Madilog Tan Malaka. K likes. Book. Madilog Tan Malaka. Privacy · Terms. About. Madilog Tan Malaka. Book. 1, people like this topic. Want to like this. Het geloof ligt buiten begrip en bereik van de wijze van denken volgens Madilog, maar de auteur wijst er wel op dat Tan Malaka het voortbestaan van de ziel na. Rethinking Tan Malaka’s Madilog Qusthan Abqary Some people ignore one thought base on like or dislike or even political or economical preference of the.
|Published (Last):||7 September 2018|
|PDF File Size:||5.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.8 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up.
Rethinking Tan Malaka’s Madilog. I believe this kind of attitude could make big barriers especially not only in social sciences but also philosophy as well.
Madilog – Wikipedia
One prominent thinker, politician, and even philosopher in the modern Indonesia is Ibrahim Datuk Tan Malaka who also was a communist for the most of his life time. His political preference on communism could be the unnecessary and unimportant barrier for others in discussing and exploring his thought not only in the New Order Regime but also during the Reformation process since I would like to say that Tan Malaka as a philosopher rather than politician, not only because he was failed as a politician — in order to gain the power because Soekarno is the one who was succeeded to take the power as president — but also he is success in explaining his philosophical thought through his magnum opus Madilog.
Yet some Indonesian still have colonized mentality such as need acknowledgement maxilog foreigners or international community about the status of philosopher in Indonesia. One ambitious young lecturer in Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia for instance, ever arbitrarily object my opinion that Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana is philosopher until I showed to him one book whose title is Culture, Philosophy and the Future: Essays in Honour of Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana on his 80th Birthday which contains of acknowledgement from foreign scholars that Takdir is one prominent Indonesian philosopher.
Equally important, materialism in a more bias meaning is used in order to suggest every single person who would like to measure anything with money. In short, materialism denies that there is single entity which on the outside of space, sphere and time. Let us check at these premises: Matter is a specific category in order to classify unique substances. This substance exists in the frame of space, sphere and time.
So, matter is a specific category in order to classify the substance which exists in the frame of space, sphere, and time. At mailog point, Tan Malaka offers different kind of explanation than most Indonesian communists. Most Indonesian communists declare that there is no single entity which stands on the outside of space, sphere and time because all things are matters in the sense of things.
One extreme argument could say that matter is all entities which could be touched, be smell, be tasted, and so on and so forth.
Yet it is so weak because there are many other entities which exist but could not be touched by malaa single person. I would say this kind of comprehension is the form of bankruptcy of materialism in Indonesia while Tan Malaka madipog believes that there is unspecific category which refers to classify the non-unique substances which does not exist in space, sphere, and time as shown on his following statement: Teplok Press, Third Edition, April pp.
Every human tn ever met or saw God, Holy Soul or Atman, with his or her five senses never show to me and the public by recalling the Almighty. Thus, Tan Malaka separates matter into the one which inside and outside of the experience. Tan Malaka thinks that all being category is equal with the matter itself.
I give the emphasize in order to show that Tan Malaka does not reject the Divine power even though he mqdilog see publicly someone to prove divinity in his or her own way. Soul is just specific nature on the specific body. Yet like other nature, it stops when the body stops. It changes to be chemical nature after the body gets back to the soil, water, and air. Not as Weltanschauung, world view, even though the way of thinking and world view or philosophy are like ladder and home, which is so close.
Most thinkers would agree that more interpretations would enrich one way of thinking and more interpretations would be more interesting for others to use and explore one way of thinking. Just as liberalism or capitalism survives from crises to crises because its ability mafilog self-reflection even though it would be contradictive with its previous logics or dialectics; while Marxism or precisely the political and economical regime of Marxism collapsed after the Cold War in regard to its orthodoxy in interpretations.
On the one hand, Tan Malaka believes that all witchcrafts or mysticism needs things as the hub for its power. Hence, Tan Malaka implicitly admits that there is any unspecific category in order to classify the non-unique substance which does not exist in the frame of space, sphere, and time.
These could be God, witchcrafts, or unidentified and unexplored matters which should be the object of science. Definition of science as organization of facts and composing facts do not sensitive and compatible with the differentiation among all languages over the world.
More complex one language madilig be more sensitive and compatible with the development of science and vice versa. Moreover, simplification by generalisation is the inductive way of developing science which tends to the hegemony of empiricism and positivism.
As a matter of fact, simplification by generalisation is just one method of thinking and logic which was not quit significance in the battle of scientific theory during the history of sciences for centuries. This battles show that the deductive ways in developing theories are more and more helpful due to the lack of tools madioog investigating the object of natural sciences. Moreover, Tan Malaka tn that science itself has certain limits which should be realized by every scientist or student as follow: Its limits cause that it could not or not yet develop as possible.
Those limits are, first of all is in itself, secondly is out of itself. In itself, which are the lack of instrumental tools, which could precisely enlarge the little and bring something closer, and the lack of using accurate method which is dialectic.
The lack on out of itself is on the role of society on politics, economy, and social. The first lack has its significance and depends to the second lack. The lack of instruments or limits of using dialectic would vanish if the society justifies. Immediately the incomplete instruments would perfect and the more accurate method of thinking would gain. The history of science shows us that the lacks of tools are only a little challenge which could or could not be solved when the problems just appeared.
The problem is labelled and set aside for a future generation with more developed tools. Modern days show there are width ranges of issues which relates to the internal limits of science from methodological, ethical, morals, until the ontological problems. I think that both of those internal and external limits of science are determining each other and which one would more determining than the others depends on each context.
Where there are tools, there will be progress! The colonial Dutch were still racist whenever restrict education system for the white, the Chinese, and the indigene people even though there was ethical politics which gave opportunity for high class and brilliant Indonesian to study in Holland.
Just as neo-colonialism project through overseas scholarships program for Indonesians are trying to educate the best Indonesian scholars to study abroad and then arbitrarily think that everything should be evaluate and view scientifically with no tolerance for the non-scientific but useful things. It means that science as a product amdilog not deal with the colour or the shape of body and it could be free value laden.
Yet science as the process would be racist in order to defend its oligarchic structure just as tam which only brings many benefits to the white or yellow skin people. In contrast, Tan Malaka has genuine explanation on how the non-scientific but useful things are still base on matters. Yet this kind of explanation is also syncretic because he uses materialism, dialectic and logic to explain the non-scientific but useful things.
In the frame ttan contemporary science, shaman does not base his or her nature to his or her nature itself. He or she needs something, which is the reason why I said this kind of faith could not throw arbitrarily.
Rethinking Tan Malaka’s Madilog
The matter is the things in natural sciences like what we have discussed, that is about our five senses. So it is about the real, what can be seen, be listened, be tasted, be touched and be smell. The things are on the outside of our brains and the thought is shadow of the things in our brains. Tan Malaka believes that: The advance of mind would bounce up unmeasurably because all of our contemporary measures are constant, [that is] measurable commodity note: Laurentz, Relativity of Measurements.
Yet mind moves forward in accordance with the law of movement, the law of dialectic and are complicated with its continuous history. Knowledge would not over and might not over. Yet this dialectic is about materialism, [that is] matter. It is not materialism which subject to dialectic. Dialectic could be born earlier in the most brilliant human brain.
If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow would not found the compatibility, so this malama of dialectic means empty dialectic, dreaming dialectic, viz the dream of expert in dialectic. Even Tan Malaka strongly states that history, in its widest meanings, is the most important discipline or study for illuminating other sciences, social sciences, disciplines, or other form of knowledge. On the other hand, Tan Malaka also tries to describe the other form of knowledge because he believes that witchcrafts, for example, needs things as the medium to deliver the power.
At this point, materialism, dialectic and logic would easily slip to the so called scientism or fascism of science or even positivism. Meanwhile, Tan Malaka against such inappropriate attitudes and he malaa accept the anarchistic theory of knowledge which tends to position science, herbal medicines, acupuncture, moxibustion, astrology, even witchcrafts and other malxka of malaoa as equal as sciences. Anarchistic theory of knowledge would like to campaign that there is no single form of knowledge, even the scientific one, could be the most superior among others because each form of knowledge has its own unique and specific methods and there is no single measures would be appropriate to mwdilog whether one is more excellent than the others.
If it was seen from the point of view of natural sciences science and experiment Malaa dare to say that original faith of Indonesians at least equal, I honestly said equal, because there are some parts of it that could be examine and at least could not just throw arbitrarily. I do not mean to knock the door of stille krachten18, the secret nature which is saw by most people in Europe and Asia. I myself consider the separation between soul and body, which is soul, could stand in itself outside.
Body, like one faith, is outside of the experience. The specific character or law were became the general character or law.
So in the faith of all matters, they show simplicity: It is fit with the land of Indonesia and knowledge and technique which are lying on the ancient Indonesia. It means that Tan Malaka would like to say that there was over generalization on how the people implement the specific character or law but I do not think this kind of fault is wholly the same with primitive thought.
That is the differentiation between what Marx says about interpreting the world with changing the world. However, the idea does exist in Madilog and remains one question: Just denying the power and influence of witchcrafts or other form of knowledge could push materialism, dialectic, and logic to the valley of alienation in most Asian and African communities.
Organism, function, and adaptability are three other components which have its significance and should be aware when every thinker would like to use the Madilog. Yet in turn around, indirectly, Madilog could lighten that faith like the electrical torch which stands out of it, which does not enter the matter entirely. If he believes that witchcrafts, for instance, need things in order to show and deliver its significance influences or power, why does not he think that faith also need things or even matters too?
Did not many prophets need matters or things as the medium for miracles? Did not Moses, Isa, and Muhammad use something to deliver the revelations or show their prophecies?
The needs of matters or even things for supporting the being of faith, in my opinion, is the direct implementation of Madilog — in its widest range of definition and understanding — on faith. Conclusion Madilog helps people to keep materialistically, dialectically, and logically thinking while pursuing, exploring, investigating, researching, or inventing knowledge and sciences. The controversy about materialism depends on to what extent we could understand and define it well: I think that matter could be best understood as a specific category in order to classify the substance which exists without denying the being of any unspecific category which classifies the non- unique substance that does not exist in the frame of space, sphere, and time.
On the one hand, Tan Malaka seems nervous when harmonizing the Madilog materialism, dialectic, and logic with his faith.