The Papua Presidium Council (PDP): Between Theory and Its Practice of Management (2-The end), by Sem Karoba

Wednesday, November 24, 1999 1:00:00 PM

models of management, Papua Presidium Council, Sem Karoba, PDP
The Papua Presidium Council (PDP): Between Theory and Its Practice of Management (2-The end), by Sem Karoba, Political Analyst for the Koteka People

There is a lot of controversy, not on the leadership but on the management of the Papua Presidium Council (PDP). Most of the people in West Papua are standing behind the PDP. They are ready to sacrifice what they have, including their lives for the sake of the independence of West Papua. However, there also people here who are suspicious of what is actually done by the PDP. The people here really want to achieve their independence by any means, and the PDP is openly declaring its mission to do so. But why do others suspect the PDP?

I am going to answer this question in two perspectives: the perspective of the Koteka People and the management perspective in relation to the management of the PDP. This second article, let us look at some reasons why Papuans are suspicious on the PDP's work. In managing an organisation, particularly organisations that work directly for the lives of the people, have to work in such ways to avoid misunderstanding, miscommunication. In most cases, miscommunication is the main "disease" in managing organisations like the PDP. There should be the same understanding between the people for whom the organisation works and the managers who are running it. Let us look at some models of modern management and see some aspects that need fixing.

Five Models of Modern Management

In the management world, we know five major models of managing organisations: formal models, subjective models, cultural models, collegial models and political models.
The application of formal models can be an open or closed system, structured or bureaucratic model.

Main samples of formal models can be seen in managing government organisations and projects. What is important in governmental organisations or projects is the achievement of goals or targets of the project/ organisation/ department. Most often the needs and wishes of the people involved in the organisation are totally ignored. Take an example of a training for government officials in Indonesia called Diklat (Education and Training) at different levels of qualifications. The people who attend Diklat are most often selected or promoted not based on their choice or interest but only for the purpose of promoting the organisations or departments where they work. I can say that this model is inhuman, it violates the human rights as far as human rights and democracy is concerned.

In Indonesia, we have seen how Suharto treat Indonesians for 32 years. He is a bureaucrat who does not care about you and me. His humanity does not exist. What he cares is what he calls the Five Year Plan and the Development Trilogy. In many occasions he used to emphasise: "Security is first. If there is no security, we cannot plan and do the development activities. Let us promote security for the sake of development!" Of course, not for the sake of humanity and democracy. He works for gaining profits. He pretends to be a good man with good manner, but his organisation management is full of lies. His dictatorship has been tidily covered up . No one was able to say against what he has been doing. This kind of person applies the formal models of management.

There is another model that contradict with formal models, i.e. subjective models. The voice of each individual in an organisation is listened to and accommodated very well. The organisation acts and works to promote each individual's wants and needs. This model does practice the democracy and human rights. However, you can imagine how difficult it is for Suharto to listen to everyone of us, promote the needs and wants of everybody. Naturally, everything goes to disorder, and if an organisation listens to everybody all the time, then it can end up in disorder. Subjective models only applicable in small organisations, of course not in managing countries.

The third one is called cultural models. Cultural models accommodate the culture of each parties involved in the organisation, particularly the culture of the organisation or department. Let us see some examples. In Indonesia, the civil servants and the army are called lazy labourers. You may find it funny or surprising when an army and a policeman walking in the market with full battle uniform. Even they go to the church or walk around public places in the midnight with office uniform. This may be funny for the Westerners , but the uniform is a pride for people in the East , to show others that they have special status in the community. They come to the office in the morning, sign the attendance list, sit around and talk with friends, pick up children from school, then back home. Nothing is done the whole day. What do the bosses do? They also lazy, sometimes they come to the office, sometimes not. Who cares? This is the culture of government officials in Indonesia. If this is the case, managers of the organisation must identify the effects and causes. From the analyses the managers can offer solutions that suit the culture. One interesting example is in TEFL. The Communicative Approach is now implemented all over the world. This approach expects the students to be active in classrooms during the lesson. If the students are passive, it can be interpreted as not communicative and unsuccessful. Funnily, teachers in the East do understand that students rarely active in classrooms in any lesson, including in their mother tongues. When they learn English, they then need to learn the language and learn to be active in classrooms. To avoid this double process of learning, TEFL teachers should understand the culture of the students in the East and manage the classrooms based on a better understanding of the culture. For the PDP, the members of the Council need to identify and understand the culture of the Indonesian government and the Melanesians and Austronesians in West Papua. Then they need to plan actions to address those cultures. Most of the problems in organisations arise as results of contradictions between contradictions of cultures within organisations.

Fourth, collegial models, mostly implemented in colleges and universities. There are faculties, groups of professors, groups of experts, departments and fields of studies who work in their areas with certain authority and responsibilities. It is not like in formal models where top management controls almost everything. On the contrary, each department or faculty controls its own department or faculty with full authority within their areas. Even the lecturers have their authority that cannot be changed by top management. The PDP can apply this model by giving each pillar in the Council, i.e., Youth, Woman, OPM Prisoners, TPN/OPM, etc. to work independently with certain responsibilities and PDP only receives reports from each of the pillars. This will give chances to pillars to play their roles more effectively, more efficiently and freely. This will help accelerate the efforts to free West Papua from colonial powers.

The last model of modern management is called political models. Political models address the interests of interest or pressure groups within organisations. The interests exist in each pressure group. There is politics within the pressure groups called micro-politics (politics in the small groups or scale). There is bargaining between the interest groups, between the interests of one group or party with the others. Party that has strong bargaining power, mostly the winning party wins in the bargain. In Indonesia we know pressure groups that were under direct control from Suharto. They are like Golkar, ICMI, Pancasila Youths, KNPI, and AMPI. They have different names, but they have the same father and they work for the same interests. Of course, Suharto's pressure groups were the winners during the New Order Regime.

Within the PDP, we have pressure groups already, such as TAPOL/NAPOL (former OPM Prisoners), TPN/OPM, FORERI, Indonesia and multinational companies. Bargaining is going on at the moment. The strongest in pressures and power will win, of course. If the people of West Papua are strong in their fight, they will win. If Indonesia has strong reasons, legally and morally, then they will win. If the multinationals are strong, they will win. All have interests, and all want to win. The PDP ahould manage the organisation to channel the interests to the right directions in order to free people in West Papua from intimidation, rape, disappearance, torture, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment without trial and murder. The Indonesians have interests. That is why they will not leave West Papua so easily. The PDP should address their interests and sit down on the bargaining table to negotiate. The PDP also should take into account pressure groups within people in West Papua. This is not an easy task. Only when PDP stands for the people, not for persons within the Council or groups that back up the PDP that the PDP will gain strong support and power. Such a position will help the PDP to achieve what it wants to achieve.

There is another model that I want to add here, i.e., traditional models. This model can be identified as mysterious model; it is difficult for people to predict or guess. Most often, leaders with this model confuse and rule people. They rule at the time people are confused and try to find out their mysterious actions or ambiguous statements. Both Mr. Abdurrahman Wahid and Mr. Theys Hiyo Eluway apply this model, in addition to the formal models. They work based on the voice of their hearts not based on the voice of their brains. Many political analysts and experts get confused what they are going to do. They blamed Mr. Wahid as the source of conflicts among political elites in Indonesia. The same is happening to Mr. Eluway. For one reason, they do ignore the political models in their politics. They do not count the interests of pressure groups in Indonesia and Papua. They listen to their hearts more than the interest groups. Most often they will say, "Everything depends of God. Only Him will determine the future of West Papua. Let us pray and see his mighty work!" Most often, this model does not have clear strategic plans or plans of actions.

This model can create conflicts between the interest groups. They need managers who understand and practice political models and cultural models stand beside them and give advice on daily basis. If not, their solutions may create more problems.

If the people in West Papua put little trust on the PDP, it does not mean that they did not give mandate to the PDP to work for them. It does not mean the PDP members are working for other purposes. It does not necessarily mean that the PDP is asking for autonomy in West Papua. It means that the PDP needs to address the interests of each party in West Papua. It means that the PDP needs to give certain responsibilities to each pressure group to work independently to achieve the goal: INDEPENDENCE, i.e., PDP should apply the collegial models of management combined with the political models.

Above these, the PDP should apply the open-system of the formal models in combination with cultural models. Voices from pressure groups and even grassroots should be listened to and addressed. The PDP should become the "saviour" for the Austronesians and Melanesians in West Papua. The PDP should open its heart and brain. It should tell the people whom it represents what it does, why and when. The more people are curious to know the "secrets and mystery" of the PDP's work, the more the people will turn their back on the PDP. The more things are open and transparent, the more the PDP will get support from the people. No matter the PDP wins or losses in the bargaining of interests. The key is that the people in West Papua must know WHY, WHY and WHY the PDP losses or wins. Confuse and rule method is not the way forward.(oct400/sk)

The Papua Presidium Council (PDP): Between Theory and Its Practice of Management (1), by Sem Karoba

Monday, October 4, 1999 12:00:00 PM

Papau Presidium Council, Management Theory, Papua
The Papua Presidium Council (PDP): Between Theory and Its Practice of Management (1), by Sem Karoba, Political Analyst for the Koteka People

There is a lot of controversy, not on the leadership but on the management of the Papua Presidium Council (PDP). Most of the people in West Papua are standing behind the PDP. They are ready to sacrifice what they have, including their lives for the sake of the independence of West Papua. However, there also people here who are suspicious of what is actually done by the PDP. The people here really want to achieve their independence by any means, and the PDP is openly declaring its mission to do so. But why do others suspect the PDP?

There is a lot of controversy, not on the leadership but on the management of the Papua Presidium Council (PDP). Most of the people in West Papua are standing behind the PDP. They are ready to sacrifice what they have, including their lives for the sake of the independence of West Papua. However, there also people here who are suspicious of what is actually done by the PDP. The people here really want to achieve their independence by any means, and the PDP is openly declaring its mission to do so. But why do others suspect the PDP?

I am going to answer this question in two perspectives: the perspective of the Koteka People and the management perspective in relation to the management of the PDP. In this first article, let us look at some reasons why koteka people are suspicious on teh PDP's work. In the koteka culture, when you are fighting with your enemy, you will never have a word with your enemy because this is about fighting against. This is the way koteka people work. They do not tolerate the work of the enemy whatsoever. They do not negotiate, they do not have dialogues, they do not want to talk about the differences because the differences will never be resolved in a fight. Perhaps this is too difficult to apply now, because diplomacy is the frontline of every politics in the world today. More talk is necessary in promoting understanding and respect among the fighting parties. However, this depends of the Indonesian side, whether they want to put the issue on the table or they still want to use arms and military intimidation to resolve the problem in West Papua.

The second reason for the koteka people's suspicion is how the PDP members behave to the Indonesian government. Besides continuous dialogues and negotiations with the Indonesians, the PDP also safely guarded and protected by the Indonesian military guard when they come to Jakarta or Java island. In many occasions, the members were welcomed by the military personnel in Jakarta and driven away under their guard. Then people ask, "These people are fighting for the independence of West Papua, but how come, they are guarded by the military intelligence?" Why can't they ask the Papuans who live in Jakarta to guard them? In addition to this, they seem feel saver to live in Java compared to staying in West Papua. In West Papua, they have Satgas (members of Papuan Task Force) surrounding their homes. And they do not need any of the Satgas members to guard in Java. Why do they feel safer in Java than in West Papua? Maybe they are working for the Indonesians?

The third reason is that the PDP is getting much resources from the Indonesian government. They have got cars from the Indonesian officials. They are paid to come to Jakarta. Some of them are accompanying the Indonesian officials on tour to foreign countries. Even worse, they are getting paid for holding meetings and President Wahid donated 1 Million Rupiahs for the Papua National Congress II, 2000 recently. When you find a koteka person doing this, koteka people will straight away say, "This person is not working for us!" In koteka culture, when you are working against some one, either in a war or in politics, you are not allowed to eat, use or consume whatever your enemy gives you by any reason whatsoever. At the point you receive anything from your enemies, you must come to your people and say, "I am not suitable for this job, because I have had something from our enemy. Others must replace me, I am wrong in leading you guys!" From this point, the people replace with new members. Even stricter from this, if the koteka people were leading this struggle, they will not eat any Indonesian-cooked food nor drink their water. They will not ask any money from them. They will go sleep with any Indonesian woman, and so forth. They will keep themselves clean from any political virus from the enemies. This exactly the same as the teaching in the Bible, i.e., when you are fighting against Satan, you cannot tolerate its offer whatsoever.

Fourthly, the koteka people believe that their leaders must to change their words. For example, if they had instructed the people in West Papua to hoist their Morning Star Flag, the same PDP will never ask the people again to lower down the same flag, not within a year or some twenty years. There is some consideration if the members of PDP are different people, but PDP as an organisation this cannot happen among the koteka people. Modern politics may teach on the contrary, i.e., politics changes in seconds, you must follow the flow of the political currents. This is one of the main reasons why people in West Papua do not trust Indonesian anymore. The Indonesian parties campaign to win general elections with so many good promises. Only after some weeks of winning the election, after Papuans voting for a party, what they get are rape, intimidation, torture, imprisonment without trial, disappearance, exploitation of their resources, violations of their rights and murder. Koteka people cannot accept these kinds of words by the same people. If the PDP is asking to lower down the Morning Star now, they will confront the PDP, not the Indonesians anymore. They will call the PDP to be accountable for their words.

People in West Papua, particularly in the highlands are experts in being lied. They know very well how people lied at them. They have learned from the Dutch, from the Western Missionaries, from the Tourists, from those who are coming here as researchers, from multinational companies, and now from the PDP. Their life is full of lies. They sleep, they eat, they work, they breathe all the time with full of lies. Life in lies is not a humane life. It is the life in the hell. People here want clear, consistent, and persistent managers of the PDP. If not, they are ready to die anyway. What they want is not politics, they want independence: Free from any kind of violations in their land.

The world must understand them because they are talking is from their experience, the best teacher. What they are saying is straight forward, open and clear. Only our response to their demands are steering up the mud, making the whole issue unclear. If the world repents from its dirty politics, then perhaps the Papuans, particularly koteka people will join the world's new order. Or the post-modern world will finally make them become liars, manipulators, speculators and politicians with full of changes in minds. Just wait and see! (oct400/sk)

Books from West Papua

All Books from West Papua

Dokumen Sangat Rahasia Operasi di Papua Barat, Diungkap

Sekilas Tentang Buku OPM Karya Socratez S Yoman (bagian/1)

Socratez S Yoman yang memiliki nama asli Ambiek Godmend Ekmmban Yoman, telah meluncurkan buku ke 9. Dan yang terakhir Ia meluncurkan buku dengan judul Otonomi, Pemekaran dan Merdeka (OPM?). Apa isi buku tersebut? Berikut ringkasan dari isi buku tersebut.

Oleh Ahmad Jainuri, Bintang Papua

Dengan menggunakan caver warna merah bergambar orang asli Papua berpakaian koteka dan bersenjata laras panjang, Penulis memberi sub judul “Saatnya Kebenaran Bersuara di Tanah Melanesia”. Penulis pun mengutip dua statement Presiden RI Dr. H Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono yang terkait dengan upaya menjawab permasalahan di Papua, yaitu ‘Bersama-sama mari kita serukan penolakan terhadap fitnah, berita-berita bohong, dan perilaku kasar yang melampaui kepatuta’ yang dikutip dari Kompas edisi 28 Desember 2009. Statmen berikutnya adalah yang merupakan perkataan langsung SBY tanggal 16 Agustus 2008, yaitu ‘Selesaikan masalah Papua dengan dialog damai, demokratis, jujur, adil dan bermartabat’. Dengan diberi pengantar oleh Prof. Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, buku setebal 136 halaman tersebut disusun dalam 6 BAB, yang membahas 57 pokok bahasan. Dalam pengantarnya, Profesor Riset bidang Intermestic Affair di Pusat Penelitian Politik - Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (P2P-LIPI), mengawali dengan mengungkap sejarah tanah Papua sejak dikuasai Belanda hingga cerita realita kehidupan di Tanah Papua, termasuk kerukunan umat beragama yang saling menghormati dan saling membantu dalam kegiatan social maupun acara-acara keagamaan. Sedangka tentang penulis buku ‘OPM?’ dikatakan bahwa buku-buku karya Socratez mendapat perhatian dari para peminat masalah Papua. “Sayang, hamper semua buku-buku itu dikategorikan sebagai buku terlarang oleh Kejaksaan Agung,” ungkap Ikrar Nusa Bhakti dalam pengantarnya.

Buku-buku Yoman, kata Prof. Ikrar, adalah suara hati seorang pelayan umat di Tanah Papua, meski belum dapat dikategorikan sebagai karya ilmiah. “Terlepas dari itu, buku-buku Yoman yang bukan buku ilmiah melainkan lebih sebagai ‘pamphlet politik’ ini tetap penting untuk dibaca. Karena berisi kesedihan, trauma, impian, serta gagasan mengenai apa yang sebaiknya dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia untuk membangun Papua,” lanjutnya.

Dalam Bab pendahukuan, Penulis menguraikan alan mengapa bukunya diberi judul OPM? (Otonomi, Pemekaran dan Merdeka). Yakni, katanya adalah karena selama ini OPM adalah singkatan dari Organisasi Papua Merdeka.

“Saya menggumuli dan merindukan bahwa sudah saatnya stigma yang menindas, memenjarakan dan membunuh umat Tuhan ini harus dihapuskan,” ujar Pemulis masih dalam Bab Pendahuluan.

Dalam Bab yang membahas tentang ‘Otonomi’, penulis menguraikan dua UU Otonomi yang pernah diberlakukan di Indonesia. Yaitu : UU No. 12 Tahun 1969 yang membicarakan tentang pembentukan Provinsi maupun Kabupaten-Kabupaten Otonom di Irian Barat dan UU No. 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otonomi Khusus yang pembahasannya lebih mendominasi.

Menurut Penulis, istilah otonomi bagi umat Tuhan di Tanah Papua bukan hal yang baru. Tentang UU Otsus Tahun 2001, Penulis mengawali dengan pertanyaan kenapa UU itu ada? Apakah itu itikad baik Indonesia terhadap orang Papua? Apakah Otsu situ kemauan orang Papua?

Yang langsung diberi jawaban, bahwa Otsus ditawarkan kepada rakyat Papua Barat sebagai penyelesaian menang-menang (win-win solution) tentang masalah status politik Papua, karena adanya tuntutan orang asli Papua untuk menentukan nasib sendiri (self determination).

Dalam Bab awal tersebut, Penulis juga mengutip statmennya di media massa local, yakni di Harian Bintang Papua, Pasific Pos dan Cendrawasih Pos. Namun tidak disebutkan edisi atau tanggal terbitnya, maupuan halaman dengan jelas, ketika berita yang dikutipnya dalam buku OPM? terbit.

Dalam Bab tentang Pemekaran, penulis mengutip perkataan Mantan Presiden RI Abdurrahman Wahid (Alm), yang dikutipnya dari Senat Mornao 2004:9, yaitu ‘Pemekaran Provinsi Papua adalah keputusan yang tidak ada hubungannya dengan kebutuhan rakyat Papua. Itu bukan pemecahan masalah, namun sumber masalah baru.

Juga terdapat kutipan dari dokumen sangat rahasia tentang operasi di Tanah Papua, yaitu surat yang dikeluarkan Direktorat Jenderal (Ditjen) Departemen Dalam Negeri, Ditjen Kesbang dan Linmas. Yakni Nota dinas No. 578/ND/KESBANG/D IV/VI/2000 tangal 9 Juni 2000.

Penulis juga kembali mengutip dari bukunya terdahulu yang menggambarkan pemekaran kabupaten dan provinsi. Yakni digambarkan sebagai sangkar burung, kandang kelinci dan kandang kurungan ternak babi. Dalam bab ini, penulis mengakhiri dengan kutipan opini yang ditulisnya lewat media massa local Pasific Pos, yang berjudul Pemekaran Kabupaten/Kota dan Provinsi di Tanah Papua Barat adalah Operasi Militer dan Operasi Transmigrasi Gaya Baru edisi 25 September 2009. (Bersambung) /03

Minggu, 13 Maret 2011 15:46

via ScribeFire

Usulan Untuk Memperkaya bukuu: DEMOKRASI KESUKUAN: Suatu Pengantar

Disampaikan: marisa dhani  12/3/11

salam damai untuk tanah Timur yang Indah

saya dhani, sahabat dari Aceh untuk teman2 Papua.

4 hari yang lalu seorang teman dari Papua yang sangat baik, memberi saya buku Demokrasi Kesukuan: Gagasan Sistem Pemerintahan Masyarakat Adat di Era Globalisasi. edisi VIIIa
pada malam harinya saya langsung membaca buku tersebut, dan menemukan gagasan-gagasan yang teman2 maksudkan. namun ada beberapa catatan yang saya buat, sebagai pembaca yang hanya memiliki pemahaman yang dangkal tentang gagasan Demokrasi Kesukuan tersebut.

pertama, mengenai bahasa dalam buku ini yang sedikit sulit di mengerti, maaf untuk mengatakan bahwa tatanan bahasanya masih sangat sulit untuk di pahami. tentu saya mengerti bahwa ada perbedaan penggunaan kata yang terjadi di Timur dan Barat. namun menurut saya, ada baiknya untuk mempertimbangkan hal ini, sebab Ide dan gagasan yang teman2 punya haruslah tersampaikan dengan baik. dan untuk itu, mempertimbangkan dari sisi si pembaca sangatlah penting. saya mengusulkan, bila teman2 akan membuat/mencetak buku kembali, buatlah dalam 3 versi; pertama, untuk pembaca yang asli dari Papau, kedua dari Indonesia (EYD), dan ketiga dari dunia Internasional (minsal dengan bahasa Inggris).

kedua, struktur penulisan masih belum fokus menurut saya. sehingga, ide dan apa yang ingin disampaikan sebaiknya dikonsep dengan jelas, kemudian disampaiakn dengan menggunakan metodologi yang baik. agar tujuan menyampaikan gagasan dari Demokrasi Kesukuan tersebut dapat diterima dengan baik. menurut saya Logic of Action, dari ususlan Demokrasi kesukuan belum kuat dalam buku ini.

ketiga, teman2 bisa menggunakan banyak referensi bacaan untuk menyampaikan logic of action dari gagasan demokrasi kesukuan. saya menyarankan untuk melihat konsep Cosmopolitanisme, global justice, dan social movement for democracy.

minsal, teman2 mengatakan. teman2 tidak ingin berangkat dari konsep2 itu, maka akan ada kesulitan bagi pembaca untuk memahami gagasan yang disampaikan oleh buku yang teman2 buat.
mengapa saya menyarankan untuk menjadikan tiga buku diatas sebagai bahan referensi, sebab dalam buku Demokrasi Kesukuan;Gagasan Sistem Pemerintahan Masyarakat Adat di era Globalisasi, sejumlah konsep baik dari Cosmopolitanisme (world citizenship), global Justice cukup sering teman2 sebutkan. hanya saja, tidak menjelaskannya sebagai bagian dari konsep itu secara jelas dan tegas. saya pikir, akan sangat baik bila memasukkannya. sehingga pembaca dapat menegrti dan meng 'iya'kan gagasan yang teman2 sampaikan, dan itulah yang menjadi tujuan buku itu di buat.

demikian dulu pesan dari saya, maaf bila tidak terlalu banyak bermanfaat atau jauh dari yang teman2 harapkan. saya sangat menyukai gagasan yang teman2 buat, hanya saja membuatnya lebih tajam dan lebih dapat diterima itu menjadi harapan saya. semoga edisi berikutnya akan ada banyak perbaikan, sehingga apa2 yang dituju oleh teman2 Matahari Timur, bisa tercapai.

salam damai untuk semua warga negara dunia

NB: teman2 bisa mencari referensi2 bacaan yang saya usulkan di www.library.nu
NBB: ketika seseorang menyerang mu, gunakan apa yang ia pakai untuk menyerang mu untuk membalasnya atau mempertahankan diri. saya pikir ini menarik untuk menjelaskan counter hegemony yang bisa dilakukan, selamat berkarya untuk kemanusiaan.

Giordano Bruno: The Forgotten Philosopher

by John J. Kessler, Ph.D., Ch.E.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html

                    Filosofo, arso vivo a Roma,
                      PER VOLONTA DEL PAPA
                       IL 17 FEBBRAIO 1600

In the year 1548 an Italian boy was born in the little town of Nola, not far from Vesuvius. Although, he spent the greater part of his life in hostile and foreign countries he was drawn back to his home at the end of his travels and after he had written nearly twenty books.

When he was thirteen years old he began to go to school at the Monastery of Saint Domenico. It was a famous place. Thomas Aquinas, himself a Dominican, had lived there and taught. Within a few years Bruno had become a Dominican priest.

It was not long before the monks of Saint Dominico began to learn something about the extraordinary enthusiasm of their young colleague. He was frank, outspoken and lacking in reticence. It was not long before he got himself into trouble. It was evident that this boy could not be made to fit into Dominican grooves. One of the first things that a student has to learn is to give the teacher the answers that the teacher wants. The average teacher is the preserver of the ancient land marks. The students are his audience. They applaud but they must not innovate. They must learn to labor and to wait. It was not Bruno's behavior but his opinions that got him into trouble.

He ran away from school, from his home town, from his own country and tried to find among strangers and foreigners a congenial atmosphere for his intellectual integrity that he could not find at home. It is difficult not to get sentimental about Bruno. He was a man without a country and, finally, without a church.

Bruno was interested in the nature of ideas. Although the name was not yet invented it will be perfectly proper to dub Bruno as an epistemologist, or as a pioneer Semanticist. He takes fresh stock of the human mind.

It is an interesting fact that here, at the close of the 16th Century, a man, closed in on all sides by the authority of priestly tradition, makes what might be termed a philosophical survey of the world which the science of the time was disclosing. It is particularly interesting because it is only in the 20th Century that the habit of this sort of speculation is again popular. Bruno lived in a period when philosophy became divorced from science. Perhaps it might be better to say that science became divorced from philosophy. Scientists became too intrigued with their new toys to bother about philosophy. They began to busy themselves with telescopes and microscopes and chemical glassware.

In 1581 Bruno went to Paris and began to give lectures on philosophy. It was not an uncommon thing for scholars to wander from place to place. He made contacts easily and was able to interest any group with whom he came in contact with the fire of his ideas. His reputation reached King Henry III who became curious to look over this new philosophical attraction. Henry Ill was curious to find out if Bruno's art was that of the magician or the sorcerer. Bruno had made a reputation for himself as a magician who could inspire greater memory retention. Bruno satisfied the king that his system was based upon organized knowledge. Bruno found a real patron in Henry Ill and it had much to do with the success of his short career in Paris.

It was about this time that one of Bruno's earliest works was published, De Umbras Idearum, The Shadows of Ideas, which was shortly followed by Ars Mernoriae, Art of Memory. In these books he held that ideas are only the shadows of truth. The idea was extremely novel in his time. In the same year a third book followed: Brief Architecture of the Art of Lully with its Completion. Lully had tried to prove the dogmas of the church by human reason. Bruno denies the value of such mental effort. He points out that Christianity is entirely irrational, that it is contrary to philosophy and that it disagrees with other religions. He points out that we accept it through faith, that revelation, so called, has no scientific basis.

In his fourth work he selects the Homeric sorcerer Circi who changed men into beasts and makes Circi discuss with her handmaiden a type of error which each beast represents. The book 'Cantus Circaeus,' The Incantation of Circe, shows Bruno working with the principle of the association of ideas, and continually questioning the value of traditional knowledge methods.

In the year 1582, at the age of 34 he wrote a play Il Candelajo, The Chandler. He thinks as a candle-maker who works with tallow and grease and then has to go out and vend his wares with shouting and ballyhoo:

"Behold in the candle borne by this Chandler, to whom I give birth, that which shall clarify certain shadows of ideas ... I need not instruct you of my belief. Time gives all and takes all away; everything changes but nothing perishes. One only is immutable, eternal and ever endures, one and the same with itself. With this philosophy my spirit grows, my mind expands. Whereof, however obscure the night may be, I await the daybreak, and they who dwell in day look for night ... Rejoice therefore, and keep whole, if you can, and return love for love."

There came a time when the novelty of Bruno had worn off in France and he felt that it was time to move on. He went to England to begin over again and to find a fresh audience. He failed to make scholastic contact with Oxford. Oxford, like other European universities of this time, paid scholastic reverence to the authority of Aristotle. A great deal has been written about the Middle Ages being throttled by the dead hand of Aristotle. It was not the methods of Aristotle nor the fine mind of Aristotle which were so much in question as it was the authority of Aristotle. A thing must be believed because Aristotle said it. It was part of the method of Bruno to object in his own strenuous fashion to the cramming down one's throat of statements of fact because Aristotle had made such statements when they were plainly at variance with the fresh sense experience which science was producing.

In his work The Ash Wednesday Supper, a story of a private dinner, being entertained by English guests, Bruno spreads the Copernican doctrine. A new astronomy had been offered the world at which people were laughing heartily, because it was at variance with the teachings of Aristotle. Bruno was carrying on a spirited propaganda in a fighting mood. Between the year 1582 and 1592 there was hardly a teacher in Europe who was persistently, openly and actively spreading the news about the "universe which Copernicus had charted, except Giordano Bruno. A little later on another and still more famous character was to take up the work: Galilee.

Galileo never met Bruno in person and makes no mention of him in his works, although he must have read some of them. We may not blame Galilee for being diplomat enough to withhold mention of a recognized heretic. Galilee has often been criticized because he played for personal safety in the matter of his own difficulties. We demand a great deal of our heroes.

While in England Bruno had a personal audience with Queen Elizabeth. He wrote of her in the superlative fashion of the time calling her diva, Protestant Ruler, sacred, divine, the very words he used for His Most Christian Majesty and Head of The Holy Roman Empire. This was treasured against him when he was later brought to trial as an atheist, an infidel and a heretic. Queen Elizabeth did not think highly of Bruno. She thought him as wild, radical, subversive and dangerous. Bruno found Englishmen rather crude.

Bruno had no secure place in either Protestant or Roman Catholic religious communities. He carried out his long fight against terrible odds. He had lived in Switzerland and France and was now in England and left there for Germany. He translated books, read proofs, and got together groups and lectured for whatever he could get out of it. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to picture him as a man who mended his own clothes, who was often cold, hungry and shabby. There are only a few things that we know about Bruno with great certainty and these facts are the ideas which he left behind in his practically forgotten books, the bootleg literature of their day. After twenty years in exile we picture him as homesick, craving the sound of his own native tongue and the companionship of his own countrymen. But he continued to write books. In his book De la Causa, principio et uno, On Cause, Principle, and Unity we find prophetic phrases:

"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."

His other works were The Infinity, the Universe and Its Worlds, The Transport of Intrepid Souls, and Cabala of the Steed like unto Pegasus with the Addition of the Ass of Cyllene, an ironical discussion of the pretensions of superstition. This "ass," says Bruno, is to be found everywhere, not only in the church but in courts of law and even in colleges. In his book The Expulsion of the 'Triumphant Beast' he flays the pedantries he finds in Catholic and Protestant cultures. In yet another book The Threefold Leas and Measure of the Three Speculative Sciences and the Principle of Many Practical Arts, we find a discussion on a theme which was to be handled in a later century by the French philosopher Descartes. The book was written five years before Descartes was born and in it he says: "Who so itcheth to Philosophy must set to work by putting all things to the doubt."

He also wrote Of the Unit, Quantity and Shape and another work On Images, Signs and Ideas, as well as On What is Immense and Innumerable; Exposition of the Thirty Seals and List of Metaphysical Terms for Taking the Study of Logic and Philosophy in Hand. His most interesting title is One Hundred Sixty Articles Directed Against the Mathematics and Philosophers of the Day. One of his last works, The Fastenings of Kind, was unfinished.

It is easy to get an impression of the reputation which Bruno had created by the year 1582 in the minds of the clerical authorities of southern Europe. He had written of an infinite universe which had left no room for that greater infinite conception which is called God. He could not conceive that God and nature could be separate and distinct entities as taught by Genesis, as taught by the Church and as even taught by Aristotle. He preached a philosophy which made the mysteries of the virginity of Mary, of the crucifixion and the mass, meaningless. He was so naive that he could not think of his own mental pictures as being really heresies. He thought of the Bible as a book which only the ignorant could take literally. The Church's methods were, to say the least, unfortunate, and it encouraged ignorance from the instinct of self-preservation.

Bruno wrote: "Everything, however men may deem it assured and evident, proves, when it is brought under discussion to be no less doubtful than are extravagant and absurd beliefs." He coined the phrase "Libertes philosophica." The right to think, to dream, if you like, to make philosophy. After 14 years of wandering about Europe Bruno turned his steps toward home. Perhaps he Was homesick. Some writers have it that he was framed. For Bruno to go back to Italy is as strange a paradox as that of the rest of his life.

He was invited to Venice by a young man whose name was Mocenigo, who offered him a home and who then brought charges against him before the Inquisition. The case dragged on. He was a prisoner in the Republic of Venice but a greater power wanted him and he was surrendered to Rome. For six years, between 1593 and 1600 he lay in a Papal prison. Was he forgotten, tortured? Whatever historical records there are never have been published by those authorities who have them. In the year 1600 a German scholar Schoppius happened to be in Rome and wrote about Bruno, who was interrogated several times by the Holy Office and convicted by the chief theologians. At one time he obtained forty days to consider his position; by and by he promised to recant, then renewed his "follies." Then he got another forty days for deliberation but did nothing but baffle the pope and the Inquisition. After two years in the custody of the Inquisitor he was taken on February ninth to the palace of the Grand Inquisitor to hear his sentence on bended knee, before the expert assessors and the Governor of the City.

Bruno answered the sentence of death by fire with the threatening: "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it." He was given eight more clays to see whether he would repent. But it was no use. He was taken to the stake and as he was dying a crucifix was presented to him, but he pushed it away with fierce scorn.

They were wise in getting rid of him for he wrote no more books, but they should have strangled him when he was born. As it turned out, they did not get rid of him at all. His fate was not an unusual one for heretics; this strange madcap genius was quickly forgotten. His works were honored by being placed on the Index expurgatorius on August 7, 1603, and his books became rare. They never obtained any great popularity.

In the early part of the 18th Century English deists rediscovered Bruno and tried to excite the imagination of the public with the retelling of the story of his life, but this aroused no particular enthusiasm.

The enthusiasm of German philosophy reached the subject of Bruno when Jacobi (1743-1819) drew attention to the genius of Bruno and German thinkers generally recognized his genius but they did not read his books. In the latter part of the 19th Century Italian scholars began to be intrigued with Bruno and for a while "Bruno Mania" was part of the intellectual enthusiasm of cultured Italians. Bruno began to be a symbol to represent the forward- looking free-thinking type of philosopher and scientist, and has become a symbol of scientific martyrdom. Bruno was a truant, a philosophical tramp, a poetic vagrant, but has no claims to the name of scientist. His works are not found in American libraries. In this age of biographical writing it is surprising that no modern author has attempted to reconstruct his life, important because it is in the direct line of modern progress. Bruno was a pioneer who roused Europe from its long intellectual sleep. He was martyred for his enthusiasm.

Bruno was born five years after Copernicus died. He had bequeathed an intoxicating idea to the generation that was to follow him. We hear a lot in our own day about the expanding universe. We have learned to accept it as something big. The thought of the Infinity of the Universe was one of the great stimulating ideas of the Renaissance. It was no longer a 15th Century God's backyard. And it suddenly became too vast to be ruled over by a 15th Century God. Bruno tried to imagine a god whose majesty should dignify the majesty of the stars. He devised no new metaphysical quibble nor sectarian schism. He was not playing politics. He was fond of feeling deep thrills over high visions and he liked to talk about his experiences. And all of this refinement went through the refiners' fire -- that the world might be made safe from the despotism of the ecclesiastic 16th Century Savage. He suffered a cruel death and achieved a unique martyr's fame. He has become the Church's most difficult alibi. She can explain away the case of Galileo with suave condescension. Bruno sticks in her throat.

He is one martyr whose name should lead all the rest. He was not a mere religious sectarian who was caught up in the psychology of some mob hysteria. He was a sensitive, imaginative poet, fired with the enthusiasm of a larger vision of a larger universe ... and he fell into the error of heretical belief. For this poets vision he was kept in a dark dungeon for eight years and then taken out to a blazing market place and roasted to death by fire.

It is an incredible story.

The "Church" will never outlive him.

phylosophy, pioneer, positivism

via ScribeFire

Teori-teori etika lingkungan itu apa aja?

Secara teoritis, terdapat tiga model teori etika lingkungan, yaitu yang dikenal sebagai Shallow Environmental Ethics, Intermediate Environmental Ethics, dan Deep Environmental Ethics. Ketiga teori ini juga dikenal sebagai antroposentrisme, biosentrisme, dan ekosentrisme.(Sony Keraf: 2002)

Etika lingkungan yang bercorak antroposentrisme merupakan sebuah kesalahan cara pandang Barat, yang bermula dari Aristoteles hingga filsuf-filsuf modern, di mana perhatian utamanya menganggap bahwa etika hanya berlaku bagi komunitas manusia. Maksudnya, dalam etika lingkungan, manusialah yang dijadikan satu-satunya pusat pertimbangan, dan yang dianggap relevan dalam pertimbangan moral, yang dilihat dalam istilah Frankena--sebagai satu-satunya moral patient (William K. Frankena:1979). Akibatnya, secara teleologis, diupayakan agar dihasilkan akibat baik sebanyak mungkin bagi spesies manusia dan dihindari akibat buruk sebanyak mungkin bagi spesies itu. Etika antroposentrisme ini dalam pandangan Arne Naess dikategorikan sebagai Shallow Ecology (kepedulian lingkungan yang dangkal).

Cara pandang antroposentrisme, kini dikritik secara tajam oleh etika biosentrisme dan ekosentrisme. Bagi biosentrisme dan ekosentrisme, manusia tidak hanya dipandang sebagai makhluk sosial. Manusia pertama-tama harus dipahami sebagai makhluk biologis, makhluk ekologis. Dunia bukan sebagai kumpulan objek-objek yang terpisah, tetapi sebagai suatu jaringan fenomena yang saling berhubungan dan saling tergantung satu sama lain secara fundamental. Etika ini mengakui nilai intrinsik semua makhluk hidup dan "memandang manusia tak lebih dari satu untaian dalam jaringan kehidupan".(Fritjof Capra:1997)

Ekosentrisme berkaitan dengan etika lingkungan yang lebih luas. Berbeda dengan biosentrisme yang hanya memusatkan pada etika pada biosentrisme, pada kehidupan seluruhnya, ekosentrisme justru memusatkan etika pada seluruh komunitas ekologis, baik yang hidup maupun tidak. Karena secara ekologis, makhluk hidup dan benda-benda abiotis lainnya saling terkait satu sama lain. Oleh karenanya, kewajiban dan tanggung jawab moral tidak hanya dibatasi pada makhluk hidup. Kewajiban dan tanggung jawab moral yang sama juga berlaku terhadap semua realitas ekologis.

Salah satu bentuk etika ekosentrisme ini adalah etika lingkungan yang sekarang ini dikenal sebagai Deep Ecology. Sebagai istilah, Deep Ecology pertama kali diperkenalkan oleh Arne Naess, seorang filsuf Norwegia, pada 1973. di mana prinsip moral yang dikembangkan adalah menyangkut seluruh komunitas ekologis.

Etika ini dirancang sebagai sebuah etika praktis, sebagai sebuah gerakan. Artinya, prinsip-prinsip moral etika lingkungan harus diterjemahkan dalam aksi nyata dan konkret. Etika ini menyangkut suatu gerakan yang jauh lebih dalam dan komprehensif dari sekadar sesuatu yang instrumental dan ekspansionis sebagaimana ditemukan pada antroposentrisme dan biosentrisme. Dengan demikian, Deep Ecology lebih tepat disebut sebagai sebuah gerakan diantara orang-orang yang sama, mendukung suatu gaya hidup yang selaras dengan alam, dan sama-sama memperjuangkan isu lingkungan dan politik.

Akar gerakan Deep Ecology telah ditemukan pada teori ekosentrisme pada umumnya dan kritik sosial dari Henry David Thoureau, John Muir, D.H. Lawrence, Robinson Jeffers, dan Aldo Huxley. Pengaruh Taoisme, Fransiskus Asisi, Zen Budhisme, dan Barukh Spinoza juga sangat kuat dalam teori-teori dan gerakan Deep Ecology (George Session:1995)

Bagaimanapun keseluruhan organisme kehidupan di alam ini layak dan harus dijaga. Krisis alam yang terasa begitu mengkhawatirkan akan membawa dampak pada setiap dimensi kehidupan ini. Ekosentrisme tidak menempatkan seluruh unsur di alam ini dalam kedudukan yang hierarkis. Melainkan sebuah satu kesatuan organis yang saling bergantung satu sama lain. Sebuah jaring-jaring kehidupan yang harmonis.

Antroposentrisme
Antroposentrisme adalah teori etika lingkungan yang memandang manusia sebagai pusat dari sistem alam semesta. Manusia dan kepentingannya dianggap yang paling menentukan dalam tatanan ekosistem dan dalam kebijakan yang diambil dalam kaitan dengan alam, baik secara langsung atau tidak langung.

Nilai tertinggi adalah manusia dan kepentingannya. Hanya manusia yang mempunyai nilai dan mendapat perhatian. Segala sesuatu yang lain di alam semesta ini hanya akan mendapat nilai dan perhatian sejauh menunjang dan demi kepentingan manusia.

Oleh karenanya alam pun hanya dilihat sebagai obyek, alat dan sarana bagi pemenuhan kebutuhan dan kepentingan manusia. Alam hanya alat bagi pencapaian tujuan manusia. Alam tidak mempunyai nilai pada dirinya sendiri

Biosentrisme dan Ekosentrisme
Ekosentrisme merupakan kelanjutan dari teori etika lingkungan biosentrisme. Oleh karenanya teori ini sering disamakan begitu saja karena terdapat banyak kesamaan. Yaitu pada penekanannya atas pendobrakan cara pandang antroposentrisme yang membatasi keberlakuan etika hanya pada komunitas manusia. Keduanya memperluas keberlakuan etika untuk mencakup komunitas yang lebih luas. Pada biosentrisme, konsep etika dibatasi pada komunitas yang hidup (biosentrism), seperti tumbuhan dan hewan. Sedang pada ekosentrisme, pemakaian etika diperluas untuk mencakup komunitas ekosistem seluruhnya (ekosentrism)
materi referensi:
http://www.telapak.org/index.php?option=…

theory, environmentalism, ecocentrism, antrhopocentrism

via ScribeFire

Tribal Democracy

Overview

A primitive government where all the members of the tribe are allowed to make their voice heard and influence how their tribe should be governed.
Divine Wind

Changes:

Special: Stability cost -33%, no royal marriage

Reform the Government: Requires ruler with 7+ administrative skill, Government 10, Centralization,Innovative less than 2, stability 2 and peace. Result is a Noble Republic and a -5 stability hit. Must be in the latin, eastern, ottoman or muslim technology groups or have a neighbour country in one of these same four technology groups.

Heir to the Throne

Activation: Tribal democracies begin with the government

Administrative Efficiency: 1.30

Policy Minimum: Aristocracy -1, Decentralization 2

Policy Maximum: None

Magistrates: None

Election Cycle: None

Special: Technology cost +50%, Stability cost -25%, no royal marriage

Reform the Government: Requires ruler with 7+ administrative skill, Government 10, 2 stability and peace. Result is a Noble Republic and a -5 stability hit.
Government Change Stability Cost

Tribal democracies can never change governments outside of decisions.
Previous Versions

Activation: From the beginning

Administrative Efficiency: 25

Special: Stability Cost Modifier -0.25, Technology Cost +0.5

Limits: Aristocracy -1
Government changes
Tribal Federation: 2.0
Tribal Despotism: 2.0

In the In Nomine expansion, a Tribal Democracy may become a Noble Republic via decision. Information on how to do this may be found here. Reform of a tribal government is accomplished via the decisions menu. To enact the decision in IN 3.1 you must (there are different requirements in v3.2):

1. Either be in the latin, eastern or muslim technology groups or have a neighbor country in one of these same three technology groups.

2. Have a ruler with an administration rating of 7 or higher

3. Have stability of +2 or +3.

4. Be at peace

5. There is an additional requirement which is different for each type of tribal government. A Tribal Democracy must have government tech 10 to reform.

In v3.2, one additionally needs to have at least +2 on either the centralization/decentralization or innovative/narrowminded slider.

Reform will cause a -5 point loss to stability. A tribal democracy will become a noble republic.
See also
Tribal government reform

via ScribeFire

Positivisme dalam Sejarah Perkembangan Filsafat

Oleh: AnneAhira.com Content Team

Abad pertengahan dalam sejarah filsafat dianggap sebagai masa ketika filsafat mengalami kemunduran. Ini dikarenakan filsafat lebih menjadi sekadar bidang yang tunduk kepada agama (gereja). Kondisi ini memang tidak dapat dielakkan karena kekuatan gereja dan negara sangat besar, sehingga filsafat pun harus mengabdi kepada keduanya.

Karya-kaya filsuf abad pertengahan, seperti yang ditulis Agustinus maupun Thomas Aquinas lebih banyak berbicara tentang agama dan masalah keimanan. Summa Contra Gentile, sebuah karya yang ditulis Aquinas adalah bukti nyata kekuasaan gereja terhadap orang-orang yang disebut kafir begitu kuat. Dalam karya tersebut Aquinas membela keyakinan gereja dan melawan orang-orang atheis sebagai musuh keimanan.

Dalam sejarah perkembangan filsafat, Galileo Galilei pernah dihukum dan dipaksa bertaubat di hadapan gereja karena mendukung konsep Copernicus tentang teori pusat alam semesta. Copernicus percaya bahwa pusat alam semesta adalah matahari, bukan bumi (heilosentris).

Namun, karena takut akan kecaman gereja yang memiliki keyakinan berbeda, dia urung menerbitkan pemikiran-pemikirannya. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, maupun Newton merupakan tokoh-tokoh sebagai tonggak ilmu pengetahuan. Di samping itu, muncul pula nama Francis Bacon (1561-1626) sebagai peletak dasar induktivisme.

Menurut Bacon, kebenaran yang sahih adalah kebenaran yang bebas dari asumsi-asumsi kosong, caranya dengan melakukan verifikasi. Asumsi-asumsi kosong ini tak lain adalah sikap orang-orang yang pada saat itu masih mempercayai mitos, begitu pula keyakinan gereja yang tidak terverifikasi.

Di sisi lain muncul pula Rene Descates (1956-1650) seorang filsuf sekaligus matematikawan yang mendorong bahwa manusia itu harus mampu berpikir tanpa dihalangi oleh ketakuatan atas mitos-mitos.

Pernyataannya yang mahsyur; “cogito ergo sum” menandai bangkitnya peranan manusia dalam kehidupan (berupa ilmu pengetahuan), juga semakin melemahnya pengaruh gereja yang didasari oleh teologi.

Semakin lama ilmu pengetahuan semakin berkembang. Kelompok yang memiliki pengaruh besar di abad modern adalah Lingkaran Wina yang lebih sering disebut kelompok Positivisme Logis.

Berangkat dari pandangan Bacon, mereka membangun pondasi ilmu pengetahuan serta menolak pernyataan-pernyataan yang menurut mereka omong kosong. Mereka menyatakan sikap bahwa ilmu pengetahuan harus memegang prinsip-prinsip jika masyarakat ingin maju.

Prinsip itu di antarannya sebagai berikut.
Menolak pembedaan ilmu-ilmu alam dengan ilmu-ilmu sosial. Dalam hal ini tidak ada perlakuan yang berbeda baik terhadap ilmu pengetahuan alam maupun ilmu sosial. Semuanya harus dapat diverifikasi dan diukur secara matematis;
menganggap pernyataan yang tidak dapat diverifikasi, seperti etika, estetika, dan metafisika, sebagai pernyataan yang tidak bermakna atau nonsense;
berusaha mempersatukan semua ilmu pengetahuan ke dalam satu bahasa ilmiah universal;
memandang tugas filsafat hanya sebagai analisis kata-kata atau pernyataan.

Positivisme dianggap sebagai tonggak kemajuan sains di dunia ini. Sebagai aliran filsafat, mereka mendasarkan diri pada pengetahuan empiris (pengetahauan yang diangkat dari pengalaman nyata dan dapat diuji kebenarannya).

Ilmu pengetahuan kemudian diarahkan untuk membangun peradaban manusia dengan cara penguasaan terhadap alam semesta. Teknologi-teknologi canggih diciptakan, penelitian-penelitian besar dilakukan, dan omong kosong yang “tak berguna” –seperti agama– mereka jauhkan.

Salah satu tokoh terakhir dari kelompok positivisme adalah Karl R. Popper. Dialah yang memodifikasi metode induktif Bacon, lalu menggantinya dengan metode baru, yakni falsifikasi.

Kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan yang dibanggakan kelompok Positivisme di sisi lain menimbulkan malapetaka. Perusakan lingkungan karena ekspolitasi berlebihan demi ambisi kapitalisme, perang dunia yang mengerikan, serta tunduknya manusia pada rasionalitas teknologis banyak menuai kritik.

Teknologi yang pada awalnya hanya sarana untuk kehidupan manusia, kini menjadi tujuan itu sendiri. Manusia diperbudak oleh kemajuan yang mereka buat. Senjata dan amunisi mendorong keinginan untuk berperang, televisi dan iklan menimbulkan wabah mimesis (peniruan), sementara ilmu pengetahuan tetap tinggal di menara gading.

Kelompok yang sangat keras melawan Positivisme adalah Mazhab Frankfurt. Mereka ingin membongkar kekuasaan Positivisme dalam kehidupan manusia, serta ingin mengembalikan manusia pada kondisi yang emansipatoris.

Tokoh-tokoh Mazhab Frankfurt di antaranya; Max Horkheimer, Felix Weil, Frederic Polloc, Theodore Adorno, Harbert Marcuse, Eric Form, juga Jurgen Habermas.

history, philosophy, positivism, anthrophocentrism, theocentrism

via ScribeFire