1. Praksiologi and the History
There was two main branches of science concerning the human action: praksiologi and the history. The history was the collection and the systematic composition of all the experience datas concerning the human action. The history did business with the concrete content of the human action. This knowledge studied human efforts in all multiplisitas and his variation that was unlimited, as well as the individual action with all of his implications, both that his characteristics by chance, especially and typical. The history researched ideas that guided humankind in carrying out the action as well as results of the action that was carried out. He covered all the aspects of the human activity. In one-sided he possibly took the form of the history of the public and on the other side took the form of the history from various more crowded fields. There is, for example, the history about the political action and the military, about ideas and philosophy, about the economic activity, about technology, about literature, art and knowledge pengetahun, about the religion, about the customs and traditions and the habit, and about many others in the aim of the life of humankind. There were ethnology and anthropology, to the best of was not regarded part of the biology, and had also psychology, to the best of
The study field of all historic science was the past. All this knowledge could not teach us anything that could be it was considered valid concerning the human action; including also for the interests of the future. The study of the history [could] made humankind become wise and be on the alert, but through himself the history did not offer knowledge or skills anything to handle concrete works.
Nature sciences also did business with the past incident. Each experience was the upper experience something that has passed by; did not have the experience of the incident in the future. However, that made knowledge natural received the success was the experience from the experiment where elements of the change could be observed in the isolation. Facts that were gathered in this method afterwards could be utilised to [the process] the induction, the typical inference procedure that gave pragmatic proof about the practicability of nature science, despite the characterisation epistemologis him still became the problem that was not yet solved.
The experience that must be involved in by sciences that studied the human action always took the form of the phenomenon of the complex. The trial of the laboratory did not enable the research into the human action. We had not been in one position that enabled us to observe the change that happened in one element, while the other condition from the incident that was researched it was considered did not change. The historic experience as an experience of the phenomenon that komples did not give us facts in the understanding that was used in nature science in order to marks incidents that had been isolated and tested in the trial. Information through the historic experience could not be made the base to develop the theory and predict the future incident. Each historic experience was open for various interpretations and in fact indeed could be interpreted in various methods.
That was the reason why postulates that were produced by positivism and several metaphysical currents were the illusion that deceived. Sciences about the human action of being not possible to be reformed according to patterns of physics or other nature knowledge. Was not gotten by the method of developing a theory that a posteriori about the behaviour of humankind and the social incident. The history could prove or deny a public statement by means of that was applied in nature sciences when supporting or refusing the hypothesis on the basis of the testing of the laboratory. Towards the public's proposition concerning the human action, the verification or sanggahan was based on the laboratory test was not possible to be carried out.
The phenomenon of the complex, that was formed on the chain linkage of cause and effect, could not test the theory anything. Just the reverse, the phenomenon of the complex could be only understood through the interpretation was based on the understanding of other theories that were developed beforehand from other sources. In the matter of the natural phenomenon, the interpretation must not towards the incident be compatible with the theory that has been tested satisfactorily through the experiment. In the matter of the historic incident was not known by the limitation that like that. The commentators could took shelter behind the arbitrary explanation. When must explain something, thoughts of humankind had not lost the power to create the theory ad hoc the invention, despite his logical justification was not available.
In the history field of humankind, the limitations like that was experienced by theories (that was tested through the experiment) in an effort to him to interpret and explain physics incidents, chemical, and physiological, also was given by praksiologi. Praksiologi was theoretical and systematic science, but non-historic. The scope praksiologi was the human action personally, without gazing at the environmental situation or factors by chance and individual from concrete actions. His cognition pure was formal and the public, without referring in the material content and the special characteristics of the example of the actual case. His aim was knowledge that was valid for each situation where his condition berkorespondensi exactly with matters that terimplikasi in assumptions and inferences. All the statements and the proposition in praksiologi was not dropped off from the experience. The statement and the proposition in praksiologi, as in the case of in logic and mathematics, was a priori. The statement and his proposition not the subject to be proven or contradicted on the basis of the experience and the fact. He logically and temporally was preceded (antecedent) each understanding of historic facts. The statement
2. The Formal character and Aprioristik from Praksiologi
One of the stylish trends in philosophy today is to take the form of the denial towards the existence of knowledge that his characteristics a priori. His argumentation: all human knowledge was received from the experience. The attitude was like this was able easily to be understood as the reaction that was abundant against ekstravaganza theology and philosophy-fake towards the history and nature knowledge. By relying on intuition, metafisikawan was enthusiastic to find principles of the foundation or moral teachings, the meaning of the historic evolution, the characteristics of the spirit and the substance, and laws that arranged incidents fisikawi, chemical, and physiological. Their speculation that kept changing was realised in keluputan reckless they would the meaning of knowledge that actually. They believe in that, without referring to the experience, the mind could explain all the matters and answered all the questions. The success of modern nature sciences was located in the observation method and their trial. There were no doubt that empiricism and the pragmatism were true how far they depicted procedures that were used in nature science. However one matter that did not lose definitely him was that they were very wrong when refusing all the kinds
In the matter praksiologi, the error of these philosophers was caused by their ignorance completely towards economic knowledge and often because of their knowledge would the history, and this really startling, did not satisfy. In the eyes of these philosophers these philosophical rumours must be treated by a profession that subklim and great, and might not be given in the low-level work kind. The professor will feel angry would the fact that his production was produced by means of berfilosofi; he will be touched on with thinking that he looked for money like the artisan and the worker in the field. Monetary problems were regarded as the bad matter, and the philosopher that carried out investigation towards main problems about the truth and the values eternal not necessarily contaminated thoughts by paying attention to problems of economic knowledge.
The problem had or not elements of thoughts that apriori-like conditions for the intellectual who was needed and unavoidable to think, that was anterior towards each kind of actual torque conception and pengalaman–tidak could be mixt-adukkan with the genetic problem around the human method of receiving his mental capacity that was typical and humane. Humankind was dropped off from the ancestors of non-humankind who did not have this capacity. The ancestors of humankind was granted potentiality that for centuries the evolution trip changed him into the creature that berakal. The achievement of this transformation was influenced by the change in the environment kosmik that operated continually from one generation to the further generation. So the empirical group concluded that the fundamental principle of the genius was results of the experience and merepresentasikan the adaptation of humankind to the condition for his environment.
If being investigated consistently, this idea furthermore brought in the conclusion that, since the ancestors's period prehumankind through to the homosexual period sapiens, was gotten by various transitional stages. In the past had the creature that, although being not supplied with the capacity of the human mind, had elements of the foundation rasionisasi. Their thoughts were not yet logical, melainkam still pre-logical (or logical but more imperfect). Their logical functions that were still not focussed and not yet effective was evolving a step for the sake of a step from the situation prelogical headed the logical situation. The intellect, intellect, and logic were the historic phenomenon. There was the history of logic; had also the history of technology. There were no signs that said that logic as that was known by us at this time was the last stage or the final in the evolution of the intellectual. Human logic was the historic phase between non-logical prehumankind on one hand as well as logical and super-humankind on the other side. The intellect and thoughts, the most effective implement that was owned by the human creature in the struggle in order to continuation of his life, was soldered in the continuous current from incidents zoologis.
Further, was not made hesitate that each kind of humankind in the process of his personal evolution experienced repeatedly not only the physiological metamorphosis from the simple cell became the very complicated mammalian organism, but also the spiritual metamorphosis, from the pure existence vegetatif and animal, became the creature berakal. This transformation was not finished in the prenatal period the embryo, but only in the future when the baby that just-be born a step for the sake of a step was awakened in the humane awareness. Each kind of humankind in the beginning of his existence, beginning with the depth of darkness, developed through various related situations the logical structure of his thoughts.
Afterwards, there was also the case about the animal. We fully realised the existence of the chasm that not-was crossed, that separated our mind from the reactive process of the brain and nerves to the animal. However, at the same time we suspected that fighting urgings great in himself the animal headed the understanding light. The restless animal of the resistance simile made an effort to run away from his fate that was unclear eternal and from otomatisme that was unavoidable. We could be sympathetic to him because we ourselves was in the similar position: in the futility opposed the limitations of our intellectual's device, and in looking for cognition perfection that could not be achieved.
However, the problem about something that a priori had the other character. He did not do business with the problem how the origin and the mind of the awareness emergence. He referred in the essential character and must be for the logical structure of thoughts of humankind. Fundamental logical relations not something that must be proven or denied. Each effort to prove these logical relations certainly mem-prasuposisi-would his validity. These logical relations were not possible to be explained to the creature who did not have these relations for himself. Efforts to define logical relations were based on the definition rule must experience the failure. They were poposisi-proposition that his characteristics preceded each nominal definition or the real definition. They were the category of the end that could not be analysed further. Thoughts of humankind could not imagine logical categories that were compatible with them. Without caring how these logical relations in the future were concrete for the creature who was named super-humankind, they continued to be able to not be passed through by humankind, and to absolutely be needed. They were prerequisites that were not released for the perception, and for the experience.
They, not not all that, was the prerequisite that was not separated for the memory. There was the trend in nature knowledge to depict the memory as one instance fenomenon that was more just general. Each living organism kept effects from previous stimulasion, and the now situation from the substance inorganik was formed by effects from all the influences that exposed him in the past. The situation of the now universal was the product from his past. Therefore, we could say, in the lax metaphorical understanding, that the geological structure of our world ball kept the upper memory of all the previous cosmic changes, and that the body of a humankind was the sedimentation from his ancestors, as well as fate and his change personally. However, the memory was something that completely was different from facts concerning structural unity and continuation of the cosmic evolution. The memory was the phenomenon of the awareness and therefore was arranged by some that in an apriori manner, logical. The psychologists were still being covered the puzzle around the reality that humankind did not remember anything about his existence period previously as the embryo and
Humankind not an animal that submitted totally to stimuli that not-was avoided that determined his life situation. He also the creature acted. And the category of the action of being antecedent logical for each concrete action.
Anyone in the behaviour his days still and still become the upper witness ketidakberubahan and the universality from categories of thoughts and the action. He that greeted his peer, who wanted to give information and to convince the other person, who asked and answered his peer's question, to be able to continue to do these matters only because he could make a plea to something that together was gotten to all the logical structures of the human mind. The idea that A simultaneously also took the form of you, or preference would A compared with B simultaneously also meant preference would B compared with A, was statement-peryataan that could not be received and difficult (absurd) for thoughts of humankind. We was not in the position to understand logical thinking or enraged-logical. We could not imagine a world without causality and teleogi.
Not the problem for humankind whether apart from the scope that was covered by thoughts of humankind had or not something that categorically was different from thoughts and the human action. From this part did not have knowledge that penetrated thoughts of humankind. No use questioned whether a-in-himself (things-in-themselves) that was different from what apparently for us, and whether having the other worlds that could not be found by us and ideas that could not be understood by us. Problems were like this apart from the scope of human cognition. Human knowledge terkondisi by the structure of his thoughts personally. If this knowledge chose the human action as the centre of his study, then that was meant actually was categories of the action that his characteristics were appropriate for thoughts of humankind and that was the projection of human knowledge against the external world from process-to and the change. All teorema praksiologi referred in categories of the action only was valid in the orbit of their operation. They not pretensious will send information about the world and the relations that were unimaginable. Therefore, praksiologi was humane in the dual understanding. He was humane
Around charges about Logis Manusia Primitif Heterogeneity There was confusion thought where articles of Lucien Levy-Bruhl were generally trusted as the support for the doctrine that said that the logical structure manusa primitive that was different categorically from the structure of civilised humankind. Just the reverse, what Levy-Bruhl reported, on the basis of the thorough research into all the ethnological material available concerning mental functions of primitive humankind proved clearly that logical-fundamental relations as well as categories of thoughts and the action evidently played the role that was equally good in the activity of illegal humankind of the intellectual and in the activity of the intellectual who was done in our life period. The content of thoughts of primitive humankind quite different from the content of our thoughts, but his formal and logical structure same for both of them.
Is it true that that Levy-Bruhl personally firm believe that the primitive human mentality basically was “mistik and prelogis”; the collective representation of property of primitive humankind was arranged by the participation law and as a result did not heed the contradiction law. Nevertheless, the separation that was carried out by Levy-Bruhl between logical and logical thoughts referred to the contents and not the form or the categorical structure of thoughts. Because of him said distinctly that between people like us ourselves, the idea and relations between-idea that was arranged by “hukum partisipasi” also was available, good that was more independent or was the reverse, not not all that and not more the weakness, but continued to be able to not be eliminated, bersandingan with ideas that submitted to the genius's laws. Ideas that “pra-logical and mystical berkoeksistensi with that logis”.
Levy-Bruhl turned the core of the Kristiani teaching to ranah logical thoughts. Currently, a large number of objections possibly could and was appointed to oppose Kristiani doctrines as well as his interpretation through theology. However no-one had tried to speculate by saying that the Christian clergymen and philosopher-among them Saint Agustin and Saint Thomas-had thoughts that his logical structure was different categorically from sesame they in our time. The dispute between people who trusted the miracle and that not, referred in the content of his thoughts, not in strktur logical him. Someone who tried to demonstrate the possibility and the reality about keajabiban possibly wrong. However, to reveal his error logically-as was pointed out in Hume essays and Mill-definitely not not all that the difficulty than membuktian the error thought in philosophy knowledge or economics.
According to the report on several explorers and the missionary in Africa and Polynesia, primitive humankind stopped in the perception being earliest they against objects and had not thought that he could avoid this matter by other means. The European educators and America reported the similar matter about their students. In connection with him with Mossi people in the Nigerian river, Levy-Bruhl quoted observation of a missionary: “Percakapan with them only revolved about the problem of the woman, the woman, food and (in the rain season) the yield. ” Subyek what next that more had an interest taken in him by the colleagues and the neighbour Newton, Kant and Levy-Bruhl this?
The best conclusion that must be reaped from studies of Levy-Bruhl precisely came from said-he said personally: primitive thoughts, as in the case of our thoughts, equally restless him in looking for the reason behind the incident; only he did not look for him in the direction of that was the same as our direction.
A farmer who craved the abundant yield possibly will choose various method-in accordance with the contents of his idea. He possibly would melaksakan ritual magical; began him by means of berjiarah; lighted the candle for his protective saint; or possibly used fertiliser more or the better kind. Anything that the implementation, this matter always took the form of the action, that is the utilisation of a method of achieving an aim. Witchcraft in the meaning of the width was a kind of technology. Eksorsisme was the deliberate action on the basis of the view of the world that by most of our colleagues would dihujat as something that superstition and therefore did not deserve to be carried out. However the concept of the action did not implicate that this action was led by the true theory and promising technology the success and that this matter will achieve his aim. He only implicated the perpetrators of this action of believing that the method that was followed will produce the effect that was wanted.
Facts that were received by ethnology and the history not there are those that was compatible with the statement that the logical structure of thoughts of the humankind the uniform, was freed whether the ethnic group, the age, and his country.
There was two main branches of science concerning the human action: praksiologi and the history. The history was the collection and the systematic composition of all the experience datas concerning the human action. The history did business with the concrete content of the human action. This knowledge studied human efforts in all multiplisitas and his variation that was unlimited, as well as the individual action with all of his implications, both that his characteristics by chance, especially and typical. The history researched ideas that guided humankind in carrying out the action as well as results of the action that was carried out. He covered all the aspects of the human activity. In one-sided he possibly took the form of the history of the public and on the other side took the form of the history from various more crowded fields. There is, for example, the history about the political action and the military, about ideas and philosophy, about the economic activity, about technology, about literature, art and knowledge pengetahun, about the religion, about the customs and traditions and the habit, and about many others in the aim of the life of humankind. There were ethnology and anthropology, to the best of was not regarded part of the biology, and had also psychology, to the best of
The study field of all historic science was the past. All this knowledge could not teach us anything that could be it was considered valid concerning the human action; including also for the interests of the future. The study of the history [could] made humankind become wise and be on the alert, but through himself the history did not offer knowledge or skills anything to handle concrete works.
Nature sciences also did business with the past incident. Each experience was the upper experience something that has passed by; did not have the experience of the incident in the future. However, that made knowledge natural received the success was the experience from the experiment where elements of the change could be observed in the isolation. Facts that were gathered in this method afterwards could be utilised to [the process] the induction, the typical inference procedure that gave pragmatic proof about the practicability of nature science, despite the characterisation epistemologis him still became the problem that was not yet solved.
The experience that must be involved in by sciences that studied the human action always took the form of the phenomenon of the complex. The trial of the laboratory did not enable the research into the human action. We had not been in one position that enabled us to observe the change that happened in one element, while the other condition from the incident that was researched it was considered did not change. The historic experience as an experience of the phenomenon that komples did not give us facts in the understanding that was used in nature science in order to marks incidents that had been isolated and tested in the trial. Information through the historic experience could not be made the base to develop the theory and predict the future incident. Each historic experience was open for various interpretations and in fact indeed could be interpreted in various methods.
That was the reason why postulates that were produced by positivism and several metaphysical currents were the illusion that deceived. Sciences about the human action of being not possible to be reformed according to patterns of physics or other nature knowledge. Was not gotten by the method of developing a theory that a posteriori about the behaviour of humankind and the social incident. The history could prove or deny a public statement by means of that was applied in nature sciences when supporting or refusing the hypothesis on the basis of the testing of the laboratory. Towards the public's proposition concerning the human action, the verification or sanggahan was based on the laboratory test was not possible to be carried out.
The phenomenon of the complex, that was formed on the chain linkage of cause and effect, could not test the theory anything. Just the reverse, the phenomenon of the complex could be only understood through the interpretation was based on the understanding of other theories that were developed beforehand from other sources. In the matter of the natural phenomenon, the interpretation must not towards the incident be compatible with the theory that has been tested satisfactorily through the experiment. In the matter of the historic incident was not known by the limitation that like that. The commentators could took shelter behind the arbitrary explanation. When must explain something, thoughts of humankind had not lost the power to create the theory ad hoc the invention, despite his logical justification was not available.
In the history field of humankind, the limitations like that was experienced by theories (that was tested through the experiment) in an effort to him to interpret and explain physics incidents, chemical, and physiological, also was given by praksiologi. Praksiologi was theoretical and systematic science, but non-historic. The scope praksiologi was the human action personally, without gazing at the environmental situation or factors by chance and individual from concrete actions. His cognition pure was formal and the public, without referring in the material content and the special characteristics of the example of the actual case. His aim was knowledge that was valid for each situation where his condition berkorespondensi exactly with matters that terimplikasi in assumptions and inferences. All the statements and the proposition in praksiologi was not dropped off from the experience. The statement and the proposition in praksiologi, as in the case of in logic and mathematics, was a priori. The statement and his proposition not the subject to be proven or contradicted on the basis of the experience and the fact. He logically and temporally was preceded (antecedent) each understanding of historic facts. The statement
2. The Formal character and Aprioristik from Praksiologi
One of the stylish trends in philosophy today is to take the form of the denial towards the existence of knowledge that his characteristics a priori. His argumentation: all human knowledge was received from the experience. The attitude was like this was able easily to be understood as the reaction that was abundant against ekstravaganza theology and philosophy-fake towards the history and nature knowledge. By relying on intuition, metafisikawan was enthusiastic to find principles of the foundation or moral teachings, the meaning of the historic evolution, the characteristics of the spirit and the substance, and laws that arranged incidents fisikawi, chemical, and physiological. Their speculation that kept changing was realised in keluputan reckless they would the meaning of knowledge that actually. They believe in that, without referring to the experience, the mind could explain all the matters and answered all the questions. The success of modern nature sciences was located in the observation method and their trial. There were no doubt that empiricism and the pragmatism were true how far they depicted procedures that were used in nature science. However one matter that did not lose definitely him was that they were very wrong when refusing all the kinds
In the matter praksiologi, the error of these philosophers was caused by their ignorance completely towards economic knowledge and often because of their knowledge would the history, and this really startling, did not satisfy. In the eyes of these philosophers these philosophical rumours must be treated by a profession that subklim and great, and might not be given in the low-level work kind. The professor will feel angry would the fact that his production was produced by means of berfilosofi; he will be touched on with thinking that he looked for money like the artisan and the worker in the field. Monetary problems were regarded as the bad matter, and the philosopher that carried out investigation towards main problems about the truth and the values eternal not necessarily contaminated thoughts by paying attention to problems of economic knowledge.
The problem had or not elements of thoughts that apriori-like conditions for the intellectual who was needed and unavoidable to think, that was anterior towards each kind of actual torque conception and pengalaman–tidak could be mixt-adukkan with the genetic problem around the human method of receiving his mental capacity that was typical and humane. Humankind was dropped off from the ancestors of non-humankind who did not have this capacity. The ancestors of humankind was granted potentiality that for centuries the evolution trip changed him into the creature that berakal. The achievement of this transformation was influenced by the change in the environment kosmik that operated continually from one generation to the further generation. So the empirical group concluded that the fundamental principle of the genius was results of the experience and merepresentasikan the adaptation of humankind to the condition for his environment.
If being investigated consistently, this idea furthermore brought in the conclusion that, since the ancestors's period prehumankind through to the homosexual period sapiens, was gotten by various transitional stages. In the past had the creature that, although being not supplied with the capacity of the human mind, had elements of the foundation rasionisasi. Their thoughts were not yet logical, melainkam still pre-logical (or logical but more imperfect). Their logical functions that were still not focussed and not yet effective was evolving a step for the sake of a step from the situation prelogical headed the logical situation. The intellect, intellect, and logic were the historic phenomenon. There was the history of logic; had also the history of technology. There were no signs that said that logic as that was known by us at this time was the last stage or the final in the evolution of the intellectual. Human logic was the historic phase between non-logical prehumankind on one hand as well as logical and super-humankind on the other side. The intellect and thoughts, the most effective implement that was owned by the human creature in the struggle in order to continuation of his life, was soldered in the continuous current from incidents zoologis.
Further, was not made hesitate that each kind of humankind in the process of his personal evolution experienced repeatedly not only the physiological metamorphosis from the simple cell became the very complicated mammalian organism, but also the spiritual metamorphosis, from the pure existence vegetatif and animal, became the creature berakal. This transformation was not finished in the prenatal period the embryo, but only in the future when the baby that just-be born a step for the sake of a step was awakened in the humane awareness. Each kind of humankind in the beginning of his existence, beginning with the depth of darkness, developed through various related situations the logical structure of his thoughts.
Afterwards, there was also the case about the animal. We fully realised the existence of the chasm that not-was crossed, that separated our mind from the reactive process of the brain and nerves to the animal. However, at the same time we suspected that fighting urgings great in himself the animal headed the understanding light. The restless animal of the resistance simile made an effort to run away from his fate that was unclear eternal and from otomatisme that was unavoidable. We could be sympathetic to him because we ourselves was in the similar position: in the futility opposed the limitations of our intellectual's device, and in looking for cognition perfection that could not be achieved.
However, the problem about something that a priori had the other character. He did not do business with the problem how the origin and the mind of the awareness emergence. He referred in the essential character and must be for the logical structure of thoughts of humankind. Fundamental logical relations not something that must be proven or denied. Each effort to prove these logical relations certainly mem-prasuposisi-would his validity. These logical relations were not possible to be explained to the creature who did not have these relations for himself. Efforts to define logical relations were based on the definition rule must experience the failure. They were poposisi-proposition that his characteristics preceded each nominal definition or the real definition. They were the category of the end that could not be analysed further. Thoughts of humankind could not imagine logical categories that were compatible with them. Without caring how these logical relations in the future were concrete for the creature who was named super-humankind, they continued to be able to not be passed through by humankind, and to absolutely be needed. They were prerequisites that were not released for the perception, and for the experience.
They, not not all that, was the prerequisite that was not separated for the memory. There was the trend in nature knowledge to depict the memory as one instance fenomenon that was more just general. Each living organism kept effects from previous stimulasion, and the now situation from the substance inorganik was formed by effects from all the influences that exposed him in the past. The situation of the now universal was the product from his past. Therefore, we could say, in the lax metaphorical understanding, that the geological structure of our world ball kept the upper memory of all the previous cosmic changes, and that the body of a humankind was the sedimentation from his ancestors, as well as fate and his change personally. However, the memory was something that completely was different from facts concerning structural unity and continuation of the cosmic evolution. The memory was the phenomenon of the awareness and therefore was arranged by some that in an apriori manner, logical. The psychologists were still being covered the puzzle around the reality that humankind did not remember anything about his existence period previously as the embryo and
Humankind not an animal that submitted totally to stimuli that not-was avoided that determined his life situation. He also the creature acted. And the category of the action of being antecedent logical for each concrete action.
Anyone in the behaviour his days still and still become the upper witness ketidakberubahan and the universality from categories of thoughts and the action. He that greeted his peer, who wanted to give information and to convince the other person, who asked and answered his peer's question, to be able to continue to do these matters only because he could make a plea to something that together was gotten to all the logical structures of the human mind. The idea that A simultaneously also took the form of you, or preference would A compared with B simultaneously also meant preference would B compared with A, was statement-peryataan that could not be received and difficult (absurd) for thoughts of humankind. We was not in the position to understand logical thinking or enraged-logical. We could not imagine a world without causality and teleogi.
Not the problem for humankind whether apart from the scope that was covered by thoughts of humankind had or not something that categorically was different from thoughts and the human action. From this part did not have knowledge that penetrated thoughts of humankind. No use questioned whether a-in-himself (things-in-themselves) that was different from what apparently for us, and whether having the other worlds that could not be found by us and ideas that could not be understood by us. Problems were like this apart from the scope of human cognition. Human knowledge terkondisi by the structure of his thoughts personally. If this knowledge chose the human action as the centre of his study, then that was meant actually was categories of the action that his characteristics were appropriate for thoughts of humankind and that was the projection of human knowledge against the external world from process-to and the change. All teorema praksiologi referred in categories of the action only was valid in the orbit of their operation. They not pretensious will send information about the world and the relations that were unimaginable. Therefore, praksiologi was humane in the dual understanding. He was humane
Around charges about Logis Manusia Primitif Heterogeneity There was confusion thought where articles of Lucien Levy-Bruhl were generally trusted as the support for the doctrine that said that the logical structure manusa primitive that was different categorically from the structure of civilised humankind. Just the reverse, what Levy-Bruhl reported, on the basis of the thorough research into all the ethnological material available concerning mental functions of primitive humankind proved clearly that logical-fundamental relations as well as categories of thoughts and the action evidently played the role that was equally good in the activity of illegal humankind of the intellectual and in the activity of the intellectual who was done in our life period. The content of thoughts of primitive humankind quite different from the content of our thoughts, but his formal and logical structure same for both of them.
Is it true that that Levy-Bruhl personally firm believe that the primitive human mentality basically was “mistik and prelogis”; the collective representation of property of primitive humankind was arranged by the participation law and as a result did not heed the contradiction law. Nevertheless, the separation that was carried out by Levy-Bruhl between logical and logical thoughts referred to the contents and not the form or the categorical structure of thoughts. Because of him said distinctly that between people like us ourselves, the idea and relations between-idea that was arranged by “hukum partisipasi” also was available, good that was more independent or was the reverse, not not all that and not more the weakness, but continued to be able to not be eliminated, bersandingan with ideas that submitted to the genius's laws. Ideas that “pra-logical and mystical berkoeksistensi with that logis”.
Levy-Bruhl turned the core of the Kristiani teaching to ranah logical thoughts. Currently, a large number of objections possibly could and was appointed to oppose Kristiani doctrines as well as his interpretation through theology. However no-one had tried to speculate by saying that the Christian clergymen and philosopher-among them Saint Agustin and Saint Thomas-had thoughts that his logical structure was different categorically from sesame they in our time. The dispute between people who trusted the miracle and that not, referred in the content of his thoughts, not in strktur logical him. Someone who tried to demonstrate the possibility and the reality about keajabiban possibly wrong. However, to reveal his error logically-as was pointed out in Hume essays and Mill-definitely not not all that the difficulty than membuktian the error thought in philosophy knowledge or economics.
According to the report on several explorers and the missionary in Africa and Polynesia, primitive humankind stopped in the perception being earliest they against objects and had not thought that he could avoid this matter by other means. The European educators and America reported the similar matter about their students. In connection with him with Mossi people in the Nigerian river, Levy-Bruhl quoted observation of a missionary: “Percakapan with them only revolved about the problem of the woman, the woman, food and (in the rain season) the yield. ” Subyek what next that more had an interest taken in him by the colleagues and the neighbour Newton, Kant and Levy-Bruhl this?
The best conclusion that must be reaped from studies of Levy-Bruhl precisely came from said-he said personally: primitive thoughts, as in the case of our thoughts, equally restless him in looking for the reason behind the incident; only he did not look for him in the direction of that was the same as our direction.
A farmer who craved the abundant yield possibly will choose various method-in accordance with the contents of his idea. He possibly would melaksakan ritual magical; began him by means of berjiarah; lighted the candle for his protective saint; or possibly used fertiliser more or the better kind. Anything that the implementation, this matter always took the form of the action, that is the utilisation of a method of achieving an aim. Witchcraft in the meaning of the width was a kind of technology. Eksorsisme was the deliberate action on the basis of the view of the world that by most of our colleagues would dihujat as something that superstition and therefore did not deserve to be carried out. However the concept of the action did not implicate that this action was led by the true theory and promising technology the success and that this matter will achieve his aim. He only implicated the perpetrators of this action of believing that the method that was followed will produce the effect that was wanted.
Facts that were received by ethnology and the history not there are those that was compatible with the statement that the logical structure of thoughts of the humankind the uniform, was freed whether the ethnic group, the age, and his country.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar