审视潘卡西拉在公共理性体系中的地位:一个批判性的分析

Jurnal Politik Pub Date : 2019-03-31 DOI:10.7454/jp.v4i2.203
Muhamad Iswardani Chaniago
{"title":"审视潘卡西拉在公共理性体系中的地位:一个批判性的分析","authors":"Muhamad Iswardani Chaniago","doi":"10.7454/jp.v4i2.203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research tries to review a number of ideas of some Indonesian scholars such as Yudi Latif, Franz Magnis-Suseno, and Syamsul Ma'arif, who saw and described the relationship between Pancasila and public reason, one of the popular political concepts in political studies. Some Indonesian scholars have linked Pancasila to public reason, with a secular nuance, so that it could potentially be free of religious associations. The troubled derivatives of public reason include (1) the negation of the principle of majoritarianism, (2) the neutral state principle, and (3) substantial elements in religion, such as the principle of universalism. With a qualitative study referring to a number of philosophical and historical arguments, it can be shown that the arguments given by the three aforementioned scholars, and others who share similar ideas, were considered to have a number of issues. From this review, it can be concluded that the thinking that supports the relationship between Pancasila and public reason is weak in terms of the secular argument. Therefore, the relation between Pancasila and public reason can be reviewed with more approachable ideas regarding religious contributions.","PeriodicalId":32549,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Politik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Pancasila’s Position in the Public Reason Scheme: A Critical Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Muhamad Iswardani Chaniago\",\"doi\":\"10.7454/jp.v4i2.203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research tries to review a number of ideas of some Indonesian scholars such as Yudi Latif, Franz Magnis-Suseno, and Syamsul Ma'arif, who saw and described the relationship between Pancasila and public reason, one of the popular political concepts in political studies. Some Indonesian scholars have linked Pancasila to public reason, with a secular nuance, so that it could potentially be free of religious associations. The troubled derivatives of public reason include (1) the negation of the principle of majoritarianism, (2) the neutral state principle, and (3) substantial elements in religion, such as the principle of universalism. With a qualitative study referring to a number of philosophical and historical arguments, it can be shown that the arguments given by the three aforementioned scholars, and others who share similar ideas, were considered to have a number of issues. From this review, it can be concluded that the thinking that supports the relationship between Pancasila and public reason is weak in terms of the secular argument. Therefore, the relation between Pancasila and public reason can be reviewed with more approachable ideas regarding religious contributions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Politik\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Politik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7454/jp.v4i2.203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Politik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7454/jp.v4i2.203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究试图回顾Yudi Latif、Franz Magnis-Suseno和Syamsul Ma'arif等印尼学者的一些观点,他们看到并描述了潘卡西拉与公共理性(政治研究中流行的政治概念之一)之间的关系。一些印尼学者将Pancasila与公共理性联系在一起,带有世俗的细微差别,因此它可能没有宗教联系。公共理性陷入困境的衍生品包括(1)对多数主义原则的否定,(2)中立国家原则,以及(3)宗教中的实质性元素,如普遍主义原则。通过对一些哲学和历史论点的定性研究,可以看出,上述三位学者和其他持类似观点的学者所给出的论点被认为存在许多问题。从这一综述中可以得出结论,支持潘卡西拉与公共理性关系的思想在世俗论证中是薄弱的。因此,潘卡西拉与公共理性之间的关系可以用更接近宗教贡献的观点来审视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining Pancasila’s Position in the Public Reason Scheme: A Critical Analysis
This research tries to review a number of ideas of some Indonesian scholars such as Yudi Latif, Franz Magnis-Suseno, and Syamsul Ma'arif, who saw and described the relationship between Pancasila and public reason, one of the popular political concepts in political studies. Some Indonesian scholars have linked Pancasila to public reason, with a secular nuance, so that it could potentially be free of religious associations. The troubled derivatives of public reason include (1) the negation of the principle of majoritarianism, (2) the neutral state principle, and (3) substantial elements in religion, such as the principle of universalism. With a qualitative study referring to a number of philosophical and historical arguments, it can be shown that the arguments given by the three aforementioned scholars, and others who share similar ideas, were considered to have a number of issues. From this review, it can be concluded that the thinking that supports the relationship between Pancasila and public reason is weak in terms of the secular argument. Therefore, the relation between Pancasila and public reason can be reviewed with more approachable ideas regarding religious contributions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信