scholarly journals Konsep Being Perspektif Filsafat dan Islam

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 522
Author(s):  
Suhermanto Jakfar

This article discuss the concept of being in the perspective of existentialism and Islam. The closest similarity to the word “being” is to on (Ancient Greece), as the word of einai, to be (on, onta). For Parmenides, “being” (to on) is one, eternal and unchanging. Gabriel Marcel calls the way the human being with the term être-au-monde, etre in carne, geist-in-welt.  Martin Heidegger uses a formula being in the world to characterize human life. Being in the world as a feature of human life, human beings are in the situation. Living in a world of concrete means that there are human relationships with the situation. Sartre said that the real one where there are two, namely: I’etre en soi and I’etre pour Soi. For Sartre, I’etre en soi is the idea that only a concrete phenomenon has ontological status; only something concrete is real. Unlike the being-in-itself, for Sartre the concept of being-for-itself is a state of being that comes with the awareness and self-control. The concept of being (wujûd) by Suhrawardî is a mental concepts (mahfûm) that do not have the type and diferensia. In the illumination philosophy of Suhrawardî, the idea of ​​wujûd can not be separated from nature and depiction of light. The philosophy of wujûd by Mulla Sadrâ stands on three basic principles of fundamental importance. These three principles are as follows: wahdat al-wujûd, tashkîk al-wujûd, and tashkîk. While Mohammad Iqbal emphasis on metaphysics and anthropological philosophy. Iqbal gives greater emphasis on more concrete dimensions, namely khudi (ego).

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (2 (252)) ◽  
pp. 70-85
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Rumianowska

The purpose of the article is to outline the problem of widely understood conflicts in human life from the perspective of existential philosophy. Without questioning the importance of psychological research on complex mechanisms underlying conflicts, the author points to the issue of the problematic nature of human existence, the category of freedom, the problem of the authenticity of being and the sense of meaning. In the second part of the paper, the essence of educational process in the context of experiencing difficulties and conflicting situations by human beings has been introduced. The necessity of taking into account the problem of being oneself and constituting a human being in relation to himself, the world and others has been presented.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-73
Author(s):  
Agapov Oleg D. ◽  

The joy of being is connected with one’s activities aimed at responding to the challenges of the elemental forces and the boundlessness of being, which are independent of human subjectivity. In the context of rising to the challenges of being, one settles to acquire a certain power of being in themselves and in the world. Thus, the joy of being is tied to achieving the level of the “miraculous fecundity” (E. Levinas), “an internal necessity of one’s life” (F. Vasilyuk), magnanimity (M. Mamardashvili). The ontological duty of any human being is to succeed at being human. The joy of being is closely connected to experiencing one’s involvement in the endless/eternity and realizing one’s subjective temporality/finitude, which attunes him to the absolute seriousness in relation to one’s complete realization in life. Joy is a foundational anthropological phenomenon in the structure of ways of experiencing the human condition. The joy of being as an anthropological practice can appear as a constantly expanding sphere of human subjectivity where the transfiguration of the powers of being occurs under the sign of the Height (Levinas) / the Good. Without the possibility of transfiguration human beings get tired of living, immerse themselves in the dejected state of laziness and the hopelessness of vanity. The joy of being is connected to unity, gathering the multiplicity of human life under the aegis of meaning that allows us to see the other and the alien in heteronomous being, and understand the nature of co-participation and responsibility before the forces of being, and also act in synergy with them.The joy of being stands before a human being as the joy of fatherhood/ motherhood, the joy of being a witness to the world in creative acts (the subject as a means to retreat before the world and let the world shine), the joy of every day that was saved from absurdity, darkness and the impersonal existence of the total. Keywords: joy, higher reality, anthropological practices, “the height”, subject, transcendence, practice of coping


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ayu Oka Silantari ◽  
I Ketut Mardika

<p><em>In human nature, apart from being individual beings as well as social beings who have their own culture. Culture arises in humans due to reason and thought in the human being itself. Humans will be able to live perfectly when they live together with other humans, in relation to other humans, certain norms or rules are needed. In the regulation, one of them was written about the procedure for honoring guests called Athiti Krama. Athiti Krama gives motivation in human life because through this human being can foster good relations between humans one with other human beings in harmony. The implementation of Athiti Krama can be found in societies everywhere in the world, both in the advanced society and the people who are still modest in their civilization.<br /> In social life, everyone should behave well so as to create happiness for themselves and the community, because in the teachings of Hinduism, Athiti Krama teachings are basically contained which can bring people to achieve harmony in social order in society. The basis of Athiti Krama's teachings is the ethics or morality that many of the Vedic scriptures have mentioned, one of which is Tri Kaya Parisudha. Considering the importance of Athiti Krama as a social guide in people's lives. So it should be known to be applied in the learning process in Pasraman Dharma Bhakti.</em><strong><em></em></strong></p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Putu Dian Tika

<p><em>Mahavakya tat twam asi is contained in the chandogya upanisad 6.8.7 “which means: you  are    it; You are all that; All beings are You. You are the beginning of jiwatman (spirit) and substance (prakrti) of all beings. Therefore my soul and your soul are single with the soul of all beings, and you are my source and the source of all beings. Therefore I am you, and vice versa. There are still a few Hindus who understand the meaning of Tat Twam Asi. Even though Tat Twam Asi is the Teachings of the similarity of Human Dignity or the Teachings of the Brotherhood. True, indeed all humans are brothers and sisters as a big family of the world, because the Atman of every human being is the same, namely the spark of the divine light of the Almighty God. Therefore there is also interpreting Tat Twam Asi as my Atman is your Atman, on the contrary your Atman is my Atman but there are also those who interpret Tat Twam Asi as the Doctrine of Compassion, where a large number of human beings must love one another, help each other and sharpen each other, love each other and fostering each other, so that life and human life become harmonious, safe, peaceful and peaceful.</em><em></em></p><p><strong><em><br /></em></strong><em></em><em></em></p>


2003 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-125
Author(s):  
Anja Stokholm

Om forholdet mellem skabelse og syndefald hos Grundtvig og Luther[Grundtvig and Luther: on the Relationship Between Creation and Fall]By Anja StokholmTheologically speaking, two circumstances determine human life: on the one side, Creation and the creativity of God, on the other the Fall of Man and human sinfulness. Because God’s good creation is continuous, a positive understanding of the status and existence of natural Man is possible; but because Man is fallen and sin destroys creation, a negative perception of human life must also be acknowledged. Useful comparison may be made between the ideas of Grundtvig and Luther on this ambiguous relationship. One may ask of each: was the image of God in Man destroyed at the Fall or does the likeness of God remain a reality even in the fallen human being? Is it possible for natural Man to understand the Gospel and the Christian life? Can the understanding of the Gospels only have a negative character because it is reached from out of consciousness of sin; or can this understanding have a positive character because, sin notwithstanding, momentary experiencing of the truth of the Gospels may be granted? Are the views of Grundtvig and Luther too divergent to be reconciled?Regin Prenter maintained that their two positions closely corresponded, arguing that Grundtvig consistently developed Luther’s reformatory principles rejecting the possibility of human beings gaining justice or salvation by their own merit, and thereby also accepted that only in consciousness of the fallen condition of the world, the subverted nature of humanity, and sin, could the Gospel’s promises be received. Prenter’s harmonisation of Grundtvig and Luther, however, gives insufficient weight to the differences. Luther contends that the image of God in Man is lost, that Man is wholly sinful and unjustified; that just as inward spirit and outward flesh are discrete and cannot mix so are the justified and the unjustified states; and it follows that the unjustified human being is to be perceived a flesh alone. In so far as continuous creation, and manifestations of the positive such as the human capacity to recognise and comply with the demands of the law, are to be found in the world, these arise not from the inner resources of human beings but from the unmerited gift of God.Grundtvig too emphasises the seriousness and destructive nature of sin; but he insists that a remnant of the image of God persists in humanity - for instance in Man’s capacity to live in faith, hope and love, and to nurture the Word (that is, speech); and that its manifestation is a token of God’s continuing, and good, creation. Crucially important is Grundtvig’s conception that the image of God is located in the human heart, for this implies that goodness and the positive phenomena of creation express human life and nature in their true and proper form, and thus Grundtvig is able to identify natural human life, governed by the heart, as a positive context within which the word of the Gospel is indeed comprehensible. In differentiation, then, from Luther, Grundtvig maintains that natural Man also has a spirit and can be the agent of love and of goodness.Is this position incompatible with Luther’s doctrine on justification? Does the notion of goodness imply that Man can and must contribute to his own salvation? Grundtvig is careful to maintain that positive qualities such as love and goodness are a creation of God in Man, not an autonomous human achievement; and that the grace of God’s continuing creation in Man does not render salvation unnecessary. Man still needs the redeeming creation of Christ.Thus there are considerable differences between Grundtvig and Luther; but Grundtvig’s ideas are to be seen as a renewal and an independent continuation of Luther’s principal doctrine: that God alone can accomplish salvation. Yet acknowledgement and awareness of the differences, which arise in part through the different times and circumstances in which these independent thinkers worked, is conducive to a productive dialogue between the two.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis Sepúlveda Ferriz

Freedom and Justice have always been challenged. Since the most remote times, and in the most varied circumstances of places and people, human beings have tried to clarify and put into practice these two controversial concepts. Freedom and Justice, in effect, are words, but also dreams, desires and practices that, not being imperfect, are less sublime and ambitious. Reflecting on them on the basis of an ethics of development and socioenvironmental sustainability is still a great challenge in our contemporaneity. This book is born from the need that we all have to reflect, understand what our role is in relation to the OTHER, understood as the other as Environment. Doing this from such disparate areas and at the same time as current as Economics, Philosophy and Ecology, is still a great opportunity to discuss complexity, transdisciplinarity and the inclusion of diverse themes, but which all converge in the Human Being and its relationship with the world. Endowing human beings with Freedom and a sense of Justice means RESPONSIBILITY. To be free and to want a better and fairer world is to endow our existence with meaning and meaning. Agency, autonomy, functioning, dignity, rights, are capacities that must be leveraged individually and collectively for authentic development to exist. Development as Freedom is a valid proposal for thinking about a socio-environmental rationality that interferes in the controversial relations between economics, ethics and the environment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Bharat Prasad Badal

 Gandhian Model of Community Development (GMCD) is a sustainable development model for governments in the central, provincial, and local levels of democratic federal countries in the world by the scientific analysis of Gandhian ideology in a specified community. Community Development is a method, a strategy, and a campaign to uplift human life settlements and to solve the community problems from a simple local perspective. The human settlement with local communal acceptance, local norms, and values, environmental protection, help and cooperation, trusteeship, health, education, sanitation, training, transportation, marketing, etc. are the major components of the Gandhian Model of Community Development. The global acceptance with local initiation, norms, knowledge and practices in the positive changes on human life is Gandhian Community Development. It is the core ideological view of the great leader of south Asia-Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi is also pronounced as second Buddha of the world. The main objective of the study is to develop a Gandhian Model of Community Development with the incorporation of thoughts and ideologies of Mahatma Gandhi. The study is the collection of Gandhian ideology with a programmatic model for the future development of the human being specified within the boundary with the specified indicators of the Gandhian Model of Community Development. It is a hermeneutic and historical interpretation of three universal truths- Generation, Operation, and Destruction for the liberation of human beings from a sustainable development strategy guided by Mahatma Gandhi. His ideas are herminuted in contemporary sustainable community development. In conclusion, the Gandhian Model of Community development is a model having Balance Sheet of Production and Consumption within the specified municipality and Gandhian Development Indicators for human liberation or development toward ultimate freedom.


Author(s):  
Annabel S. Brett

This chapter argues that human agency is free agency. It is freedom, or dominium over one's own actions, which makes a human being different from all other animals; and it is the foundation of the world of the moral, the juridical, and the political, which are all continuous with one another and from which animals—and a fortiori all other natural agents—are excluded. However, during the sixteenth century, the idea that human beings are essentially and ineradicably free to control their own actions came under severe pressure from new and irreconcilable theological differences over the freedom of the human will—differences that therefore implicitly pressured the primary threshold of political space.


Author(s):  
Hussein Ali Abdulsater

This chapter investigates the position of human beings in this theological system. Its point of departure is a definition of the human being, from which it develops an understanding of human agency in relation to God and the world. Divine assistance (luṭf) is highlighted as the bridge between human autonomy and divine sovereignty. Following is an elaborate description of religious experience: its origins, justification, relevant parties, responsibilities and characteristics. The concept of moral obligation (taklīf) is shown to be the cornerstone of Murtaḍā’s theory on religion. The chapter is divided into three sub-headings: The Human Being; Justification of Moral Obligation; Characteristics of Moral Obligation.


Author(s):  
Helmuth Plessner ◽  
J. M. Bernstein

“Centric positionality” is a form of organism-environment relation exhibited by animal forms of life. Human life is characterized not only by centric but also by excentric positionality—that is, the ability to take a position beyond the boundary of one’s own body. Excentric positionality is manifest in: the inner, psychological experience of human beings; the outer, physical being of their bodies and behavior; and the shared, intersubjective world that includes other human beings and is the basis of culture. In each of these three worlds, there is a duality symptomatic of excentric positionality. Three laws characterize excentric positionality: natural artificiality, or the natural need of humans for artificial supplements; mediated immediacy, or the way that contact with the world in human activity, experience, and expression is both transcendent and immanent, both putting humans directly in touch with things and keeping them at a distance; and the utopian standpoint, according to which humans can always take a critical or “negative” position regarding the contents of their experience or their life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document