Irfa

Our thinking and our language is one thing. The object that we think is another thing. Our thinking and our speech is different to the object we thing. For example. Look the picture below:

That is the object. Say, what is that? This question is to know what our thinking and our say toward the object. You may be say that is India’s map. Another may be say that is Dams in India. An Pakistani may be say that is our evil neighbour. Nepali may be say that is our good neighbour. With the same object, people can think and say different. Thats what Peter Winch want to discuss.

 Winch invite to discuss, Why those phenomenon happened? Why with the same object people can have different language. Peter winch’s assumption on relation between Object and language: 1.Language does not constitute a theory about the nature of reality. Mathematic is also langue as well as scientific. It originated in certain tribe such us European and other. 2.Language itself are constituted among society. Among a world. 3.Culture set limits to what an individual can intelligibly be said to be doing. 4.People with difference world and belief system, they use difference language. For example: There was phenomenon in Indonesia, that Mother Maria statue was crying blood. Christian in the area think and said that is miracle. Scientific said that is natural phenomenon that some chemical exist and that happened in certain conditions. Both of them saw the same object and said difference word to express.

5.They ( Number 4, wo society that say different thing on one object) are not contradicts. The fact is that they both observed that some liquid were dropped on the eyes of statue. 6.People from one culture, society, and believe can translate other society language and there will be big potentiality they devalue the other language. For example, Scientist’s observed Christian world. And Scientist use their language to translate the miracle of mother Maria in Christian World. Scientist said it was because on the statue there was certain chemical. There was certain degree. There was certain atmosphere so it happened. They do ‘translate’ Christian world in their scientific language. It can be done. But somehow there will be big potentiality they devalue the meaning of the miracle.

So, as Misses Menon (Our professor) suggest, we must be aware of the use of language. We must be aware that a language is not the reality itself. There was certain convention before we use certain language to present reality. Remember what Gramsci said: Obviously east and west — as two words to express the position in earth —– are arbitrary and conventional, that is historical construction.

 This passage is intended to explore one idea in thinking about the relation between ‘concept’ and ‘reality’. ‘Concept’ is refer to language we use to represent an object. ‘Reality’ is exist just like an ‘object permanent’. ‘An object permanent’ is somehow, it is exist in any conditions, whether we aware of its existence or not, the object is still exist anyway. Reality can be portrayed in following example. I left Indonesia for India in two years. My president now (in 2008) is Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. I even doubt that Mr Yudhoyono know my name. Mr. Yudhoyono do not know me. Do not aware that a woman called Irfa Puspitasari is exist. My family definitely very very aware I am here. Anyway, I still exist. Hey, I did write this writing, right?

The main question of this reading is, why we called ‘a cup’ as a cup? Why we called the place where we live now, is ‘earth’? Positivist in ’slank indonesian language’ will said, ‘itu mah dari sononya‘. Language, word, or concept we used for representing reality is objective. Have no value. It only as it is.

Who is Quentine Skinner¹. ?

Skinner is somehow opposed Positivist idea. According to Bevir, Skinner is one of thinker from Cambridge School. In Cambridge School, there are a lot of various perspective in philosophy. Two of them are Contextualism and Conventionalism. Skinner is Conventionalism. Bevir try to explain the main assumption from Conventionalism by comparing it to contextualism.

 WHAT SKINNER THINK?

Skinner want to uncover the danger of mythology of what might be seen as fundamental concept in philosophy. Skinner called it as mythology of doctrines.² The danger took several form such us follows:

1. Danger of converting some scattered remarks by a classic theorist into their doctrines on one of the expected themes. It effect on:

• anachronism for intellectual biography.

• Histories of ideas. : Too readily finding expected doctrines in classic text.

2. Mythology of coherence.

Some of the classic writers are not altogether consistent, But then people use them and believe that they are coherence, although it was not.

3. Mythology of prolepsis or parochialism in narratives.

Sometimes people unconsciously misuse Classical writer’s vantage point in describing the sense of a given word.

  To avoid those danger, Skinner suggest two thing. First, Do Illocutionary Method to adopt in studying the history of ideas. To read a text, we must know ‘What the author was doing in making it’. It can be done by:

1.  

   1. By issuing the given utterance

   2. trace the relation between the given utterance and this wider linguistic context of the writer.

Second, Do diachronic approach to see the Value of studying the history of idea.. First, thinks in particular of the phenomenon of conceptual innovation. then the second, study of the relationship between linguistic and ideological change.

CRITIC TOWARD SKINNER

John Keane write critics toward Skinner as follows:

1. He does not agree with Skinner in focusing to intentionality of Author. The weakness of the new history is: the interpreter is also situated within a field of historically bound convention. It is such dualism

2. Keane critics for Skinner: Skinner use logic of particularism in modern conditions. By try to reducing the subjectivity of observer. Observer refer to reader, who interpret the text from the author. So, Keane said that Skinner also positivist.

Sources:

1. Meaning and Understanding in the History of ideas by Skinner

2. The Role of Context in Understanding and Explanation by Mark Bevir

3. More theses on the philosophy of history. By John Keane. From James Tully (ed),1988, Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, Princeton University Press. Chapter, pp. 204 – 17

    

In the 21^th millenium witness the overlapping internal and international political sphere. Revolution in information technology give enormous power toward individual and private to articulate and aggregate its political value. Uniquely, they become more expert in founding their self system then create result, a change. Political practice tend to move beyond scientific revolution era. As Foucault believe that political power is the power to change, they have their own way to do change inside system. Its impact are obvious and sometime radical into broader society and in the end government were forced to adjust with the change.

They success in making general election so Prachanda win and change over all the previous rule by king. This Maoist government led insurgency by guirella since 1996. Then in the late milinium, it murdered some of king family then they force to have an election in August 2008.

The interesting question is, whether will it followed by some other monarchi change in another part of world? We have  17 Monarchy-Constitutional Nation-State. Those are Nederland, Belgium, United Kingdom, Denmark, Japan, Cambodia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Marocco, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Uni Emirate Arab, Jordan. King familiy has important position in politic in some countries such us United Kindom, Thailand, Uni Emirate Arab, Brunai Darussalam, Monaco, Jordan and in some degree Japan. There also another 17 nation-state which are commonwealth country. Except Grenadies, another 16 of it such as Australia, New Zealand, Barbados etc., are Britihs Commonwealth.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee now may rethingking their decision in 1996 in giving Ramos Horta for Nobel Peace Award. Muhammad Nurul Islam, a forensic pathologist, has founded from the autopcy of Major Alfredo Reinado in August 2008. He made statement that Reinado was killed in a short range in his head, neck, and hand. It can imply that Reinado was invited to meet president Horta in the morning and then being murdered at president place.

These founding is against version from government before. Acorrding to official just after the murder in February 2008, Reinado and his second hand man try to attack president Ramos Hortha. Official said the attack also intended to Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao.

Gusmao use war for East Timor independence and Horta help hand in hand those effort by his diplomatic tactic. The nobel comittee somehow believe Ramos Horta and Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo take non violence way against Indonesia rule in the late 20 century.

But the way he tackled its resurgence in west part of East Timor is not the different way with what Indonesia army did in East Timor at previous time. During his administration with Alkatiri and now also with Xanana Gusmao, the government also not too tolerance toward those who criticized them since last two years. From 2006, Reinado was iritated of government policy, then he led his army against the government.

Welcome to Blog.co.in. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!