Supaya mengurangi subyektivitas, akronim "PKS"
sudah saya hapus dari subjectnya { ini merupakan
konsekuensi dari kebiasaan bung RD yang men"spam"
posting: mereply sebuah posting di milis "A"
tapi di cc ke "semua" milis :) }
dengan adanya "Tag/Label" seperti *PKS* maupun
*Hidayatullah*, maka akan ada resiko, diskusi
berikutnya akan mengundang "bias ideologi" alias
tidak subyektif lagi, menjadi debat antara "pendukung"
dan "penentang" pihak-pihak yang berkaitan dengan
label nama tersebut :)
====================================================
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum
ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person",
"argument against the man") consists of replying
to an argument or factual claim by attacking or
appealing to a characteristic or belief of the
person making the argument or claim,
rather than by addressing the substance of the
argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claims
is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem
works to change the subject
=====================================================
Artikel yang ditulis di Hidayatullah 'sounds' familiar
to me :-), tetapi tanggapan seperti yang ditulis oleh
pak Kartono juga 'equally familiar' to me, ... :-))
Mungkin bisa kita coba untuk mendiskusikannya secara
lebih obyektif:
=> Berdasarkan tradisi dalam masyarakat ilmiah,
seseorang boleh saja menulis apa saja, asal itu
memang berdasarkan fakta. Jadi Hidayatullah boleh
saja menulis artikel semacam itu meskipun di jaman
ini itu kadang-2 bisa menghasilkan tanggapan
negatif, bahkan dari kalangan Muslim sendiri,
seperti yang dicontihkan oleh tanggapan pak Kartono
( artinya: tulisan semacam itu mungki politically
incorrect :) )
Tetapi jika yang ditulis memang berdasarkan fakta,
secara ilmiah itu bisa diterima. Hanya saya lebih
setuju jika judulnya dibuat lebih netral, misalnya
"Kontribusi/Sumbangan Muslim dalam Penemuan Ilmu
Pengetahuan/Sains" misalnya, kata "mayoritas" nya
dihilangkan, takutnya overclaim :=)
=> Menurut pendapat saya, seperti dalam tradisi
masyarakat ilmiah, kita diwajibkan memberi 'kredit'
/penghargaan kepada mereka yang berhak dalam menemukan
atau menyumbangkan suatu ide/pengetahuan. Bukankah ini
yang menjadi salah satu isu friksi antara Malaysia-
Indonesia saat ini? ( Indonesia menganggap Malaysia
'mengadopsi' suatu karya seni, tanpa mengakui atau
memberikan kredit kepada 'pemulik' Intellectual
property nya ).
=> Kenyatannya memang belum semua pihak memberikan kredit
/penghargaan yang adil terhadap siapa saja yang telah
berkontribusi dalam perkembangan sains. Dominasi barat
jelas sangat terasa. Banyak yang bisa diketengahkan
sebagai contoh.
Misalnya, kalau berbicara mengenai teori Heliosentris,
orang biasanya hanya menyebut satu nama: Kopernikus.
Padahal Kopernikus sampai pada kesimpulan itu melalui
'proses belajar' dari teori-teori para Astronom yang
lain, termasuk Astronom Muslim: Al-Tutsy. Juga sebenarnya
sebelumnya Astronom-astronom India telah mengungkapkan
dugaan mengenai adanya gerakan rotasi bumi. Rotasi bumi,
artinya bahwa gerakan matahari yang terbit di ufuk timur
dan tenggelam di ufuk barat itu sebenarnya merupakan gerak
"semu" akibat rotasi bumi. Ini kan sejatinya menuju pada
teori Heliosentris?´
Masalahnya di jaman itu mungkin tradisi penulisan ilmiah
yang "benar" belum membudaya, sehingga mungkin sulit bagi
kita untuk mengecek paper/disertasi nya Kopernikus dan
mencoba melihat "daftar pustaka" yang dijadikan referensinya
( ada dispute serupa mengenai kontribusi Ibn Khaldun,
bapak Sosiolog abad pertengahan di dalam membentuk
teori ekonominya Adam Smith ).
***
Mengenai filsafat, sebagian yang ditulis pak Kartono,
benar, bahwa filosof Muslim abad pertengahan belajar
dari filosof Yunani. Tapi itu belum cerita seluruhnya,
nada tulisan pak Kartono terkesan "undermining" peran
dunia Islam dalam "mentransmisikan pengetahuan" ke
Eropa ( dengan tambahan Muslim's own Knowledge/
contribution ).
Sebagian besar ilmuwan yang meneliti soal kontribusi
dunia Islam di abad pertengahan di dalam pengembangan
ilmu pengetahuan umumnya hanya memberi "kredit" kepada
Muslim sekedar sebagai
-> tukang penerjemah sains & filsafat Yunani
-> tukang forward: "memforward" pengetahuan
di atas ke Eropa, di masa kekuasaan Muslim
di Spanyol
( kontribusi yang "minim" di atas pun tidak semua
orang menyadari/mengakuinya, termasuk orang-orang
Islam sendiri ).
Sebagian kecil ilmuwan (ada yang muslim ada yang
bukan, it doesn't matter) meyakini dan berusaha
menunjukkan bahwa Dunia Islam di saat itu juga
punya kontribusi original yang mereka ramu dan
tambahkan pada pengetahuan yang mereka dapat
dari Yunani maupun India.
Di bawah ini saya kutipkan tulisan mengenai
Thomas Aquinas yang dikenal sebagai Filosof
Kristen yang besar pengaruhnya dalam penafsiran
ajaran kristen, yang menurut banyak ahli juga
sedikit banyak dipengaruhi oleh pemikiran filosouf
Muslim abad pertengahan, baik dia sadari atau tidak.
---( ihsan h )-----------------------------
<http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/014.html>
..................
We could stop here, and we'd have pretty much given
the mainstream opinion of the Arab influence on
medieval philosophy. By preserving the works of
Plato and Aristotle, they filled out the incomplete
corpus possessed by the Latin West and brought about
an enormous shift in philosophical speculation;
indeed some scholars trace the seeds of the
Renaissance to this deposit of classical wisdom.
This view is obvious, and easyand wrong.
To look at the Arabs in that light is to treat
them as a kind of handy time capsule, storing
material from the ancient European world and
transmitting it at an appropriate time to the
medieval European world. To treat the influence
of the Arab world on medieval Europe in this way
is to overlook the contributions made by the Arabs
themselves.
S. M. Ghazanfar, chair of the department of
Economics at the University of Idaho-Moscow,
phrases it thus:
the mainstream paradigm, in general, describes
the influence of Islamic scholarship chiefly in
terms of its preservation and transmission of
portions of ancient Greek philosophy that had
been lost to medieval Europe.
As some have suggested, the paradigm is too rigid
almost unshakable, despite all the new evidence
and literature. George Sarton once criticized those
who will glibly say `the Arabs simply translated
Greek writings, they were industrious imitators...'
This is not absolutely untrue, but it is such a
small part of the truth that when it is allowed
to stand alone, it is worse than a lie.
And then there is another historian of science,
Colin Ronan,
Too often science in Arabia has been seen nothing
more than a holding operation. The area has been
viewed as a giant storehouse for previously discovered
scientific results, keeping them until they could be
passed on for use in the West. But this is, of course,
a travesty of the truth.
(Note the word science is used in its historic
meaningknowledge, comprehensively defined, including
philosophy, etc.)
Medieval Europe did not simply absorb its forgotten
Aristotelian heritage from Arabs who functioned purely
instrumentally. Islamic scholars also brought their own
philosophy to the table, and dialogues between the Islamic
and Christian worlds were fruitful on both sides.
Islamic philosophers of the medieval period wrestled with
many of the same issues as their Christian and Jewish
counterparts. The resolution of tension between faith
and reason was immensely important to all philosophers
of this period.
Greek philosophy was developed independently of the
monotheistic religions of the Book, and trying to
combine Greek philosophy with Judaism, Christianity,
or Islam inevitably led to difficulties. The ways in
which Islamic philosophers settled these issues,
however, were different from the approaches taken
by Christian philosophers, and the dialogues between
Islamic and Christian philosophers brought these new
perspectives to the Latin West. I'm not saying that the
European philosophers wound up agreeing with the Arab
philosophers, but rather that the European position was
often shaped by their need to refute certain Arab positions.
For example, Siger of Brabant, a dedicated Averroist,
was known for his claim, following his Islamic
predecessor, that truths of faith and truths of
reason can be incompatible and yet both true. This
dual-truth theory had been controversial within Islam
and was of course also controversial within Christianity;
in order to combat it, Aquinas made explicit what is
now official Catholic doctrine of the two sources
of knowledge, the book of scripture and the book of
nature:
*****************************************************
Scripture rightly interpreted will never contradict
reason rightly applied.
*****************************************************
Another issue that concerned Islamic scholars of this
time was the precise nature and definition of the soul.
In the 11th century, Avicenna, strongly influenced by
Neoplatonism, argued for a division between the active
and passive elements of the human mind.
The active elements of the mind were actually the
effects of an independent being known as the agent
intellect, created by the transcendent Intelligence
that governs the world we live in, whose job is to
supply forms to matter and to illuminate the passive
elements of the human mind, enabling our minds to
function.
The passive elements, also known as the possible
intellects, exist in each person and are unique to
each person. Averroes, in the 12th century, apparently
argued, following a difficult passage in Aristotle's
De Anima, that not only the agent intellect but even
the possible intellect were separate entities, thus
denying a unique personal and spiritual element to the
human soul and thereby denying personal immortality.
This was not only a controversial point within Islam and
Christianity, but it gave rise to Aquinas' famous treatise
De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas in which he was
forced to develop and elucidate a view of human cognition
which allowed for a recognition of an active and passive
element, but which was also consistent with personal
immortality.
My specific area of research also illustrates this point.
I have been working on a text called the Liber de Causis
(LdC, a 9th century Arabic synopsis of a neoPlatonic work,
Proclus' Elements of Theology. It was Thomas Aquinas, in
fact, who first recognized this work as a synopsis of the
Elements of Theology (ET), which had only recently become
available in Latin; until then, it was generally thought
to be a work of Aristotle.
Thomas believed that the LdC was more or less an exact
synopsis of the ET, and in his commentary he treats the
two works as if they are pretty much equivalent.
It is clear, however, that there are certain differences,
and recent scholarship has begun to trace these differences
to the influence of Islamic scholarship on the author of
the LdC.
A conjectured source document called the *Plotiniana
Arabica is believed to be the source of many of the
subtle alterations between the Elements of Theology
(ET) and the Liber de Causis (LdC); scholars such as
Richard Taylor and Cristina d'Ancona Costa have recently
been investigating this phenomenon. Moreover, as d'Ancona-
Costa observes (and I agree) not only does the Liber de
Causis show evidence of Plotinian as well as Proclean
metaphysicswe're still talking about Greeks herebut
also that it substantially transforms the doctrines of
its neoplatonic sources (p. 42), particularly in its
adaptation of the neoplatonic One to pure creative being
which is esse tantum. This treatment of pure creative being
is neither strictly Platonic nor Aristotelian, nor does it
simply and obviously arise from a synthesis of Plato and
Aristotle; it is a product of the unknown Moslem author
of the Liber de Causis, and a powerful influence on its
Latin readers.
Thus, avoiding the pernicious view that the importance of
Islamic scholarship in the Middle Ages was simply its
transmission of ancient Greek texts, we can see that
Islamic scholars engaged and challenged Christian and
Jewish thinkers in the Latin West, influencing their
views on critical metaphysical and theological issues
such as the relation between faith and reason, the operation
of the human soul, and the nature of God.
Thomas Aquinas dan Mulla Sadra :
-------------------------------
<http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/ltsadra.htm>
A long tradition of Islamic metaphysics saw one of its
greatest flowerings in the writings of Sadr al-Din Shirazi,
or Mulla Sadra (1571-1640). His work was taken up in the
19th century by Hadi Ibn Mahdi Sabzawari, and this rich
metaphysical tradition supposedly has lasted in Iran until
the present. See Christianity in the Crucible, Chapter 6.
The metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) has striking
similarities with that of Mulla Sadra, and it has developed
and produred in the Christian west ever since the 13th century.
But these two metaphysical traditions have never really
encountered one another. Is there still interest in Iran
in the work of Mulla Sadra and Sabzawari? Are there
metaphysicians in the line of Mulla Sadra who would like
to carry on a dialogue with metaphysicians from the tradition
of Thomas Aquinas? This is a wonderful opportunity that should
not be missed.
Up
--- In "Kartono Mohamad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Lha wong Hidayatullah kok didenger, Dit. Tapi apa
> yang ditulis di Hidayatullah itu adalah sikap yang
> biasa terjadi ketika seseorang baru saja bertemu
> dan hidup bersama dengan orang dari budaya lain.
>
> Ini salah satu tahap awal dari bagian proses
> intercultural learning. Tahap itu bermula dari
> rasa rendah diri terhadap budayanya sendiri lalu
> melakukan reaksi defensif untuk membuktikan bahwa
> budayanya tidak lebih rendah dengan menunjukkan
> sejarah lama tanpa ia sendiri mengetahui benar
> sejarah itu.
>
> Menyedihkan memang kalau menganggap filsafah
> modern (barat) berkembang dari filsafah Islam,
> lha wong filusuf Islam jaman dulu itu bermula
> dari belajar filsafah Yunani kuno.
>
> Tahap semacam ini sering dijumpai pada mereka
> yang sebenarnya belum dewasa atau belum mempu
> berpikiran dewasa. Kalau dipelihara ia akan
> berubah menjadi gangguan kejiwaan yang berupa
> paranoia. Akibatnya ia selalu curiga dan sibuk
> memusuhi budaya lain tetapi tidak pernah berupaya
> membuktikan bahwa ia mampu juga berdiri sama
> tinggi dengan budaya lain.
>
> Tahap mereka itu memang baru sampai di situ.
> KM
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> Mayoritas Penemuan Modern Ditemukan Ilmuwan Muslim Cetak
> halaman ini
> <http://hidayatullah.com/index2
>
> Kamis, 08 November 2007
>
> Penemuan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi modern
> saat ini, sesungguhnya telah lama ditemukan kaum
> Muslim. Demikian ujar guru besar Columbia
> University
>
> */Hidayatullah.com--/*
> Para ilmuwan Muslim sudah membuat banyak penemuan-
> penemuan dari usia yang ada, demikian ujar Prof.
> Dr. George Saliba, guru besar Universitas Arab
> dan Islam Universitas Columbia.
>
> Pernyataan Saliba ini disampaikan dalam sebuah
> seminar di Government College University (GCU),
> hari Senin kemarin.
>
> Saliba hadir dalam seminar bertajuk, The Problems
> of Historiography of Islamic Science, yang diselenggarakan
> di Fazl-e-Hussain Hall. Saliba memberi suatu kritik
> dari buku klasik tentang kenaikan ilmu pengetahuan
> Islam.
>
> Ia memerinci permasalahan dalam banyak buku dan
> menjelaskan penulisan sejarah alternatif bahwa
> digambarkan jika perkembangan ilmiah Islam
> sebagai hasil interaksi sosial dan kondisi-
> kondisi politis di dalam kerajaan Islam.
>
> Saliba mengatakan, filsafat Islam telah mendorong
> ilmu pengetahuan dan telah mendukung berbagai disiplin-
> disiplin ilmu. Termasuk tumbuh-tumbuhan, ilmu hewan,
> aljabar, trigonometri, ilmu fisika, ilmu kimia,
> ilmu perbintangan, ilmu fisika, ilmu kimia, ilmu faal
> dan matematika sebelum zaman industri.
>
> Ia juga mengatakan, pecahan persepuluhan bukan suatu
> penemuan orang Barat dan bahwa itu ditemukan oleh
> seorang ilmuwan Muslim. Ia juga menambahkan, sistem
> biner, adalah juga ditemukan oleh seorang ilmuwan
> Muslim.
>
> Dr. George Saliba, adalah Profesor Ilmu pengetahuan
> Islam-Arab. Selain itu ia juga duduk di Departemen
> dari Timur Tengah dan Bahasa-bahasa Asia, di Columbia
> University, New York, AS.
>
> Sebelum Saliba, orientalis asal Skotlandia, William
> Montgomery Watt pernah secara jujur, bagaimana Barat
> sangat berhutang budi pada Islam, khususnya dalam
> pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan.
>
> Montgomery yang pernah mendapatkan gelar "/Emiritus
> Professor/," gelar penghormatan tertinggi bagi
> seorang ilmuwan, sangat tekun melakukan penelitiannya
> tentang Islam. Khususnya sejarah perkembembangan
> pengetahuan di dunia Islam. Montgomery secara jujur
> mengakui, perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan yang kini
> berkembang pesat di Barat dan Eropa, sesungguhnya
> sebagian besar telah banyak ditemukan kaum Muslim
> sebelumnya.
>
> <http://hidayatullah.com/>]
>
