The Ambiguity of Sophists: Philosophy Teachers or Fortune Hunters?

Have you ever heard of the term "Sophists"? The word "Sophists" comes from the Greek word "sophia," which means "wisdom." In the history of philosophy, this term was given by the famous Greek philosopher, Plato. However, the term "Sophists" does not always have a positive connotation. In Plato's hands, this term was associated with wealth hunters who used knowledge as a pretext.

Nevertheless, history also notes that the Sophists were not only philosophers but also teachers for the Greek society. They appeared before the era of three other famous philosophers: Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. Previously, these philosophers were more focused on cosmos or nature, but the Sophists shifted their focus to humans.

So, what is the connection between the Sophists and the current education capitalism? It turns out that the argument used by the Sophists, namely the heavier the level of education, the more expensive it is, has existed since ancient times. In the 4.0 era, many people have the same orientation as the Sophists, which is to seek wealth by utilizing their knowledge. There are social media Ustads, teachers, lecturers, and many others.

Of course, not everyone is like that. Some still value the essence of knowledge, which is to seek truth from various perspectives. But, we must also be cautious about people who only seek profit from the knowledge they possess, especially in this digital age.

So, are Sophists philosophy teachers or fortune hunters? Perhaps the answer depends on each individual. However, what is clear is that we must remain critical and wise in choosing sources of knowledge.

Radical Democracy: A Response to the Decay of Democracy

The lack of freedom and tolerance in today's political landscape may make us outraged. The shift towards liberal democracy can create a fertile ground for inequality and lead to irrational conditions in democracy under the guise of political consensus.

Democracy ought to provide inherent equality, freedom of organization, opinion, and expression. However, today's democracy seems to be an empty promise. For instance, at the collegiate level, the General Election should be the highest forum of democracy, but it is usually marred by unqualified and incompetent candidates, unfair KPU (General Election Commission) performance, and a lack of tolerance for pluralism. All these negative phenomena indicate an irrational condition in democracy based on the pretext of political consensus.

Real democracy should bring freedom and equality, but paradoxically, decay is built on the pretext of democracy itself. Radical democracy, a concept proposed by Chantal Mouffe, can provide a response and overcome this paradox of democracy.

Radical democracy is an attempt to radicalize democracy by demanding continuous conflict, dispute, and ideological debates to capture discourses. In a sense, radical democracy becomes a hegemonic struggle. In radical democracy, all forms of ideas and ideologies compete using their political articulation, where ideas are constantly produced.

Participation is one of the most important things in radical democracy. In other words, radical democracy requires "noise" and "turmoil" to unveil stability for the realization of emancipatory politics. Mouffe states that there is no consensus in democracy, only hegemonic practices that are vulnerable and open to be fought by counter-hegemonic practices.

Agreements or majority decisions in parliament and general elections are the result of voting. However, in radical democracy, the agreements reached are not static but dynamic and can be fought through ideological conflict and competition. Thus, radical democracy can be a solution to the decay of democracy that often occurs in Indonesia.

In radical democracy, there is a discourse contestation and conflict to seize hegemony in public space. However, if this contestation causes wounds to society, such as violence and even war, a differentiation between antagonism and agonism relations is necessary, and a transformation from antagonistic to agonistic relations should be pursued.

Antagonistic relations in the political context trigger the relation between us as friends and them as enemies in democratic politics. This relation will lead to disagreement and the consequence of dichotomy between friend and foe who do not share the democratic space.

In this context, the enemy is defined as an entity that must be destroyed and eliminated both ideologically and existentially in the democratic public space. The antagonistic relation between friend and foe must be addressed so that conflict and disagreement do not damage the political association in democracy.

Therefore, radical democracy must transform from antagonism to agonism relations. Agonism relations do not pretend to eliminate the dimension of conflict on one side and do not get trapped in negotiating or reaching agreements through deliberation. In other words, agonism relations prevent conflict from destroying political associations in democracy.

From agonism relations, the relation between us as friends and them as enemies turns into an adversarial relation, namely, an agonistic friend or adversary relation. Opposition that has a shared position in democracy but has different discourses, interests, and ideas that must be rejected.

Radical democracy implies a socialist dimension in upholding democratic struggle, thus ending capitalist production relations, which are the roots of many subordinate relations. Capitalism in the political domain can be interpreted as making humans or every individual a commodity, which can be picked from each individual, and it is the right to vote that can be used to legitimize power.

Democracy is not only limited to general elections; regardless of this, radical democracy has aspirations, goals, and ideals for emancipation that are the main thing in radical democracy.

The Development of Western Philosophy from Ancient Greece to Contemporary Times

In the past, when humans lived in primitive societies, they did not distinguish between different types of knowledge. Everything they knew was considered one type of knowledge. A tribe leader could serve as a judge, chief, or even a professor. However, over time, there was a differentiation of various types of knowledge, resulting in work specialization, which transformed the structure of society.

Before entering the era of Ancient Greece, the explanation for natural phenomena was myths and legends. However, the explanations given by Greek mythology could not be explained rationally. For example, thunder came from the wrath of the god Thor. This rationalization based on myths continued until the sixth century BC.

The most fundamental period in the history of the development of science and philosophy is the period of Greek philosophy (sixth century BC to zero AD). During this time, there were philosophers such as Thales (624-546 BC). At that time, philosophers sought to find the principles (arche) that were the basis of everything in existence. They discussed the elements that make up the cosmos or principles that underlie everything. Thales referred to water as the fundamental principle.

Other philosophers included Anaximander (611-545 BC), who referred to aperion, which is limitless, as the origin of everything. Anaximenes (588-524 BC) referred to air as the vital element of life. Pythagoras (580-500 BC) stated that the basis of everything could be explained by numbers. Later, philosophical discussions were no longer about the origin of the universe, but whether reality is changing or static. Two famous philosophers from that period were Heraclitus (540-475 BC) and Parmenides (540-475 BC). Heraclitus said that everything was constantly changing, while Parmenides said that reality was stable and unchanging. The view of Democritus (460-370 BC) stated that reality consists of many elements called atoms. This view became the foundation for the development of physics, chemistry, and biology.

In ancient Greece, people began to think about the universe in a more rational way, rather than relying on myths. The most prominent figure in Greek philosophy was Socrates who used a philosophical method called dialectics, in which he did not provide direct knowledge but used questions to trigger knowledge in others. Socrates' pupil, Plato, continued the tradition of dialogue in philosophy. However, philosophical thought reached its peak in Plato's pupil, Aristotle. He suggested that science should seek to understand the cause of the object being investigated. Aristotle identified four types of causes to understand how everything happens.

At that time, philosophical thought and science were not separated. Everything that humans thought was called philosophy. However, in the Middle Ages, philosophical thought became united with religion and church dogma, resulting in whatever the church said was considered true. The Middle Ages in Europe were known as the golden age of Christianity, which lasted from the sixth to sixteenth century AD.

The history of Western philosophy can be divided into four periods based on the dominant characteristics of the thought of the time.

During Ancient Greece, philosophers were very interested in the origin of the universe, resulting in a cosmos-centered worldview.

The Middle Ages were marked by a theocentric worldview, in which philosophers used philosophy to strengthen Christian dogma.

In the Modern era, an anthropocentric worldview emerged, with a focus on humans as the center of philosophical analysis. Although philosophy remained secular, science became very important and continued to develop.

Finally, in the contemporary era, philosophers focused on logosentric, making texts the central theme in their discourse.

During the Renaissance, philosophical thought began to separate itself from religion and focus on freedom of thought. This era was also marked by the emergence of astonishing works of art, such as painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and literature. Philosophers of this period, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and Thomas Aquinas, made significant contributions to the development of philosophical thought and science.

Power, Truth, and Leaders: Foucault's thoughts on the relationship between human beings

Since ancient times, humans have known what power is. In prehistoric times, they were even willing to fight for power because of their survival needs. Now, power has become common in the leadership system of a country.

However, there are people who misuse power, such as vote-buying or influencing the KPU. Power should not be understood as possession by a small group in society. Power actually spreads in social relationships and is not centralized to one person or institution. Therefore, power can be viewed positively.

According to Foucault, power and knowledge are closely related. Power can serve as a justification for law and knowledge, and vice versa. Every power can influence the formation of knowledge, and conversely, every direct formation of knowledge can shape power.

In the modern society, the sustainability of a power can make a place become modern. Therefore, power should be understood as rational, productive, positive, and discursive relationships.

Power can create its own truth and disseminate it to others so that they can follow that truth. This happens because power has control over the media and public opinion that might benefit them. However, opposition or resistance to power is very important so that power is not perpetuated without criticism.

A leader is not only a symbol, but the most important thing is his policies for others and the society he leads. A leader must be fair and not only seek popularity or be involved in corruption. If a leader no longer walks in the path of truth, then we must remind him well.

Foucault's thoughts on power and knowledge aim for individuals to be independent and find their own way of life. If someone can manage themselves well, then they can also manage others properly. Therefore, power is not only owned by a particular group or country, but is held by everyone in human relationships.

The development of Western philosophy: From Cosmocentric to Logocentric

In primitive times, knowledge was considered equal by all, and anyone could become a tribal leader, judge, or professor. However, over time, people began to differentiate between types of knowledge, and job specialization eventually changed the structure of society.

Before entering the era of Ancient Greece, people used myths and legends as justification for natural phenomena. For example, lightning was considered the wrath of the god Thor. But during the development of Greek philosophy, people began to use common sense to seek answers to natural events.

Philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Pythagoras talked about the fundamental principles that underlie everything. Some referred to water, others to aperion (something limitless), and others to air. Some also spoke of numbers and elements called atoms.

After that, people began to question whether reality was changing or constant. Heraclitus said that everything flows and nothing stays, while Parmenides stated that reality is unchanging and constant. Democritus himself believed that reality consists of many elements called atoms.

Socrates became an important figure during this era. He used dialectical methods to foster knowledge in the minds of others. He did not convey knowledge, but through his questions, he tested the value of ideas that had already been born. The tradition of dialogue in philosophy was continued by Socrates' disciple, Plato.

So, in ancient Greece, philosophical thinking and scientific knowledge were not separated. However, during the Middle Ages, philosophical thinking was mixed with religion and regarded as the same as church dogma. Anything said by the church was considered correct at that time when Christianity was in its golden age in Europe.

But then the Renaissance in the 15th century and Enlightenment in the 18th century made philosophical thinking different from religion. The Renaissance was a period that focused heavily on art, architecture, music, literature, science, technology, and, of course, philosophy. At that time, free thinking was encouraged without fear of punishment from the church. Bold thinking that challenged dogma could change thinking patterns and produce new thinking in philosophy.

One of the thinkers was Aristotle, who is known for his theory of the causes of the objects studied. He said there were four causes, namely the material, formal, efficient, and final causes. Aristotle had a major contribution to science.

In the Renaissance, several important figures were born who opposed church dogma, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, who challenged the theory of Ptolemy believed by the church, that the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus argued that the sun was the center. There were also other figures like Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and Thomas Aquinas. So the Renaissance was like a time of rebirth of freedom of thought.

The history of Western philosophy can be divided into four distinct periods. Each period has dominant characteristics of thinking at that time.

During Ancient Greece, people were very interested in the origin of the universe and the cosmos. They created cosmocentric thinking to understand this.

While in the Middle Ages, philosophical thinking was closely related to Christianity. This caused philosophers to use their thinking to strengthen religious dogmas.

In the Modern Era, philosophical thinking was more focused on humans as the center of analysis. However, philosophy began to separate from science which had developed rapidly.

In the Contemporary Era, philosophers were more interested in analyzing texts as the central theme of discourse. This is known as logocentric.

John Rawls: Justice as Freedom in Social Institutions

In today's society, freedom is a word that we often hear. Especially as college students, we feel more free in many ways, such as socializing, dressing, thinking, and so on. We are not burdened by demands from various sources. In fact, we can interact with more people in the college world.

We want freedom so that others do not interfere too much in our personal affairs. According to Paul Sieghart, freedom means satisfying curiosity, acquiring information, developing ideas, and learning from experiences. According to Pan Mohamad Faiz, Rawls states that freedom is as important as political freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

Rawls considers freedom in basic rights as the highest value. Each person should have an equal opportunity to occupy a certain position and create a just society. Thomas Hobbes stated that a free person is someone who can use their strength and intelligence to express themselves and do what they want. In this regard, freedom can result in justice.

Rawls developed the idea of justice principles with the concept of the original position. He sought to create an equal situation among all individuals in society so that there is no higher position in social status, position, power, ability, intelligence, and others. Equality is very important to create a balanced life. Rawls also said that "justice is good for social institutions."

Political justice is divided into two, natural justice and conventional justice. Social justice is the basis of national life in Indonesia. The theory of justice as fairness from Rawls states that every person has an equal right to freedom, and if there is injustice, then those left behind should be advantaged. The government has a responsibility to take care of less fortunate members of society. Justice must be achieved through rational, free, and democratic discourse so that it can be implemented in daily life.

When we talk about justice and freedom in democracy, we often see many forms of it. One of them is the General Election (Pemira), where people compete to get a seat in office. Sometimes, their motivations are purely to improve the system, but sometimes they are only tempted by money and power. In situations like this, the values of justice and freedom are often ignored.

Democracy can become very heated and unhealthy when politicians begin to fight for their personal interests and justify any means to achieve their goals. As educated students, we must uphold the values of justice and freedom in everything we do around us. We must use reason and heart before doing things that can make us regret in the end. We must prove the truth with facts, not just empty words.

The Struggle of Students for Freedom and Better Democracy on Campus

Education is crucial for all children, regardless of their social status. Unfortunately, many education systems restrict children and make them feel inferior. There is a concept of education called banking education which treats teachers as gods and students as mere receptacles of knowledge. This often happens in schools where the majority of students come from lower-class families.

However, there is a more empowering concept of education proposed by Paulo Freire that emphasizes critical thinking and dialogue. This concept of freedom in education can also be applied to campus politics.

Sometimes, campus organizational leaders can be selfish and make policies that only benefit themselves, which is not good for democracy. As students, we need to be actively involved in campus politics and oversee leaders so they do not create rules that harm the community. If there are unjust rules, we should fight to change them. We must cultivate critical and transformative thinking so that we can become agents of change who can bring positive impacts to society.

In essence, as students, we must fight against oppression and improve campus governance to make it better. We need to strengthen our critical and transformative thinking to become watchful guardians who oversee leaders and fight for the interests of the community. Let us struggle together to strengthen a healthy democracy!

Original Source: Paulo Freire: Misi Pembebasan via Jalur Politik (buletinaufklarung.com)

"Robert K. Merton: The Pioneer of Structural Functional Theory and Deviance Theory in American Sociology

Robert K. Merton was a sociologist born in Philadelphia, USA on July 4, 1910. He studied at Temple University, Harvard University, and Columbia University. He is known as one of the important figures in American sociology who developed structural functional theory and deviance theory.

Merton criticized three postulates from anthropologists Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. The first postulate is the functional unity of society, which states that all parts of society function harmoniously to maintain social balance. Merton rejected this postulate because he saw conflict and tension in society. The second postulate is universal functionalism, which states that all parts of society have a specific function. Merton rejected this postulate because he saw parts of society that did not function or had a negative impact. The third postulate is indispensability, which states that all parts of society cannot be replaced or removed. Merton rejected this postulate because he saw changes and variations in society.

Merton also analyzed the function of the system or structure, which is divided into three categories: function, dysfunction, and non-function. Function is the positive impact of a part on the entire system. Dysfunction is the negative impact of a part on the entire system. Non-function is the absence of impact of a part on the entire system.

Merton also introduced the concept of manifest and latent functions. Manifest function is the intended and recognized impact by social actors. Latent function is the unintended and unrecognized impact by social actors. For example, the manifest function of a school is to provide education to students, while the latent function of a school is to provide socialization and supervision to them.

Title: Robert Bellah's Theory of Religious Evolution

I recently learned about Robert Bellah's theory of religious evolution, which posits that there are four stages of religious development: mimetic, mythical, ethical, and modernized. Bellah, an American sociologist interested in religious studies, argues that religion evolves in response to social and cultural changes.

The mimetic stage is the earliest stage, in which humans imitate the behavior of natural phenomena, animals, or plants that are considered sacred. For example, primitive societies that use a large tree as a totem or symbol of their beliefs.

The mythical stage is when humans begin to create stories or myths about things that are extraordinary or beyond reason. For example, the ancient Greeks who had many gods and goddesses that ruled over various aspects of nature and life.

The ethical stage is when humans begin to develop moral norms and laws based on specific religious teachings. For example, Jewish society that follows the laws of the Torah or Islamic society that follows the laws of Sharia.

The modernized stage is when religion becomes more rational, individualistic, and pluralistic. For example, Western societies that have religious freedom and tolerance for other religions.

I am interested in this theory because I feel that I can see the development of religion in Indonesia from this perspective. I am also curious about how religion will continue to evolve in the future. Will religion remain relevant or will it be sidelined by advances in science and technology? Will religion become more peaceful or will it become a source of conflict? Will I continue to hold onto my religion or will I seek out another religion? I feel that I need to learn more about this theory and other religions so that I can answer these questions.

Exploring Philosophy through "Sophie's World": A Review of Jostein Gaarder's Novel

 Dunia Sophie is a novel by Jostein Gaarder that discusses the development of ancient Greek philosophy. The novel was first published in 1991 in Norwegian with the title Sofie's Verden. Through his book, Jostein Gaarder provides a brief lesson on the history of philosophy with language that is interesting and easy to understand.

At one point in the novel, Sophie Amundsend, a 14-year-old girl, receives a mysterious letter from an unknown sender. She also receives strange letters addressed to Hilde Moller Knag. The letters contain messages from Hilde's father for her birthday. Sophie believes that the sender of the mysterious envelope, the questions inside it, and the letter to Hilde are all related.

Sophie's philosophy lessons continue as she receives a large brown envelope containing pages about the history of philosophy. The pages also contain some keywords for questions that Sophie has not been able to solve. The lessons continue until one day the sender of the letters, Alberto Knox, introduces himself to Sophie. He is an old man who lives in a shack behind Sophie's house with his beloved dog. Alberto has been sending letters to Sophie as a means of teaching her about the world beyond what she knows.

In addition to learning about the history of philosophy and its figures, Sophie also learns about Christianity, including the Old and New Testaments, the Semitic and Israelite peoples, and the Prophet Jesus (Isa) from a Christian perspective.

However, Sophie herself is a fictional character created by Hilde's father as a learning material for his daughter. This is revealed by another point of view in the novel, which shows that Sophie is a fictional character. The reality that she is a fictional character for Hilde is supported when Sophie tries to interact with Hilde but receives no response from her.

The philosophy lessons between Sophie and Alberto end with a big bang. Hilde has met her father, who works at the United Nations, and he tells her about the solar system. This can be referred to as the Big Bang theory or a cosmological theory. Her father also explains that there will be a big bang, which is in line with what God says in the Bible.

Overall, Jostein Gaarder's novel is very interesting to read and offers a valuable lesson on the history of philosophy.

Original Source: https://dimensipers.com/2023/02/07/sejarah-filsafat-dalam-baluran-fiksionalitas-dunia-sophie/

Feminism in Indonesia: The Fight for Equality and Justice

 Have you heard about the feminist movement in Indonesia? The movement arose due to social constructs that restrict women’s movements and impose negative stigmas on them. For example, the association of colors with gender or the classification of occupations that limit women’s opportunities.

However, the feminist movement is not about reversing the roles of men and women, or oppressing men. In actuality, the movement aims to fight unjust systems like patriarchy. In Indonesia, the feminist movement began in the 1960s and became an issue during the new development era of the 1970s.

One famous figure in Indonesian feminism is R.A Kartini. She was a courageous woman who defied the highly patriarchal colonial system. In the biography “Panggil Aku Kartini Saja” by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, we can see Kartini’s struggles and high spirit in fighting for women’s rights.

But, behind her bravery were also many injustices that she had to face. We can see this from her school days, where it was very difficult for women to receive education during colonial times. Girls were not even allowed to leave their homes, much less attend school.

From here, we can observe that women were considered weak and uneducated. However, this fact only motivated Kartini to fight for education. Her journey was not easy though, as she faced discrimination like racial discrimination that claimed native skin and intellectuality were inferior to the colonizers’.

Kartini had to go through a period of seclusion and could not continue her studies at HBS as she wished. During this time, Kartini had a deeper reflection and was forced to understand issues that were not deemed her job. Nevertheless, she remained strong and did not give up.

Upon completing her seclusion period, Kartini regained her freedom. In another chapter, we can see that Kartini also paid attention to the lives of common people and their poverty. She observed feudalism within her own society and rejected the notion that it only belonged to the elite class.

Therefore, Kartini fought for education for her society and corresponded with her European friends. Even their letters were compiled by Mr. J.H. Abendanon and published with the title “Door Duist”.

That’s a bit of a glimpse into the feminist movement in Indonesia and its figures like R.A Kartini. Apart from Kartini, there are many other remarkable women in Indonesia who fight for women’s rights and against unjust systems.

The feminist movement is not about oppressing or overpowering men. It aims to create equality and justice between men and women in various aspects of life.

However, the struggle for women to achieve equality still faces many obstacles and challenges. There are still negative stigmas and stereotypes about women that makes the feminist movement relevant to this day.

Therefore, let us support the feminist movement and continue to fight for a world that is fair and equitable for all genders. Every person deserves to achieve their dreams and potentials without being hindered by discrimination and injustice.

A New Concept of Love: Gabriel Marcel's Perspective on Relationships and Identity

 We all agree that love is an important thing in life, right? Love makes us feel alive and calls us to interact with others. But according to Gabriel Marcel, love is more than just being physically present. Love is actually about being fully present as a new individual in our interactions with others.

However, it's important to remember that love isn't just about functional interactions, but status as well. When we interact with others, we often use the words "I" and "they". But when we start to feel like "we", that means our relationship with that person becomes more special and unique. Marcel's concept of love is complex because "we" isn't just a complement to the interaction, but a new identity formed through interactive communication with others.

Interactive communication makes relationships more complex and different from regular "I" and "they" relationships. We give meaning to each other, making our communication more active and continuous. The concept of "we" isn't just about unity, but also understanding and shared feelings.

But what happens to the concept of "we" when one of us dies? According to Marcel, "we" is eternal. So even though the components of "we" are no longer together, the feelings and memories we share still exist forever. Death only becomes a hindrance to our interaction with others in this world, but not the end of our relationship with them. We can still connect with the people we love through the memories we share.


Original Source: Original Source: https://www.buletinaufklarung.com/2023/03/gabriel-marcel-cinta-dan-perpisahan.html

Is Ontology Still Relevant? Exploring Martin Heidegger's Perspective

 Is ontology too old-fashioned and outdated to be discussed nowadays? That's a question that might come to mind when thinking about this philosophical concept. Ontology, originating from ancient Greece, aims to answer the question of "what exists" in the universe. However, this topic is still being constantly questioned today and can even create problems for those discussing philosophy.

But, there is one famous philosopher named Martin Heidegger who approached ontology from a different perspective. He argued that we cannot solely view ontology as a formal or theological study, but must view it from a broader, objective perspective. Heidegger also emphasized that ontology is important to us because it not only deals with the existence or being of objects, but also with human beings themselves. He coined the concept of "Da Sein" to refer to human existence, but also explained that humans are connected with one another, referred to as "Mitsein."

So, in essence, ontology is still relevant. Despite its origins in ancient Greece, ontology can help us understand the existence of objects in the world, as well as the relationship between humans and others. Don't be afraid to explore topics that have been around since the time of our ancestors, as it may lead to unexpected new perspectives and ideas.