoalan teoritis, selama kesepakatan itu tidak mungkin terealisir secara meyakinkan dari seluruh ulama di sepanjang masa. Jadi, hal terpenting yang perlu diperhatikan adalah: akal tidak mendustakan Syari’at atau sebaliknya.
2). Makna Esoteris (Bathin) dan Eksoteris (Zharir) dalam Syari’at
Menurut Ibn Rusyd, latar belakang munculnya nash-nash al-Qur’an dan Hadits yang di satu sisi mengharuskan suatu penakwilan untuk mengetahui pengertian-pengertian esoteris di dalamnya, dan nash-nash yang yang pada sisi lainnya menunjukkan makna eksoteris. Dalam mengetahui tingkat pemahaman manusia atas nash-nash Qur’an, ia membaginya dalam tiga kelompok:
- Al-Khithabiyyah (kalangan retoris), yakni mayoritas publik yang meyakini kebenaran melalui dalil-dalil retorika atau ceramah (khitabiyyah). Di sini adalah suatu pemahaman terhadap Kitab Suci secara liberal.
- Ahl al – Jadal (Kalangan dialektis), dan di antara merka adalah tokoh-tokoh Ilmu Kalam (mutakallimun, teolog). Tingkatan mereka lebih tinggi di atas orang awam tetapi belum sampai pada tingkat ahl-burhan.
- Ahl- Burhaniyyun (kalangan Falasifah). Kelompok ini berpendapat bahwa harmonisasi antara agama dan filsafat- menduduki posisi tertinggi.
Tingkatan-tingkatan fitrah dan kemampuan akal yang membagi manusia tiga golongan ini, secara pasti mengharuskan adanya perbedaan dalam hal metode memahami dan menangkap ajaran-ajaran agama. Bagi masyarkat awam dan setingkat, termasuk kaum dialektis, yaitu orang-orang yang belum mencapai tingkat penakwilan yang benar, metode yang tepat adalah mengimani nash-nash zharir, serta lambang-lambang dan tamsil-tamsil yang berkaitan dengannya. Tetapi bagi para cendikiawan ahl-burhan yang harus dilakukan adalah mengimani makna-makna esoteris (al-khafiyyah).yang mengungkapkan diri melalui lambang-lambang dan simbol-simbol yang mendekatkan pemahaman rasio, dan untuk mencapai langsung hakekat kebenaran itu diperlukan takwil atas nash-nash tersebut.
Menurutnya sebagian nash-nash agama mempunyai makan zharir yang tujukan untuk orang awam, sedang sebagian lagi mempunyai makna bathin, bersifat falsafi, dan dikhususkan kepada kalangan elit. Makna terakhir ini menampakkan dirinya melalui proses penakwilan atau penafsiran metoforis yang dilakukan oleh ahlinya. Ini berarti bahwa Qur’an dan Hadits benar-benar memuat beberapa pemikiran filosfis dan penggalian pemikiran-pemikiran ini wajib bagi orang yang mampu dan bagi orang yang memang ahlinya.
Di sini perlu ditekankan bahwa adanya nash-nash dalam Syari’at yang wajib ditakwilkan itu merupakan isyarat atau seruan agama untuk melakukan penalaran berfilsafat, karena tak mungkin menangkap makna-makna esoteris tersebut tanpa melalui penalaran filosofis.
3). Tata Aturan dan Kaidah Ta’wil
Ibn Rusyd memandang penting takwil ini sama-sama demi kebaikan Syari’at maupun filsafat. 1). Makna lahir atau eksoteris dari suatu nash merupakan makna yang sebenarnya yang dimaksud, dan bukan yang lainnya. Maka tidak bisa ditakwilkan lagi. 2). Makna lahir dari suatu nash bukanlah arti sebenarnya yang dimaksud, tetapi hanya sebagai perlambang dan simbol bagi kandungan makna atau pengertian yang dimaksudkan secara. 3). Makna lahir merupakan simbol atau perlambang bagi sebuah makna yang tersembunyi atau esoteris. Jenis makna ini tidak boleh dipahami dalam pengertian lainnya semata, tapi harus ditakwil dan dijelaskan melalui penakwilan yang berlaku bagi semua orang. 4). Makna lahir merupakan sebuah perlambang atau simbol. Namun bagi kaum awam perlu diberikan dalam bentuk tamsil atau perumpamaan yang lebih mendekati tingkat pemahaman dan pengetahuan mereka. 5). Makna lahir merupakan simbol atau perlambang bagi makna yang tersembunyi, tetapi tidak jelas bahwa ia adalah simbol kecuali dengan pengetahuan mendalam.
Ibn Rusyd selanjutnya mengatakan bahwa untuk menghindari penafsiran atau ta’wil yang semena-mena dan menghebohkan maka kaum awam hendaknya menjauh pendekatan penakwilan. Maka, untuk menghindari konsekuensi-konsekuensi buruk ini, yang bisa berakibat fatal bagi persoalan harmonisasi antara agama dan filsafat, secara umum, seharusnya tidak mengungkap secara terbuka masalah penakwilan dan hasil-hasilnya, lebih-lebih melakukan pembuktian demonstratif (burhani) bagi orang-orang yang bukan ahlinya. Peru pula menjauhkan ta’wil dari tulisan retorik dan dialektika yang dikonsumsi oleh awam. Dengan demikian, kebahagiaan masyarakat awam terletak pada kesungguhan mengimani nash-nash lahir semata, tanpa harus menyelam ke dalam makna-makna esoterik. Sebab tujuan mereka adalah meramal. Bagi kalangan elit, tujuan utama mereka adalah keduanya sekaligus, yaitu mengetahui dan beramal. Kebahagiaan mereka terletak pada penakwilan nash-nash yang memang harus ditakwilkan untuk mengetahui makna-makna yang tersembunyi dan yang dimaksudkan secara hakiki. Bagi Ibn Rusyd, tak satu pun dalam al’Qur’an maupun Hadits nash-nash yang disebut mutasyabihah, tidak bagi kalangan ulama yang mendalam pengetahuannya, yang berkewajiban menakwilkan nash-nash yang dianggap mutasyabihat ini, juga tidak bagi kaum awam dan yang setingkat dengan mereka, yang diwajibkan mengimani dan mempercayai semua arti lahiri dari nash-nash agama tersebut tanpa membahas dan memikirkan penakwilan. Hal kalangan mutakallimun-lah yang merasakan dan mengalami adanya nash-nash jenis mutasyabihah. Mereka ini lebih tinggi dari kaum awam namun belum setingkat dengan kaum falasifah.
Pandangan Ibn Rusyd yang tegas ini berimbas pada proyek harmonisasi antara wahyu dan rasio yang canangkannya, dengan menandaskan adanya nash-nash agama yang harus ditakwilkan oleh ahl-u ‘l-burhan (yakni kaum falasifah), karena dalam pandangannya mengartikan nash-nash tersebut menurut makna lahiriahnya bisa berarti kekufuran. Sementara kaum awam harus mengartikan nash-nash itu berdasarkan makna lahiriah, dan kalau mereka menakwilkannya maka itu bisa berarti juga kekufuran. Ibn Rusyd sendiri sadar bahwa ia dan kaum falasifah pasti akan mendapat hujatan terhadap hikmah maupun terhadap Syari’at. Ibn Rusyd mengecam para teolog, terutama kaum Mu’tazilah dan Asy’ariyah, yang menetapkan penakwilan-penakwilan dalam karangan-karangan mereka yang banyak tersebar di antara orang awam. Dan ini menjadi mereka terpecah belah dan mengoyak-ngoyak keutuhan Syari’at. Ibn Rusyd sendiri tidak lupa bahwa dalam kritiknya ia puna menyadari bahwa sering mengalami kejatuhan dalam hal itu. Hal itu dimaksudkannya untuk menghindari resiko bagi kaum awam di kemudian hari.
4. Batasan Kemampuan rasio dan Kaitan Antara Wahyu dan Akal
Persoalan ini banyak dibicarakan pada awal abad pertengahan seperti Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm dan Abelardus dari kalangan nasrani. Tinjauan atas problematika hubungan antara wahyu dan akal, sudah dimulai, dan hal itulah yang dibuat oleh Ibn Rusyd. Bagaimana pun pengakuan dan penghargaannya kepada akal dan kemampuannya untuk mengetahui, Ibn Rusyd menyatakan bahwa ada persoalan-persoalan yang tidak mampu ditangkap oleh akal. Oleh karena itu akal harus kembali kepada ajaran wahyu sebagai pelengkap bagi pengetahuannya, karena segala sesuatu yang tidak mampu diketahui akal, Allah akan melimpahkan kepada manusia pengetahuan melalui wahyu. Persoalan-persoalan yang tidak mampu dipahami dan diketahui oleh akal menurut Ibn Rusyd adalah sebagai berikut: Pengetahuan tentang Allah dan masalah kebahagiaan dan kesengsaraan manusia di kehidupan dunia ini dan kehidupan akhirat kelak, termasuk sarana untuk mencapai kebahagiaan dan hala-hal yang menyebabkan kesengsaraan tersebut. Ibn Rusyd melihat kenyataan bahwa para filsuf (Yunani) menganggap kelangsungan hidup dan kebahagiaan manusia di dunia ini dan di akhirat tergantung pada nilai-nilai mulia yang sifatnya teoritis-spekulatif. Artinya, persoalan-persoalan tersebut tidak akan diketahui dengan jelas hakekat dan pastik kecuali melalui wahyu. Karena filsafat dimaksudkan untuk memperkenalkan serta mengajarkan serta mengajarkan kepada sebagian manusia bagaimana mencapai kebagiaan, yakni mereka yang telah memiliki kesiapan dan kemampuan untuk mempelajarinya. Sedangkan Syari’at ditujukan untuk mendidik dan mengajarkan manusiapada umumnya.Dalam karyanya Fashl al- Maqal, Ibn Rusyd menegaskan ketinggian posisi akal dengan kemampuannya mencapai kebenaran-kebenaran dalam bentuk-bentuk simbol dan perlambang-perlambang kepada khalayak awam. Dana kebenaran tersebut mampu dipersepsi oleh akal seorang filsuf secara murni dan tanpa ragu-ragu. Maka, makna-makna agama terbagi kepada makna lahiri (eksosteris), yang berbentuk pengungkapan-pengungkapan metaforis dan simbolik atas makna-mkana batini (esoteris) dan kepada makna batini atau esoteris yang hakekat kebenarannya hanya dicapai oleh kalangan falasifah (ahl-u ‘l-burhan).
Untuk memahami proyek harmonisasi Ibn Rusyd ini kita perlu memperhatikan apa minat atau tujuan (intensi) masing-masing karyanya. Kitab Fashl al-Maqal ma bain-a ‘l-Hikmah wa-l Syari’ah min-a ‘l-Ittihsha ditulis dengan satu maksud utama, yaitu, seperti ditunjukkan dalam judulnya, untuk menjelaskan korelasi atau titik temu antara filsafat dan agama, dan mengupayakan harmonisasi antara keduanya berdasar pada titik temu ini. Sementara Kitab al-Kasyf ‘an Manahij al-Adillah ditulis untuk melakukan penelitian tentang “makna lahiri dari doktrin-doktrin agama yang ditujukan kepada khalayak umum, dan untuk itu kita harus mengkaji secara sungguh-sungguh tujuan pembuat undang-undang (syari’at) sesuai keterbatasan dan kemampuan kita. Sedangkan Tahafut al-Tahafut ditulis untuk mengkritik karya Al-Gazali, Tahafut al-Falasifah. Namun dalam kedua buku terakhir tidak terlalu mengupas mengenai masalah harmonisasi antara agama dan filsafat serta korelasi antara keduanya, yang sebenarnya merupakan tujuan utama penulisan Fashl al-Maqal. Maka kedua karya terakhir harus ditafsirkan atau dinterpretasikan secara mendalam.
Ibn Rusyd juga berbicara tentang doktrin kenabian dan mukjizat. Dalam konteks kritiknya atas al-Gazali yang mengutip falasifah, Ibn Rusyd menyebutkan bahwa mukjizat adalah perkara yang mungkin dalam dirinya, dan tidak bertentangan dengan hukum alam dan rasio, dan faktor-faktor yang disebut Ibn Sina sebagai sesuatu yang melahirkan suatu mukjizat adalah hal-hal yang mungkin dan wajar terjadi, dan bahwa tidaklah semua yang menurut hakekat dan tabiatnya mungkin terjadi dapat dilakukan oleh manusia, dan ini ditunjukkan sendiri oleh dalil inderawi, observasi dan kenyataan realitas. Kedatangan Nabi membawa mukjizat, adalah mungkin bagi dirinya sendiri, kendati pun tertutup untuk manusia biasa. Menurut Ibn Rusyd, mukjizat merupakan salah satu sendi utama Syari’at, dan karena itu siapapun yang menjauhkan diri dan meragukannya harus diberi peringatan dan sanksi.
Di sini bisa disimpulkan bahwa pandangan-pandangan Ibn Rusyd yang terdapat dalam al-Khasyf dan Tahafut al-Tahafut yang terkesan tidak rasionalis, misalnya ia menempatkan wahyu di atas rasio serta menuduhkan rasio kepada wahyu, semua dimaksudkan untuk menenangkan perasaan para tokoh agam bahwa ia tetap bersama mereka. Namun, Ibn Rusyd tidak keluar dari keberadaanya sebagai rasionalis, bahkan menegaskan secara lebih tajam sikap rasionalisatnya, ketika ia menadaskan bahwa sesungguhnya setiap Nabi adalah seorang faylasuf. Ia pun tetap konsisten pada pandangan-pandangannya, terutama dalam pembagian tingkatan manusia menajdi beberapa kelompok sesuai dengan kesiapan dan kemampuan mental dan akal mereka; di antara mereka kelompok awam dan kelompok elit, yang masing-masing mempunyai pendekatannya sendiri dalam menyampaikan ajaran Agama. Dengan ini tercapailah harmonisasi antara akal dan wahyu, antara filsafat dan agama, yang masing-masing mempunyai maksud dan tujuannya sendiri dan agar tidak terjadi benturan satu sama lain.
Bagi Ibn Rusyd, kalangan elit (filsuf) tidak perlu menjelaskan kepada publik hal-hal yang berkenaan dengan pengetahuan-pengetahuan rasional yang tidak dijelaskan oleh agama. Menurutnya, dalam mencari makna realitas, ada hal-hal yang harus dikembalikan kepada wahyu karena rasio tidak mampu mengetahuinya, maka yang ia maksud adalah dengan rasio atau akal yang dikatakan tidak mampu mempersepsi persoalan-persoalan tersebut ialah rasio yang berproses dalam penalaran, bukan akal yang seorang Nabi yang juga merupakan seorang failasuf yang memperoleh pengetahuan tentang persoalan-persoalan ini melalui Akal Aktif.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Biografi dan Karya
Persoalan korelasi antara wahyu dan akal merupakan persoalan yang tidak gampang terpecahkan. Debat mengenai hubungan antara kedua selalu menemui jalan buntu. Hal itu dialami oleh setiap orang yang hendak mengadakan proyek harmonisasi terhadap keduanya. Ada dua hal yang perlu di catat: Pertama, orang akan berbenturan dengan sikap penghayatan religiusitas yang cukup mendalam dan dibentuk oleh pandangan teologi tradisional. Kedua,muncul kekhawatiran atau kecemasan bahwa agama (wahyu) akan kehilangan nilai religiusnya. Saya kira itu pula yang dialami oleh Muhammad Ibn Rusyd dari Andalusia. Pertanyaan yang perlu dijawab dalam paper ini adalah apakah sikap Ibn Rusyd ini akan lebih mengindahkan Filsafat dan mengorbankan doktrin-doktrin agama? Apakah proyek untuk menyingkapkan kebenaran yang bisa diargumen secara filosofis ini?
Pengaruh pemikiran Islam ternyata cukup berkembang sangat pesat di dunia Barat. Harus dikatakakan bahwa alam pemikiran dari Arab mempunyai peranan penting bagi perkembangan filsafat bara (Abad pertengahan) selanjutnya. Pada tahun 800-1200, kebudayaan Islam berhasil memilihara warisan karya-karya para filsuf dan kalangan ilmuwan zaman Yunani kuno. Kaum Intelektual dan kalangan kerajaan Islam menerjemahkan karya-karya itu dari Bahasa Yunani ke dalam bahasa Arab. Maka, pada waktu para pengikut Islam mendatangi Eropa (melalui Spanyol dan Pulau Sisilia) terjemahan karya-karya para filsuf Yunani itu, terutama karya-karya Aristoteles, sampai ke dunia Barat.
Abu Al-Walid Muhammda ibnu Ahmad ibnu Muhammad ibnu Rusyd dilahirkan di Cordoba, Andalus pada tahun 510 H/ 1126 M, sekitar 15 tahun wafanya al-Gazali. Ia dikenal dengan Ibnu Rusyd, Sang Komentator Karya Aristoteles, dan sebagai “al-Hafid” (“sang cucu”).Di barat ia disebut dengan nama Averrois. Keturunanya berasal dari keluarga terhormat yang terkenal sebagai tokoh keilmuan. Kakek dan ayahnya mantan hakim di Andalus dan ia sendiri pada tahun 565 H/ 1169 M diangkat pula menajdi hakim di Sevilla dan Cordova. Karena prestasinya yang luar biasa dalam ilmu hukum, pada tahun 1173 ia dipromosikan menjadi ketua Mahkamah Agung, Qadhi al-Qudha di Cordova. Ibnu Rusyd dibesarkan dalam lingkungan ilmiah seperti di Cordova; ia belajar fiqih, tauhid, ilmu-ilmu keislaman lainnya. Di bawah bimbingan ayahnya Abu Al-Qasim, ia mengkaji dan menghafal kita al-Muwathta; Kitab induk madzhab Imam Malik. Ia juga belajar bahasa dan sastra, mempelajari ilmu kedokteran. Ibnu Rusyd kemudian beralih jabatan mempelajari Filsafat dan ilmu-ilmu awa’il. Ia kemudian menjadi pemimpin dalam bidang Filsafat di masanya. Ia kemudian kita kenal sebagai seorang filsuf besar dan pemberi komentar atas karya-karya agung Aristoteles di dunia filsafat Islam.
Adalah seorang Ibn Thufayl yang meminta Ibn Rusyd untuk membuat ringkasan dan juga komentar atas karya-karya Aristoteles. Untuk menggarap proyek besar ini ia mengerahkan segala kemampuan akal dan hatinya untuk menjelaskan segala pikiran dan maksud Aristotele yang samar-samar, dan juga untuk meringkas serta membuat komentar agar seluruh ide-ide Aristoteles dapat dengan mudah dipahami.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Ada 4 Tokoh Eksistensialist
Ada 4 tokoh eksistensialist yang akan dijadikan acuan:
A. Kierkegaard
Baginya Eksistensi adalah suatu kesatuan, kumpulan fakta-fakta, yang tak dapat begitu saja disamakan dengan sejumlah sistem rekonstruksi pemikiran rasional. Artinya eksistensi mencakup berbagai macam hal dalam sebuah keberadaan, bukan hanya yang temporal, tetapi juga yang kekal. Bukan hanya yang teratur tetapi juga yang tak teratur.
B. Heidegger
Menggunakan tiga lapisan terminologi dalam menerangkan arti kata eksistensi.
- Kata Jerman Desein. Melalui kata ini ia hendak mengungkapakan eksistensi sebagai sebuah usaha pertanggungjawaban manusia terhadap keberadaannya, Namur yang melampaui tindakan-tindakan kemanusiaan.
- Kata existentia kata jerman tradicional, yang mau mengungkapkan eksistensi sebagai keadaan berada secara pasif. Dimana eksistensi itu sudah berada dalam keberadaan itu sendiri.
- Kata Existenz, yang mau mengungkapkan kaitan antara eksistenis dan esensi, dimana ia menggambarkan eksistensi sebagai tempat terletaknya esensi. Atau esensi suatu benda terletak pada eksistensinya.
Ia melukiskan eksistensi sebagai sebuah keberadaan manusia yang konkret, sekarang dan di sini. Ia mengetenghakan dua gagasan sehuibungan dengan definisinya ini, yakni pour-soi (for-itself) dan en-soi (in-itself). Artinya ia melihat keberadaan manusia yang konkret sekarang dan di sini, sebenarnya dapat dipengaruhi kedua gagasan ini, yakni menjadi pour-soi, artinya menjadi subjek dimana ia menjadikan segala sesuatu bagi dirinya atau untuk dirinya (for-itself), dan juga menjadi en-soi, artinya dijadikan objek karena sesuatu di kenakan pada dirinya (in-itself). Eksistensi manusia terletak pada pour-soi ketika ia menjadi subjek dan bebas memperlakukan segala sesuatu bagi dirinya. Namun pada akhirnya iapun sadar betapa kebebasan itu serta keberadaanya dapat saling bertentangan secara rasio satu sama lain. Ketika kita berusaha menjadi pribadi yag bebas for-itself, ketika itu keberadaan kita juga terancam menjadi in-itself.
D. Jasper
Menerangkan eksistensi secara lebih sederhana sebagai keberadaan manusia itu sendiri. Di mana ketika kita hendak mencari tahu apa itu eksistensi, jawabannya ada pada keberadaan itu sendiri. Ia mengungkapakan eksistensi sebagai sebuah ungkapan tanpa refleksi dari kehidupan kita di dunia.
Ia mengungkapkan 3 point berikut:
- Existenz itu bukanlahbagian dari ada, melainkan potensi berada. Saya tidak memiliki diri saya, tetapi menjadi diri saya. Existenz itu adalah pemenuhan keberadaan.
- Existenz itu adalah kebebasan. Kebebasan yang bukan diciptakan sendiri, tetapi merupakan pemberian yang transendens. Artinya tanapa yang transendens Existenz itu tidak ada.
- Existenz selalu diri individu, tak tergantikan, dan tak pernah tergantikan.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Karl Marx: Religion Detach Self Human being
Marx alone believe that capitalistic society it is true offer the happening of human being itself realization, but that thing is only happened to some people and non for all society. Marx later offer what referred as with communist society that in communist society each individual will enjoy active life, rich, and have a meaning of; even that thing are barbed coexisted, however itself realization remain to be enabled.
In alienation context, Marx differentiate at least there is three things which must be referred as by when people converse about alienation or detached that is alienation as no realize itself, as no autonomous and alienation related to role of capital to the labor. But here I will only try to comprehend detached deeper which confessed by Marx as alienation because no itself realization. Told by Marx that in religion there no forms realize itself truthfully. This matter because in human being religion shall only bow and unopened to be dialogued giving possibility for every individual to express itself. Religion do not develop man innermost intact, because human being only depend on sham authority which created its own.
According to Marx religion which only can punish his, surely capitalist clan creation religion to grind and lay down small people with pious doctrine. Where in that doctrine of people obliged by pious life processed heavy asceticism and accept grief voluntarily to be can win the day in heaven. Here Marx sees that that thing is only representing society creation, is specially referred as by Marx: power society, to strengthen its power hegemony to small society which led it
But in fact what becoming concern of Marx? Clear that Marx see in such religion action of people very depend on its own creation. Human being is not autonomous. Human being have to at one's feet of rule which have made of own. This can be explained like in course of production. Marx says that in course of production every worker will within call goods which is making of, so that he spatially can touch and treating him. But when that goods change hands, the worker shall no longer in command to the goods. In religion, according to Marx, when human being above the ground as free creature – without religion- he spatially can make order, sanction, rites and others; but when he enter and start to believe a[n religion, human being then bow with made rites and order it own. At the time of that's detached human being from his self. Human being throw itself go out and bow to the its own creation, which none other than beautiful shadow from creature which suffering, longing authority protecting it, but that happened exactly on the contrary that that authority progressively handcuff and add its grief.
Despitefully also, Marx see that religion give exemption grind namely with surrenderness attitude. This referred as by Marx as nature of fetishism referred at material object having the power of supernatural. Marx says that that religion fetishism emerge when illusion in life lifted to become doctrine which will do not want to peremptory by each individual. This Fetishism will bear what referred as by Marx as ‘sham expectation of oppressed people.’ Religion Fetishism makes society unable to make a move spatially to free itself from poorness clutch. This which progressively settle confidence of Marx mentioning religion is not other as society opium.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Nature of Love: Physical, emotional, spiritual
Some may hold that love is physical, i.e., that love is nothing but a physical response to another whom the agent feels physically attracted
to. Accordingly, the action of loving encompasses a broad range of behaviour including caring, listening, attending to, preferring to others, and so on. (This would be proposed by behaviourists). Others (physicalists, geneticists) reduce all examinations of love to the physical motivation of the sexual impulse-the simple sexual instinct that is shared with all complex living entities, which may, in humans, be directed consciously, sub-consciously or pre-rationally toward a potential mate or object of sexual gratification.
Physical determinists, those who believe the world to entirely physical and that every event has a prior (physical cause), consider love to be an extension of the chemical-biological constituents of the human creature and be explicable according to such processes. In this vein, geneticists may invoke the theory that the genes (an individual's DNA) form the determining criteria in any sexual or putative romantic choice, especially in choosing a mate. However, a problem for those who claim that love is reducible to the physical attractiveness of a potential mate, or to the blood ties of family and kin which forge bonds of filial love, is that it does not capture the affections between those who cannot or wish not to reproduce-that is,
physicalism or determinism ignores the possibility of romantic, ideational love-it may explain eros, but not philia or agape.
Behaviourism, which stems from the theory of the mind and asserts a rejection of Cartesian dualism between mind and body, entails that love is a series of actions and preferences which is thereby observable to oneself and others. The behaviourist theory that love is observable (according to the recognisable behavioural constraints corresponding to acts of love) suggests also that it is theoretically quantifiable: that A acts in a certain way (actions X,Y,Z) around B, more so than he does around C, suggests that he 'loves' B more than C. The problem with the behaviourist vision of love is that it is susceptible to the poignant criticism that a person's actions need not express their inner state or emotions-A may be a very good actor. Radical behaviourists, such as B F Skinner, claim that observable and unobservable behaviour such as mental states can be examined from the behaviourist framework, in terms of the laws of conditioning. On this view, that one falls in love may go unrecognised by the casual observer, but the act of being in love can be examined by what events or conditions led to the agent's believing she was in love: this may include the theory that being in love is an overtly strong reaction to a set of highly positive conditions in the behaviour or presence of another.
Expressionist love is similar to behaviourism in that love is considered an expression of a state of affairs towards a beloved, which may be communicated through language (words, poetry, music) or behaviour (bringing flowers, giving up a kidney, diving into the proverbial burning building), but which is a reflection of an internal, emotional state, rather than an exhibition of physical responses to stimuli. Others in this vein may claim love to be a spiritual response, the recognition of a soul that completes one's own soul, or complements or augments it. The spiritualist vision of love incorporates mystical as well as traditional romantic notions of love, but rejects the behaviorist or physicalist explanations.
Those who consider love to be an aesthetic response would hold that love is knowable through the emotional and conscious feeling it provokes yet which cannot perhaps be captured in rational or descriptive language: it is instead to be captured, as far as that is possible, by metaphor or by music.
Democracy in Democracy of Deliberative
Idea of Habermas about this deliberative democracy in fact will be abysmal of concept democratize in classic body politic. In democracy very emphasized by citizen participation, even that way constitution and state have to be imminent, for the sake of preventing the happening of mass tyranny. But, access communications opened and control to the government run. Communicative power of civil society runs to through mass media, responsive other and organization LSM to wild diskursus in society. Hence deliberative democracy is not a direct democracy, but a discursive control to the government.
According to Habermas "... in body politic understood by discourses form democracy shall no longer in citizen gathering able to identify visually. Democracy withdraws into cycling communications which impressing without subject from bodies and forum....." In this citation happened proceduralitation to the democracy. Its meaning that passing democracy discourses mechanism there is and form in course of communications.
When sovereign people? Deliberating theory mention moment happened public communications. Here communications forum have to become bigly. Democracy there is not only when people gather but also when mass media side public; also when there is discussion between citizens which care. Democracy is not a substance but as a national process, or is international, peripatetic continue to pass communications anonym stream. Conceived by this democracy proceduralitation. In its relation with state, sovereign people if state, namely institute legislative institute, executive, and yudikatif, continued by discursive with process forming of opinion and aspiration in public room.
Biography
Jurgen Habermas was born on 18 June 1229 in Rheinland-Westfalen Germany West, and become big in Gummersbach, a middle-weight town. Contrast among family atmosphere which is borjois-Protestan with society environment which is Roman makes sensitive Habermas to stress in society. From such atmosphere of Habermas produce fruit so much idea of sociologies.
Habermas starting from critical theory of Marx Horkheimer society and Theodor W. Adorno, he will "develop idea a triggered by society theory for the purpose of is practical". Although in the end he refuses some aspect from their theory especially about cultural pessimism of And Adorno Horkheimer. Critical Idea about society bring Habermas at one particular typical idea, namely he develop its idea in continuous discourses by is immeasurable of expert like Marx, Adorno, Hokheimer, and other social thinker.
From discourses about critical theory of society, Habermas come up with thinking of Democracy. One of Habermas masterpiece which paring many about deliberative democracy is Faktizitas Geltung und, which is translated in English: Between Facts Norms and: Contribution to Discourse Theory Law Democracy Book and of a have come to Habermas commitment evidence to democratic body politic. Und Geltung Faktizitas born from Habermas assumption that body politic cannot be obtained and also defended without radical democracy. In deliberative democracy, state shall no longer determine other political policies and law in room closed balmy ( isolation splendid), but civil society through organization and media which is vowel play very influence of significant in course of forming punish and that political policy. Public field become arena where invitation drawn up and instructed by discursive.
Posts
