Kematianku

Andai bisa kembali ke masa silam, ke sepuluh tahun pertama sejak kelahiran, ketika ide kematian belum datang dan menghantui. Ketika garis hidup seakan terbentang tanpa batas dan aku masih di pangkal.

Kematian momen yang sangat nyata dan personal, yang tak bisa disuplai doktrin apa pun. Kematian pengalaman yang datang terakhir dan tak bisa kuceritakan ulang pada yang lain. Memikirkannya membuat yang lain-lain tiba-tiba tidak esensial. Memikirkannya membuatku berhenti dan bertanya ulang: apa yang sungguh penting?

Hanya tiga perempat abad sudah terbilang kuat. Siapa pula yang sanggup dan mau hidup hingga sembilan puluh atau seratus tahun? Dan kini aku sudah seperempat jalan; tinggal dua atau tiga perempat lagi. Itu pun jika tiada musibah atau perang di tengah jalan, yang tidak bertanya apakah aku sudah siap. Tanah tiba-tiba longsor, lalu aku mati. Pesawat jatuh, lalu aku mati. Penjahat menembakkan peluru, lalu aku mati.

Akan ada misteri semesta yang belum sempat terjawab sampai kematianku. Akan ada kreasi manusia yang belum sempat kusaksikan. Akan ada tempat-tempat terindah di bumi yang belum sempat kukunjungi. Akan ada bahasa yang belum sempat kupelajari.

Dan ketika aku musnah, terserah pada mereka yang bertahan untuk mengenang atau melupakan. Orang-orang besar tetap dikenal karena karyanya atau kekejiannya. Orang-orang biasa musnah dalam sejarah dunia, bergabung dengan miliaran orang biasa lainnya.

Labelling philosophers of the modern and contemporary ages

The 3H philosophers

• B.W.F. Hegel
• Edmund Husserl
• Martin Heidegger

The masters of suspicion (maîtres du soupçon)

• Sigmund Freud
• Karl Marx
• Friedrich Nietzsche

The Big Four in phenomenology

• Edmund Husserl
• Martin Heidegger
• Jean-Paul Sartre
• Maurice Merleau-Ponty

The Big Four in hermeneutics

• Friedrich D.E. Schleiermacher
• Wilhelm Dilthey
• Martin Heidegger
• Hans-Georg Gadamer

Hey, Heidegger is almost everywhere!

Christmas and life's promise

Christmas offers different themes to reflect upon, and this year I am moved by the idea of promise. Jesus' birth is a divine promise fulfilled, the much-awaited birth which, ironically, few people were aware of. And this birth also promises salvation to mankind, which not all then believed.

Further thoughts lead me to seeing Christianity as a belief founded on a promise; and a promise, just like a person's life, implies historicity. A promise is made and it takes some time before it's fulfilled. Isn't it the testament between God and Noah, God and Abraham, God and Moses, which binds the people of this very faith, which is characterised by history and the fulfilment of God's promises?

Everyone's life, including mine, is a life built on a promise. In fact, you promise not only to someone, but also to yourself about what kind of 'you' you want to live. So promise here implies a purpose. A promise fulfilled is, then, a purposeful life achieved.

And just like nobody will give you a second chance once you break a promise,you will hardly forgive yourself when you don't exert the best effort to reach the finish line. Your lifetime is limited and there is no way returning.

God has a promise for you, which you have to discover. And you've got to promise to yourself. Christmas reminds me that everyone is born with a purpose.

When Hume and Kant met each other

In a soirée of philosophers

Hume: 'Hi mate. I'm Hume. Can you tell me what your name is?'
Kant: 'Kant.'
Hume: 'Really? How come?'
Kant: 'Dunno. It was my parents.'
Hume: 'That's strange. They didn't give you a name.'
Kant: 'Yes, they did.'
Hume: 'So, can you tell me?'
Kant: 'Kant.'
Hume: 'Well, I've got to go. See you around, Mr-who-can't-say-his-name.'
Kant: ???

Et si l’école ne rendait plus les élèves créatifs ?

La philosophie comme une solution

Nous célébrons la semaine de la Francophonie avec le thème « Créativité et Jeunesse ». Je suis donc heureux de vous présenter un exposé sur ce thème.

Avant de commencer, il nous faut construire un pont entre les deux concepts pour que nous puissions déterminer leurs définitions et faire une relation entre eux—dans cet exposé le pont s’appelle « Education ». L’éducation ici veut dire celle qui prend lieu au sein de l’école—il s’agit surtout de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage. C’est pourquoi on définit la créativité comme la capacité d’imagination ou d’invention. La jeunesse, dit le dictionnaire Larousse, signifie la période de la vie humaine comprise entre l'enfance et l'âge mûr. Alors, dans le contexte de l’éducation, les jeunes sont les élèves de l’école maternelle au lycée.

Le (seul) paysage ?

Après avoir les définitions, je voudrais vous poser une question : « L’école rend-elle les élèves plus créatifs ? » Quand vous, mes amis indonésiens, étiez jeunes et le professeur vous a demandés de dessiner un paysage, avez-vous dessiné deux montagnes avec le soleil entre elles et une rue traversant un village dans lequel se trouvaient une maison et une rizière—comme ceci ? Pourquoi avons-nous la même image dans la tête quand il s’agit de paysage, comme s’il n’y avait pas d’autres perspectives ? Est-ce que nous n’avons pas envie de l’imagination chez le narrateur du « Petit Prince », qui dessinait dans son enfance un serpent boa qui digérait un éléphant, tandis que les
adultes le confondaient avec un chapeau ?

Un serpent boa digérant
un éléphant.

Alors, est-ce que nous ne sommes pas du tout faits pour être créatifs ?

En fait, il est impossible que les êtres humains perdent toute la créativité, parce qu’elle est une faculté innée. Cependant, elle exige en même temps une certaine éducation de peur qu’elle ne s’arrête de se développer. Malheureusement, le système éducatif national nous empêche très souvent de penser de manière créative. Je vous adresse trois problèmes qui existent dans beaucoup d’écoles.

Culture as a learning process

Learning means the process of acquiring new knowledge, skills, or behaviour. In culture humans always accumulate knowledge and skills they have acquired and hand them over for generations. The knowledge, skills, and behaviour cover a wide range of topics, such as arts, religion, communications, technology, etc. In communications, for instance, humans have created and improved the Braille and sign languages, which allow the blind and the deaf to communicate with the world. As for technology, humans have invented different tools and machines enabling themselves to speed up the manufacture of goods—e.g. batik clothes, initially hand-painted by individuals, can be now produced using a stamp or a printing machine, which is much faster and more economical. The said examples obviously show that human knowledge accumulates along with human efforts to learn.

The accumulation and transfer of knowledge and skills are made possible thanks to language. This is perhaps the greatest human invention since it underlies all human activities, thereby rendering them possible. The term ‘language’ is defined broadly, including all forms of symbols and signs, which are manifested in words, pictures, dances, etc. Symbols are made by humans, external to their bodies, and thus are easy to modify to suit any problems that arise. For instance, when humans stored water only at room temperature, there was only one single tap needed. When humans created a machine able to heat water and store it, another tap was required—hence two colours, typically red and blue, identifying warm and cool water respectively.

Culture as a learning process indicates that humans have sociocultural inheritance, apart from biological inheritance. It means that learning activity always surpasses mere natural behaviour. For example, eating is a natural behaviour that occurs in all organic creatures. However, humans can go beyond their animal instinct by preparing the meal—cooking, decorating, and serving it in a delicate way—so that food satisfies not only their biological need but also their aesthetic sense. 

Philosophy as a pedagogic strategy towards leadership development

Quite a few analysts say the future of Indonesia seems promising. Our economy is growing at approximately 6 per cent; we are the only South East Asian country taking part in the Group of Twenty (G20); and as the largest economy in the region Indonesia is expected to take a leading role in the ASEAN Economic Community, which is slated to commence in 2015. These are good news in macroeconomics. The bad news is, however, our society is facing ever-increasing sociopolitical challenges at grass-roots level. The media covers them all every day: corruption, inter-religious conflicts, student brawls due to petty things, separatist movements and so forth. Given these mind-perplexing challenges and problems, one can but ask: What solutions do we need? 

Obviously, since the phenomena I have described are all human activities, it is the very human being that is capable of dealing with them. The economic, political, religious, social systems, and all the drawbacks arising therefrom, are all established by human being, hence human responsibility for them. The key, then, lies in the development of human resources so that they can take initiative and lead the way. In other words, we are in need of leaders of considerable intelligence and exemplary character. By the term ‘leader’, we are not merely referring to those holding office in bureaucracy or having an executive position in enterprises, but rather we are talking about human potential residing in each person.

I have mentioned two dimensions of a leader: intelligence, which is the cognitive dimension, and character, which is the affective dimension. Now, these two dimensions ought to be nurtured if we are to have true leaders—which then raises another question: What instrument does our society employ to instil leadership qualities in succeeding generations? Plainly, education. By educating children both inside and outside classrooms, the society is investing energy and time in developing their intelligence and character to the utmost.

However, just how effective are our schools in carrying out this enormous responsibility? Ladies and gentlemen, when you were a child and the teacher asked you to draw a panorama, did you draw two cone-shaped mountains with the sun, clouds, and unidentified birds above them and a street going through a village in which are located a modest house and a rice field? Sadly speaking, you and me, we belong to the generation that considers the picture as the only valid representation of panorama.

Hart v Fuller Debate (part 2)

(To go to the first part, click here.)

Lon L. Fuller and Fidelity to Law

Lon L. Fuller (1902-1978)

Perplexed by Hart’s lecture, which Fuller says suffers from ‘a deep inner contradiction’, Fuller gives a response with another lecture entitled ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law—A Reply to Professor Hart’. The lecture can be divided into the following steps. First, Fuller restates the definitions of law and morality as proposed by legal positivists and delivers his general critique of Hart’s article. Second, he accuses Hart of disregarding the internal morality of law, which is the source of all law and explains the obligation of fidelity to law. Third, he criticises Hart for focusing on the word level in terms of judicial interpretation; instead, he suggests that the whole objective of a provision should be the main attention.

The Definitions of Law and Morality

Fuller reminds the readers that Hart defends positivist views of such names as Bentham, Austin, Gray, and Holmes. Fuller recalls the definitions of law as proposed by Austin and Gray: (1) according to Austin, law is ‘the command of the highest legislative power’, which is the sovereign; (2) according to Gray, law is ‘rules laid down by judges’. A statute becomes law only if the court has interpreted and applied it. Moreover, Fuller points out the different views of Bentham and Austin on the constitutional limitations on the sovereign’s power: (1) Bentham said that the highest legislative power might be prevented by a constitution from making some kinds of laws; (2) Austin said that such limitation on the highest legislative power was absurd and impossible.

The definitions of law and the functions of the legislative body as offered by the said positivists are not sufficient, says Fuller. In times of crisis, he says, the obligation of fidelity to law cannot be explained by such positivist views. Therefore, he says that Hart has to seek first of all the definition of law that will ‘make meaningful the obligation of fidelity to law’.

According to Austin and Gray, Fuller says, morality refers to any standard ‘by which human conduct may be judged that is not itself law’. Law, then, excludes the idea of morality, which includes ‘the inner voice of conscience, notions of right and wrong based on religious belief, common conceptions of decency and fair play, culturally conditioned prejudices’. 

Hart v Fuller Debate (part 1)

(To go to the second part, click here.) 

This paper takes a plunge into the classic debate between prominent legal philosophers H.L.A. Hart and Lon L. Fuller, which now marks its 55th year of publication in Harvard Law Review. Published in 1958, Hart’s and Fuller’s lectures in the Review have been stimulating intellectual exchanges between legal positivist and natural law schools.

In the paragraphs that follow, I would like to demonstrate the development of arguments delivered by Hart and Fuller in their respective articles. The topics include the separation of law and morals, the imperative theory of law, legal interpretation, law under the Nazi regime, fidelity to law, etc. All these topics sum up in one question: How should one define the relationship between law and morals? These two schools of law take contrasting positions.

Hart and the Separation of Law and Morals

H.L.A. Hart (1907-1992)

Hart opens the lecture with a statement made by contemporary voices, that there exists a ‘point of intersection between law and morals’; in other words, ‘what is and what ought to be are somehow indissolubly fused or inseparable’. This is the subject of the lecture: to question such statements and demonstrate that they are either right or wrong.

In order to achieve this end, Hart takes the following steps. First, he clarifies the positivist understanding of law and morality as proposed by classic legal positivists. Second, he examines the imperative theory of law and demonstrates its weaknesses. Third, he criticises formalist interpretation of cases vis-à-vis legal realism by introducing the concepts of umbra and penumbra. Fourth, he tackles criticisms against legal positivism in the wake of the collapse of Nazi’s regime. All these steps are taken to show that there is no necessary relationship between law and morality.