Introduction

Author(s):  
Carey Seal

Seneca’s writings offer us our widest window into the intersection of the idea of philosophy as a way of life with Roman culture and politics. Seneca was himself alert to the tension between these two sources of moral guidance. His work traces a complex interplay between the two and aims to construct a coherent picture of the philosophical life through detailed engagement with the social context in which that life is lived and the socially constituted array of concepts through which it is delineated. Reconstructing his stance on the questions that emerge requires a combination of literary and philosophical approaches. This book will show that for Seneca the philosophical life can be described and defended only through the materials provided by the ambient community.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ahmad Zaini

This paper aims to find out the discourse of tolerance among religious people featured in the film “?” (Tanda Tanya) and Ayat-Ayat Cinta 2. Both are viewed from the level of the text, the level of social cognition, and the level of social context. The research method used is qualitative analysis with Teun van Dijk's theoretical approach, namely data analysis at the level of text, social cognition and social context. The results showed that; First, the discourse of tolerance at the text level in the film “?” (Tanda Tanya) is related to various themes, both about harmony among religious communities, cultural diversity and about tolerance. Likewise the film Ayat-Ayat Cinta 2 also tells the story of religious life in European countries. Second, the discourse of tolerance between religious communities is seen from the level of social cognition. In the film “?” (Tanda Tanya), both the screenwriter and director want to explain the reality of the diversity of religions, cultures and customs that exist in Indonesia. He wants to explain the relationship between religious people in a vulgar way. In contrast to the more refined Ayat-Ayat Cinta 2 movie. Third, the discourse of tolerance between religious communities in terms of the level of social context. The film “?” (Tanda Tanya) is motivated by the number of bombings that occurred at the house of worship three or four years before. At the level of the social context of this film as a sequel to the previous Ayat-Ayat Cinta movie. The background of making this film is because it wants to illustrate that Islam can be used as a way of life wherever we live, including life in the West though.   Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui wacana toleransi antar umat beragama yang ditampilkan dalam film “?” (Tanda Tanya) dan Ayat-Ayat Cinta 2. Keduanya ditinjau dari level teks, level kognisi sosial, dan level konteks sosial. Metode riset yang digunakan adalah analisis kualitatif dengan pendekatan teori Teun van Dijk, yaitu analisis data pada level teks, kognisi sosial dan konteks sosial. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa; pertama, wacana toleransi pada level teks dalam film “?” (Tanda Tanya) berkaitan dengan tema yang beragam, baik itu tentang kerukunan antar umat beragama, keragaman budaya maupun tentang toleransi. Demikian halnya film Ayat-Ayat Cinta 2 juga mengkisahkan tentang kehidupan umat beragama di negara Eropa. Kedua, wacana toleransi antar umat beragama ditinjau dari level kognisi sosial. Dalam film “?” (Tanda Tanya) sang penulis skenario maupun sutradara ingin memaparkan realitas tentang keragaman agama, budaya, adat istiadat yang ada di Indonesia. Ia ingin memaparkan hubungan antar umat beragama secara vulgar. Berbeda dengan film Ayat-Ayat Cinta 2 yang lebih halus. Ketiga, wacana toleransi antar umat beragama ditinjau dari level konteks sosial. Film “?” (Tanda Tanya) dilatarbelakangi banyaknya kejadian bom yang melanda rumah ibadah pada tiga atau empat tahun sebelumnya. Pada level konteks sosial film ini sebagai sekuel film Ayat-Ayat Cinta sebelumnya. Latar belakang pembuatan film ini karena ingin menggambarkan bahwa Islam dapat dijadikan pedoman hidup dimanapun kita tinggal, termasuk hidup di negeri Barat sekalipun.


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-414
Author(s):  
Lydia H. Liu

Arthur H. Smith’s Chinese Characteristics (1890) remained the most widely read American book on China until Pearl Buck’s The Good Earth (1931). Smith’s collection of pungent and humorous essays, originally written for white expatriates in Asia, was accepted by Americans at home as a wise and authentic handbook. The book was soon translated into Japanese (1896), classical Chinese (1903), and at least three more times into Chinese since 1990. The characteristics Smith identified reflect his conception of the American Way of Life, racial hierarchy, the idea of progress, and the middle-class values with which he was brought up. He used race and “national character” to explain Chinese food, dress, body care, music, art, language, and architecture, as well as politics and religion. Lu Xun, the preeminent Chinese cultural critic of the early twentieth century, pondered why his country had been defeated and came to believe that the character of his countrymen was the key to their future survival. Smith’s criticisms were valuable for this task of introspection but Lu Xun took him to task for misunderstanding the concept of “face” because he did not grasp it in the social context of unequal power. The ghost of Arthur Smith thus haunts both Chinese and Americans.


1997 ◽  
pp. 337-352
Author(s):  
Yaacov Shavit

This chapter explores three different issues: how familiar the Sages were with Greek culture and through which agents of culture they learned about it, to what extent they were influenced by it or how many different elements they adopted from it, and how tolerant the Sages were regarding the use of Hellenistic elements by the Jewish public. Here, complex cultures are characterized by multifariousness and stratification. The history of culture reveals a wide diversity of needs and tendencies, expressed in the social context, and the power or weakness of the mechanism for screening and supervision to control all aspects and layers of the cultural system. Any attempt to limit the scope of Judaism as a religious way of life thus assumes that the Jews were somehow unlike all other human beings. Or, that they had the same cultural needs as all humanity, but were able to satisfy and answer these needs by themselves, being totally independent of any outside help or influence.


1987 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1004-1007
Author(s):  
Gregory M. Herek
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny S. Visser ◽  
Robert R. Mirabile
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document