RETHINKING THE BOOK OF TAHAFUT AL-FALASIFAH: Examining Al-Ghazali’s Argumentative Criticism Against the Thinking of Philosophers

This study explains al-Ghazali’s argumentative criticism in Tahafut al-Falasifah. It aims to analyze the intentions of al-Ghazali’s argumentative refutation of other alleged rational thinkers considered by irfani epistemology as the cause of decline of Islam and to observe the method used by al-Ghazali in his argument. This study is a library research which is included in the qualitative research cluster. The result of study is that the intentions of al-Ghazali’s argumentative criticism are to discuss the twenty errors of Muslim philosophers, namely al-Farabi and Ibn Sina in matters of metaphysical philosophy. The method used by al-Ghazali is also the same as Aristotle’s criticism of Eudoxus, that is attacking Muslim philosophers in terms of the arguments they built, even labelling them as heretics and infidels/apostates. This method is known as argumentum ad hominem because it attacks Muslim philosophers when it comes to argumentation. It is built on the dialectical method of speech or in other terms known as jawab wa su’al which always recalls an imaginary trial.

KRITIK AL-GHAZALI TERHADAP PEMIKIRAN PARA FILOSOF

This study explains al-Ghazali’s argumentative criticism in Tahafut al-Falasifah. It aims to analyze the intentions of al-Ghazali’s argumentative refutation of other alleged rational thinkers considered by irfani epistemology as the cause of decline of Islam and to observe the method used by al-Ghazali in his argument. This study is a library research which is included in the qualitative research cluster. The result of study is that the intentions of al- Ghazali’s argumentative criticism are to discuss the twenty errors of Muslim philosophers, namely al-Farabi and Ibn Sina in matters of metaphysical philosophy. The method used by al-Ghazali is also the same as Aristotle’s criticism of Eudoxus, that is attacking Muslim philosophers in terms of the arguments they built, even labelling them as heretics and infidels/apostates. This method is known as argumentum ad hominem because it attacks Muslim philosophers when it comes to argumentation. It is built on the dialectical method of speech or in other terms known as jawab wa su’al which always recalls an imaginary trial. Keywords: Tahafut al-Falasifa, al-Ghazali, argumentative criticism

”SISWI MELAHIRKAN DI KAMAR MANDI BELAKANG RUMAHNYA”

Dalam materi yang penulis ambil yaitu membahas tentang kesesatan dan materi di dalamnnya, namun penulis tidak membahas lengkap tentang berbagai macam kesesatan. Penulis hanya menulis beberapa diantaranya yaitu Argumentum ad hominem,argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad misericordiam, arguentum ada auctoritatis dan kesesatan non causa pro causa.Penulis mencoba menerapkan kesesatan tersebut dalam kehidupan, dan penulis mengangkat kasus yang sedang terjadi di sekitarnya untuk di masukkan kedalam sebuah materi tersebut. Hasilnnya penulis mampu memasukkan beberapa peristiwa tersebut kedalam beberapa kesestan.Dalam kasus yang di angkat oleh penulis menceritakan kisah seorang remaja yang telah mengalami peristiwa yang bisa di katakana miris untuk seumuran remaja tersebut. Sebab remaja yang di bahas dalam kasus yang dibahas oleh penulis sudah masuk kedalam pergaulan bebas yang mengakibatkan kerugian bagi dirinya sendiri dan juga orang-orang di sekitanya.Melihat kasus yang telah di bahas sebaik kasus dapat dicegah sebelum kejadian, remaja berinisial MSI tersebut sangat melanggar etika dan dapat menjadi pelajaran bagi kita semua bahawa memperhatikan anak itu sangat penting.

O interrogatório policial à luz de fenômenos discursivos intrínsecos à argumentação

Este estudo, amparado pela concepção de ethos proposta por Amossy (2005) e pelos clássicos tipos de argumentos apresentados por Fiorin (2015), propõe-se a analisar fragmentos de fala pertencentes ao gênero discursivo interrogatório policial de modo a investigar (1) se o ethos prévio (AMOSSY, 2005) ou pré-discursivo (MAINGUENEAU, 2008) dos participantes do interrogatório policial se confirma no ethos discursivo dos enunciadores; e (2) os tipos de argumentos (FIORIN, 2015) utilizados pelos enunciadores do interrogatório policial. O corpus deste estudo advém de gravações em áudio e vídeo de três interrogatórios policiais de uma Delegacia de Polícia Civil do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Quanto ao primeiro propósito deste estudo, no que tange aos policiais, seu ethos prévio se confirma discursivamente em todos os fragmentos de fala analisados. Em relação aos interrogados, a sua imagem prévia é reelaborada ao longo do discurso. Concernente ao segundo propósito deste estudo, uma série de tipo de argumentos são utilizados pelos enunciadores nos interrogatórios policiais, a saber: argumento de comparação, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad misericordiam e argumentum ad baculum. Por fim, a análise revela que os tipos de argumentos utilizados pelos policiais e pelos interrogados nas interações operam como recurso para a construção do ethos dos enunciadores. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Argumentação; Ethos; Tipos de Argumentos; Interrogatório Policial.

THE FALLACY ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM “WAKTU INDONESIA BERCANDA”

Recently, one of popular programs on TV is Waktu Indonesia Bercanda (WIB). It is a Quiz Show program that offers problems to solve and the host makes use fallacies as the core of its game. WIB offers the sense of achievement among its participants, but competitive atmosphere is hardly to find among them. This research tries to analyze the fallacies being used in WIB and figure out how such fallacies can encourage people to think critically. The research employs descriptive research design as it simply attempts to determine, describe or identify phenomena. 6 WIB from September through December were randomly selected as the subject of the research. The result shows that WIB demonstrates the use of fallacies of relevance but it avoids using argumentum ad hominem that contains personal attack. WIB may encourage the audiences and participants to think critically as fallacious arguments offered make the audiences work hard to think any possible implicatures. Eventually, WIB is the program that invites the participants and the viewers to think, evaluate and decide the answer or solution to the problem provided. In conclusion, WIB is a worth watching ShowQuiz as it is entertaining and encouraging its audience to think critically.

Islamic Critical Evaluation and Perspective on Fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem

Critical thinking is of very high importance in our information age. Knowledge of logical fallacies and their detection in discourses is one of the significant end results of it. Islamic and Western critical thinking have many common shared characteristics, yet there are some essential differences between them. These differences are because of the differing understanding and perception of ontology, epistemology, and ethics. This research paper explains the Western stand of critical thinking on Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument Directed at the Person) and then provides its critical evaluation from Islamic perspective. According to the Western critical thinking, knowledge cannot be rejected by attacking the personality of the person who claims it, doing so amounts to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem. However, according to Islamic perspective as it has roots in the original sources of Islam and in its historical scholarly tradition there are some distinctions that are necessary to be made regarding the issue. In brief, knowledge in Islam could be divided into transmitted knowledge (al-ulum al-naqliyah) and rational knowledge (al-ulum al-aqliyah). The fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem in Islamic tradition is irrelevant to transmitted knowledge (al-ulum al-naqliyah), when historical reports and narrations are rejected because of the unreliability and known vices of their reporter as being liars, untrustworthy, having a sectarian bias, dishonest, etc. The fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem is relevant to rational knowledge.