Karl Heinrich Marx: Materialism: An Effort to Destroy Caste Screens

Marx confronted “what determine society development isn’t their consciousness isn’t what they think about themselves but their real condition that’s situation and condition of people life. So that’s not something abstract only in our mind, imagination, expectation, but the facts/ being conditions, the real life process. Human method to produce what they need to live is society condition. Thereby, society condition influenced not only people development but also their own consciousness.
What Marx called by society condition is productions and works of human. Human is determined by production, either its product or the way. This view is called by Materialism, it means the basic of human activity is human works. In this case, Marx accepts Feuerbach opinion that the last reality is sensory object which is understood by works or production. However, the difference from Feuerbach is sensory world around it isn’t something suddenly being, but universe is product of industries and society in universe meaning is product of history.
Term history refers to Hegel as dialectical process is accepted by Marx. But there is a difference understanding. History Marx definition is classes buffetings to realize freedom, not about actualization of Spirit Soul, also not about thesis-antithesis Subjective Soul and Objective Soul, but regarding life contradictions of society moreover in economic and production activity. So to understand human and his change is unnecessary to observe what human think, but by seeing everything about production.
Likewise human consciousness and his expectation are determined by their condition in society in this case in social class. The example is the worker (proletarian class). The absent of ownership from production tools make them perforce historically have not choice of action. The aim and their historical activities were destined in their life condition that dependent on the owner of production tools will. Because of this condition, the way of production determined the way human think. The logical consequence of this condition is the way of proletarian thinking is how to survive and the way of owner thinking is how to have greatest number of production tools. From those, cold down several things. First, the way of production can determine the being of social classes. Second, the membership of social classes determined people interest. Third, interest determined what be expected and what people consider about good and bad.
After all, what he firstly wants to struggle now became justification of brogues attitude. Even though he admits that he is not Marxism, it will always adhere on him. Thus, the brogues will always dominate and colonize proletarian. And his concept became basic of colonization around world. Therefore, it could be said that his effort was failed. Moreover he loudly defies all of spirituality form. It’s affirmed his though is oriented only into material thing.

Hegel: Dialectical Culture, the Fading of Traditional Culture

Triadic form of dialectic Hegel that’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis comes from philosophers before Hegel. Antinomy Kantian about numena and phenomena make unfinished opposition. Then Fichte with his theory of knowledge method still emerge controversy even though he rather overstep what Kant explain.
In other side, Hegel dialectic concept also synthesizes subjective idealism type of Fichte’s philosophy and objective idealism type of Schelling’s philosophy. For Hegel, Fichte’s philosophy is named as ‘thesis’ and Schelling’s philosophy is named as ‘antithesis’. Whereas Hegel’s philosophy itself is named as synthesis of both, so the dialectic of Hegel’s philosophy consists of three phases, namely, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Synthesis as the mediator of thesis and antithesis internally still contains the truth value from thesis and antithesis. The famous proposition which then makes Hegel become more popular is: “all real things are rational and all rational things are real.”
Dialectic is intended also as the thought method to acquire union (synthtesis) of two contradictive things (thesis vs antithesis). With the term aufgehoben, the concept of “being” (thesis), and “nothing” (antithesis) get their union form in the concept of “became” (synthesis). In “became” concept, there are “being” and “nothing” concept, so both of them are canceled or considered nonexistent.
For Hegel, contradictive element is not appearing after we reflect it, but it was exist in object itself. Each thesis has antithesis in its form. Antithesis is included in thesis because both of them idea which related with higher thing. Both are raised and abolished (aufgehoben) in synthesis.
There are three essential elements in Hegel’s dialectic. First, thinking is think inner of himself to himself and by himself. Second, dialectic is result of thought continually about contradiction. Third, the unity of certainty about contradiction is sublimed in unity. That’s the nature of dialectic itself.
When Islam come into Nusantara, many of scholars spread it through culture way. Some of them use local poems, building architecture and include wayang. The first man use wayang as missionary tool is Sunan Kalijaga. At the first time he use wayang golek (wayang/ doll that has three dimensions) as original Javanese culture. However Sunan Giri disagrees with him, because wayang golek is like idol and he afraid what Sunan Kalijogo did will be ally of God. In Islamic teaching (antithesis) make something that is rivaled His creature is forbidden. Finally, based on Sunan Giri advice, wayang is reformed into two dimensions, that’s called by wayang kulit (synthesis).
Along with the progressing time, wayang kulit became thesis because it’s faced by theatrical drama like ketropak and ludruk (antithesis). Then, appear the synthesis one in form of movie. This dialectic will go on never ending. Because while human feel not enough with something he will search and create something new to fulfill the less one, whereas human will not satisfied by what he did and always want get more.
The logical consequence from this dialectical culture is the older tradition/ culture will be faded and leaved. Whereas, in older tradition there are something we couldn’t get it in new tradition. Ironically, we don’t care with our original tradition as our identity. We always prefer the new tradition from foreign country and leave our origin identity tradition. We just aware of it after other people grabbed it from us. In fact, Hegel’s dialectic concept brings the negative effects when it’s applied in society culture.
So, our condition now, based on dialectic concept, we are facing modernity (antithesis) that is impinged by our identity (thesis). Or our modernity habit (thesis) is rammed by our original culture identity. Because everything could be both of them, depend on the point of our view. In the same meaning with what Hegel said contradiction is sublimed in unity. Let’s find the synthesis one of our problem cultures.

Soren Kierkegaard: Religion and Existentialism

The resurgence of Germany idealism became a smack for individual person, because idealism philosopher only embraces “universal” problems. It means they build an epistemological system that is oriented to pure reason. Pure reason isn’t product of individual intellectual but the basic of all reality embryos. Thereby, it cold be said that idealism philosophers saw all of reality in universal and abstract perspective.
Starting from this reality, Soren Kierkegaard build a philosophical system which not wrestle with universal and abstract problems, but the concert and touching individual area problems. Because, according to Kierkegaard, those practical daily problems are concert and became existential human problem. For him, the concert one became starting point of new reflection about human existence meaning. From this foundation he sparked off existentialism concept.
Soren’s though, as critique of Hegel, emphasize subjectivism aspect. Remembering everything basically is manifestation of what Hegel said as soul phenomenology, then human individuality was reduced to be shoal. That will abolish individual responsibility ethically, even make individual existence to be vanish in fold of bevy. His stressing on individual existence will make him considered as the founder of existentialism that will famed by Sartre later.
He saw that the basic thing for human is his condition or his own existent. According to him, existence only applied in human being as concert individual. Because only the concert individual “I” that can existent which really being and presence in the real reality. According to Kierkegaard, to exist is not mean live in abstract and mechanic mode, but continually make new personal and subjective choices.
Soren is famous as religious existentialist because his concept is more inclined to religiosity. He placed human religious existent at the highest stage over other human existence process. He divided existence concept into three stages. First stage is esthetic, when human exist based on his sensory pleasure. The model figure of this stage in west civilization is Don Juan who always hunts the happiness. The second stage is reached by a flying jumping to a phase where human exist with consideration of universal moral in true and false framework. The example of this step is Socrates who immolated himself for the principle of universal moral. The last stage is the peak of faith which cannot be appraised by universal moral that meet with faith paradox character. The model of this stage is Ibrahim in case of his son slaughter. This division existence is also called by dialectical existence.

A little rebellion
As existentialism concept which yell out individual freedom, I saw his theory is halfway. He is still fettered by ethical, moral and religious construction. His theory is so melancholic and not brave enough. He was influenced by Descartes subjectivism, he more focus on human existence and consider that out of human couldn’t be existent. Consequently, he was trapped in dilemmatic subject-object views. So his theory could be classified into anthropocentrism that will be criticized by recent philosophers.