go to hell

Selengkapnya...

seputar filsafat

Dewasa ini filsafat tidak mendapatkan perhatian dan pembahasan yang cukup dari kita semua, untuk itu mudah-mudahan tulisan ini bisa menambah pengetahuan kita tentang filsafat sebagaimana adanya filsafat.
pengantar filsafat

pengantar filsafat

Sebelum membicarakan filsafat ada baiknya kita membicarakan sedikit pengantar tentang cara mendefinisikan suatu perkara. Ini penting karena masih banyak diantara kita salah kaprah dalam menerima arus informasi global. Cara pendefinisian dibagi menjadi dua. Pertama adalah pendefinisian Verbal (lafzhi) dan yang kedua adalah pendefinisian Arti Nyata (Maknawi).

Pendefinisan verbal (lafzhi) adalah cara mendefinisikan dengan maksud menjelaskan pengertian dari kosa kata yang digunakan atau menjelaskan pengertian dari istilah yang digunakan (linguistik).

Sedangkan pendefinisian Arti Nyata (maknawi) adalah cara mendefinisikan dengan mengungkapkan makna sebenarnya (hakekat) dari ke ‘apa’ an sesuatu.

Ketika seseorang bertanya, apakah yang dimaksud dengan ‘merpati’ . Sering kita temui bahwa maksud dari sipenanya dapat berbeda-beda. Adakalanya maksud sipenanya adalah tentang pengertian dari kata (kosa kata) tersebut, yakni merpati itu ‘apa’ dari arti bahasa atau istilah (terminologis). Dan jawaban tentang ke ‘apa’ an merpati ini dapat dijawab dengan bermacam-macam istilah dan definisi per-bidang orang yang ditanyakan, sehingga tidak menutup kemungkinan akan menimbulkan ‘arti’ yang banyak tentang ke ‘apa’ an merpati dari sisi terminologi. Menurut istilah ahli hewan, merpati adalah sejenis burung yang masuk kedalam katagori unggas, dan akan berbeda lagi definisi ke ‘apa’an merpati ini jika masuk kedalam kamus departemen perhubungan, maka yang disebut dengan merpati adalah sebuah pesawat terbang yang dikelola oleh sebuah maskapai penerbangan yang masuk kedalam katagori pesawat yang berplat merah (Perusahaan pemerintah).

Dalam menjawab pertanyaan semacam itu (tentang kosakata) ada kemungkinan semua jawaban yang di kemukakan adalah benar. Dan disini dibutuhkan kejeli-an dan ketelitian kita untuk mengetahui secara jelas tentang arti dan penggunaan dari kosa kata yang dipakai.

Jika kita akan mengdefinisikan suatu hal atau akan menjelaskan ke ‘apa’ an suatu istilah yang memiliki definisi lebih dari satu, maka kita harus mengatakan bahwa ‘ke apaan’ ini menurut istilah ahli fulan ini artinya ‘ini’ dan menurut istilah ahli fulan itu artinya adalah ‘itu’ . Menjelaskan ke’apa’an sesuatu dengan cara memaparkan pendapat-pendapat dari beberapa ahli-ahli yang berbeda bidang inilah yang disebut dengan pendefinisian verbal.

Tetapi sering juga kita menanyakan ‘ke apa-an’ sesuatu BUKAN bermaksud untuk mempertanyakan arti dari kosa kata yang digunakan melainkan tentang Hakekat (Arti Nyata) dan makna sebenarnya dari susuatu itu. Misalnya ketika kita bertanya, apakah yang disebut dengan ‘Nabi’ , tentu yang kita tanyakan bukanlah tentang arti dari kata nabi diletakkan untuk apa? Karena kita semua sudah tahu bahwa kata nabi diletakkan dan diperuntukkan untuk manusia dengan syarat dan ketentuan yang khusus, bukan kepada yang lainnya semisal kepada tumbuh-tumbuhan atau hewan.

Pertanyaan tentang ‘ hakikat dan substansi’ dari nabi tadi misalnya, jawaban subtansi terhadap ini hanya satu, tidak boleh lebih dan tidak mungkin semua jawaban tentang pertanyaan ini adalah benar. Jawaban untuk menjawab pertanyaan semacam inilah yang disebut dengan pendefinisian Arti Nyata (Maknawi/Hakiki)

Untuk menelaah suatu perkara, maka kedua cara pendefinisian ini haruslah digunakan secara berurutan dan hirarkis. Jika tidak demikian maka akan terjadi bias makna (paralogisme) antara maksud dan tujuan sipenanya dengan hakekat yang sebenarnya. Dalam hal ini mencari arti dari kosa kata yang akan digunakan (pendefinisian Verbal) haruslah lebih didahulukan, setelah jelas dan teliti dalam penggunaan kosa kata tersebut barulah kita bisa mencari tahu makna hakikinya ( Arti Nyatanya) .

Urutan tentang tata cara pendefinisian ini sungguh penting dan strategis dalam mencari dan menggali substansi dari suatu perkara, cara berurutan seperti ini bisa menghindari perselisihan yang tidak perlu. Karena jika tidak demikian maka bisa dibayangkan betapa rumitnya dan repotnya kita mencari tahu tentang arti sebuah ‘kata’ . Jika saja masing-masing pihak mendefinisikan arti ‘kata’ dengan bermacam-macam istilah dan bahasa yang sesuai dengan bidangnya, maka besar kemungkinan orang yang terakhir menemui ‘kata’ tersebut akan lebih banyak berselisih ketimbang mengerti.

Misal, suatu hari orang yang menciptakan istilah ‘keseluruhan’ yang berarti adalah semua dan bukan sebagian ataupun terbagi-bagi. Makna yang sebenarnya tentang ‘keseluruhan’ ini bisa menjadi bias kalau setiap orang mendefinisikannya sesuai dengan bidang dan keahliannya dimasa berikutnya, apalagi jika sudah di terjemahkan kedalam bahasa asing yang beraneka ragam, bisa jadi arti ‘keseluruhan’ akan menjadi sebagian ( yang pertama hilang kata ‘bukan’ -nya) . Jika peneliti berikutnya mengabaikan pentingnya urutan cara pendefinisian, bisa jadi dia tidak akan memperhatikan lagi istilah ‘ keseluruhan’ sebagai acuan dari persoalan yang dihadapi dan langsung menggunakan istilah ’sebagian’ sebagai kata ganti ‘keseluruhan’ . Sehingga orang terakhir yang bukan peneliti dan ahli ketika menemui istilah ‘keseluruhan’ langsung saja beranggapan bahwa ‘keseluruhan’ sama dengan ’sebagian’.

Begitu pula dengan kata ‘filsafat’ , banyak terjadi kekeliruan umum tentangnya diantara para filsuf barat dan para pengikutnya di Timur. Kita bisa mulai bahasan ini dengan kekeliruan awal dan ‘keluwesan’ yang tidak perlu yang di ajukan oleh para filsuf belakangan ini. Keluwesan yang tidak perlu ini berawal dari cara pendefinisian kata ‘filsafat’ itu sendiri.
Selengkapnya...

deductive and inductive arguments

A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

The difference between

the two comes from the sort of relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premisesdefinitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.

The noun “deduction” refers to the process of advancing a deductive argument, or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. “Induction” refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.

Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, the truth of the conclusion is “contained within” the truth of the premises; i.e., the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. For example, the following are deductive arguments:

There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the lower shelf of the bookcase. There are no books anywhere else in my bookcase. Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden. If Bergen is in Norway, then Bergen is in Scandinavia. If Bergen is in Sweden, the Bergen is in Scandinavia. Therefore, Bergen is in Scandinavia.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can appeal to any consideration that might be thought relevant to the probability of the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, therefore, can take very wide ranging forms, including arguments dealing with statistical data, generalizations from past experience, appeals to signs, evidence or authority, and causal relationships.

Some dictionaries define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. While this usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and mathematical contexts, for the most part, it is outdated. For example, according to the more modern definitions given above, the following argument, even though it reasons from the specific to general, is deductive, because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:

The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.

Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is inductive:

It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.

It is worth noting, therefore, that the proof technique used in mathematics called “mathematical induction”, is, according to the contemporary definition given above, actually a form of deduction. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:

Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.

When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary standards.

Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depening on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.

Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.

It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of “champagne” proper and that therefore, the conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker’s mind. He or she may merely believe that most champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive.

It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:

All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.

This argument is logically invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.

See also the articles on “Argument” and “Validity and Soundness” in this encyclopedia.
Selengkapnya...

sore bersama 'beethoven'

jumat sore, begitu mempesonaku. kubuka jendela ruang tamu, dan tak sengaja kutemukan gerimis, hatiku masih berbisik riang dengan datangnya air hujan itu dan mataku ini sembari melihat-lihat anak-anak kecil berlarian dibawah sana, apartemen dilantai tujuh ini begitu leluasa untuk melihat suasana sekitar, suasana panas dan kerasnya kairo yang tersirami gerimis itu. ah..aku kembali menikmati anak-anak kecil itu berlarian, sambil aku berteriak, yabni..igri, igri, igri!! aku memberikan semangat kepada mereka untuk tetap berlari, dan berlari!! ya, berlari mengejar kebahagiaan! hmm...sedikit membantuku melupakan panas dan keras itu. tanpa ragu, kutengadahkan kepalaku keluar jendela, untuk menikmati sedikit kebahagiaan anak-anak itu, ihh...dingin banget! kutarik sebentar kepalaku kedalam, bersembunyi dibalik jendela. ah..bukan ini yang kucari!

kutengadakan kembali kepalaku, kulihat kembali anak-anak itu, ehm..riang sekali kehidupan ini, aha...ini yang kucari! dan terus, kusengaja kepala ini agar basah olehnya. dan dikejauhan lubuk hati aku berkata, aku merindukan sekali keriangan dan keteduhan! dan bukan dari balik jendela!

kututup kembali pintu jendela, kurapikan kembali korden yang mengiasinya, dan kulangkahkan kakiku tiga langkah, ditempat dimana sebuah laptop indah terletak. aku duduk sejenak disampingnya, dan mataku menatap jendela menerobos melewati korden-korden, untuk mencari cahaya! "sepertinya ada yang kurang dengan suasana sore ini?" tanyaku dalam gumamku. oukh.."bethoven!". bak seorang composer kehidupan, aku menginginkan kesempurnaan dalam irama sore ini!". dan tentu saja, jemariku langsung mengarah pada sebuah huruf 'Y' untuk mengawali kata youtube. beruntung, kecepatan internet ini bersahabat, 2 Mbps..woow, great! aku berfikir sejenak, diantara karya-karya bethoven, aku mengenal winter sonata, kemudian piano concerto no. 5 emperor yang semakin semarak dengan suara piano-brand diiringi dengan flute, klarinet, basoon, horn, trumpet, tympani dan instrumen string. dan juga aku mengingat dengan judulnya yang lain: fur elise, ehm..kagem ratri wulan. begitu hasil gubahanku dalam bahasa jawa, hasil translasi dari bahasanya si-bethoven. dan lagi, aku mengenal sonata in C minor pathetique, op. 13. sebuah sonata pianonya yang terkenal dan didedikasikan kepada seorang pangeran carl von lichnowsky. dan yang lain, aku masih ingat dengan moonligt sonata dan pastorale sonata, bei mannem, welche liebe fuhle, quintet op. 18, septet in Eb major, op 20, dan quintet, op. 29, symphony no. 3 in Eb eroica, yang didedikasikan untuk napoleon bonaparte, dan digubah menjadi sinfonia eroica composta per festiggiare il sovvenire de un grand uomo, kemudian Piano Sonata in C Major ‘Waldstein’, Op. 53, Piano Sonata in F Major, Op. 54, dan Piano Sonata in F Minor ‘Appasionata’, Op. 57. SUDAH, CUKUP..aku merasakan, anda ampir saja menjerit bosan menyimak ingatanku itu. dan nyatanya, bukan itu diatas yang aku pilih, akhirnya bethoven - requiem menjadi pilihanku sore itu. aha...semakin semarak kehidupan sore ini, dan aku terus berdoa dalam hatiku, semarakkanlah selalu ya Allah.

kupejamkan mataku, kucoba berkonsentrasi penuh, dan aku berlari pada sebuah imaji yang lain, aku menemukan sebuah kemegahan, jangkauan nadanya tinggi melengking memenuhi ruang akustik. dengan sikap tegak, wanita mungil ini mencoba mengatur napas dan iramanya. mimik mukanya sama sekali tak menunjukkan ketegangan. produksi nada yang tajam, bening tanpa desah, seolah ia menikmati balikan suara yang sudah dikeluarkannya. ahhhh...de' ratri wulan kembali membayangi konser kemegahan sore itu!. de', i love you de'..kita nikmati bareng ya sore-sore kita, kita resapi bareng ya hari-hari kita, kita berdoa bareng ya, untuk kemegahan-kemegahan dalam kehidupan kita. knda sayang dinda!! knda ngga ingin romantisme bersama beethoven, knda hanya ingin dinda bersamaku! lembutkan sejenak, dan sit a while of me!, untaian doa yg kupanjatkan untuk merusak imajiku yang liar, dan memecah bayangan de' ratri wulan-ku yang sedang mesrah dengan pianonya, dan bercumbu dengan requiem-nya.

arrrgghhh...sepenggal uraian harapan dan doa selalu bersamaku, adakah hal yang serupa bersamanya? tentu jawabku, dengan mantap aku mengamininya.

aku kembali menuju kemegahan soreku, alunan pianonya begitu meluap-luap sehingga setiap entakan nada bisa menggambarkan emosi musik itu. beberapa birama sunyi yang diperuntukkan piano, dimainkan oleh dindaku secara cadenza dengan sangat ekspresif. Jemarinya menekan tuts piano, sangat terkontrol. sungguh mempesonaku. ya, pesona kehidupan impian kita, yang harus kita bangun bersama dalam sebuah harmony.
Selengkapnya...

philosophy

Kata ‘filsafat’ berasal dari bahasa Yunani, yaitu ‘philosophia’ . Kata philosophia merupakan gabungan dari dua kata yaitu philos dan sophia. Philos berarti sahabat atau kekasih, sedangkan sophia memiliki arti kebijaksanaan, pengetahuan, kearifan. Dengan demikian maka arti dari kata philosophia adalah cinta pengetahuan. Atau dengan kata lain bisa juga diartikan sebagai orang yang senang mencari ilmu dan kebenaran .Plato dan Socrates

dikenal sebagai philosophos (filsuf) yaitu orang yang cintai pengetahuan.

Sebelum Socrates, ada juga sekelompok orang yang menamakan diri mereka sebagai kelompok sophist yaitu kelompok para cendikiawan. Kelompok ini menjadikan pandangan dan persepsi manusia sebagai suatu hakikat kebenaran, tapi karena kelompok ini sering keliru dalam memberikan argumen-argumennya maka lambat laun istilah sophist keluar dari arti aslinya dan berubah menjadi seseorang yang menggunakan argumen-argumen yang keliru (paralogisme) .

Sebagaimana kata sophist yang mengalami perubahan arti, lambat laun kata philosophos (filsuf) pun akhirnya berubah arti yakni menjadi lawan kata sophist. Dengan perubahan ini maka terjadi juga pergeseran arti kata philosophos dari ‘pencinta pengetahuan/ilmu’ menjadi seseoarang yang berpengetahuan tinggi. Sedangkan philosophia (filsafat) berubah menjadi sinonim dengan ilmu.

Dan perlu untuk kita ingat bahwa kata filsuf (philosophos) dan filsafat (philosophia) ini baru menyebar luas setelah masa Aristoteles. Aristoteles sendiri tidak menggunakan istilah ini (philosophia atau philosophos) dalam literatur-literaturnya.

Setelah masa kejayaan romawi dan persia memudar, penggunaan istilah filsafat berikutnya mendapat perhatian besar dari kaum muslimin di arab. Kata falsafah (hikmah) atau filsafat kemudian mereka sesuaikan dengan perbendaharaan kata dalam bahasa arab, yang memiliki arti berbagai ilmu pengetahuan yang rasional.

Ketika kaum muslimin arab saat itu ingin menjabarkan pembagian ilmu menurut pandangan Aritoteles, mereka (muslimin arab) kemudian mengatakan bahwa yang disebut dengan pengetahuan yang rasional adalah pengetahuan yang memiliki dua bagian utama, yaitu Filsafat teoritis dan Filsafat praktek.

Filsafat teoritis adalah filsafat yang membahas berbagai hal sesuai dengan apa adanya, sedangkan filsafat praktek adalah pembahasan mengenai bagaimanakah selayaknya prilaku dan perbuatan manuasia.

Filsafat teoritis kemudian dibagi menjadi 3 bagian yaitu : filsafat tinggi (teologi) , Filsafat Menengah (matematika) , dan filsafat rendah (fisika). Filsafat tinggi (ilahiah) ini kemudian dibagi lagi menjadi 2 bagian, yang pertama adalah filsafat yang berhubungan dengan perkara-perkara yang umum dan yang kedua adalah filsafat yang berhubungan dengan perkara-perkara khusus.

Sedangkan filsafat menengah (matematika) dibagi menjadi 4 bagian, yakni ; Aritmetika, geometri, astronomi dan musik.

Dari sekian pembagian ilmu dan pembahasan yang membicarakan filsafat, agaknya ada 1 hal yang mendapat porsi lebih utama dari yang lainnya, dan yang 1 hal ini dinamai dengan berbagai macam nama yang maksudnya tetap sama yaitu , filsafat tinggi (’uyla), filsafat utama (aula), ilmu tertinggi ( a’la), ilmu universal (kulli), teologi (Ilahiyah), dan filsafat metafisika.

Ketika ‘perhatian’ para filsuf kuno tentang filsafat ini lebih tercurah pada masalah filsafat tinggi, maka akhirnya kita bisa melihat arti filsafat menurut para filsuf kuno yang terbagi menjadi dua, pertama adalah arti yang umum ; yaitu berbagai ilmu pengetahuan yang rasional dan yang kedua adalah arti khusus, yaitu : ilmu yang berhubungan dengan ketuhanan (Ilahiyah) atau filsafat tinggi yang nota bene adalah pecahan dari filsafat teoritis.

Sekarang kita menemukan istilah umum dan khusus. Filsafat menurut istilah umum adalah ilmu pengetahuan yang rasional, sedangkan menurut pendapat yang tidak umum filsafat adalah ilmu yang oleh orang-orang kuno disebut sebagai filsafat tinggi, filsafat utama, ilmu tertinggi, ilmu istimewa, atau ilmu Ilahiyah.

Sedangkan menurut terminologi muslimin filsafat adalah adalah nama bagi seluruh ilmu rasioanal dan BUKAN nama dari satu ilmu tertentu. Filsafat adalah sebuah ilmu yang memandang dan mengamati keberadaan (eksistensi) alam ini sebagai suatu objek yang satu.
Selengkapnya...

argument

An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken to provide the support or evidence; the conclusion is that which the premises allegedly support. For example, the following is an argument:

The death penalty should be adopted only if it deters murder. However, it could only do this if murderers understood the consequences of their actions before acting, and since this is not so, we must reject adopting the death penalty.

The conclusion of this argument is the final statement: “we must reject reject adopting the death penalty.” The other statements are the premises

; they are offered as reasons or justification for this claim. The premises of an argument are sometimes also called the “data,” the “grounds” or the “backup” given for accepting the conclusion.

Because arguments are attempts to provide evidence or support for a certain claim, they often contain words such as “therefore,” “thus,” “hence,” “consequently,” or “so” before their conclusions. Similarly, words or expressions such as “because,” “inasmuch as,” “since,” “for the reason that,” etc., are often found accompanying the premises of an argument. Such “indicators” can aid in the task of identifying the conclusion of the argument, which often comes last in the series of statements making up the argument, as in the example above, but can also come first, or even in the middle, such as in these examples:

Councilwoman Radcliffe is the best person for the job. This is because she has the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and she will not place the interests of corporations above those of the people.

Callisto orbits Jupiter. Hence, it is not a planet, because something must orbit a star in order to be a planet.

In the examples above, the italicized statements are the conclusions. The other statements are offered as reasons or justifications for these claims.

In everyday life, we often use the word “argument” to mean a verbal dispute or disagreement. This is not the way this word is usually used in philosophy. However, the two uses are related. Normally, when two people verbally disagree with each other, each person attempts to convince the other that his or her viewpoint is the right one. Unless he or she merely results to name calling or threats, he or she typically presents an argument for his or her position, in the sense described above. In philosophy, “arguments” are those statements a person makes in the attempt to convince someone of something, or present reasons for accepting a given conclusion.

In normal conversation, certain important elements of an argument might be left implicit or unstated. In the last example given above, the person advancing the argument most likely takes it for granted that his or her audience understands that if something orbits Jupiter, then it does not orbit a star. This supposition is a vital part of the evidence or support that the author intends the stated premises to provide for the conclusion. Here, the statement “if something orbits Jupiter, then it does not orbit a star” is operating as an implicit or unstated premise. Therefore, the above argument is best understood as an abbreviated form of the full argument:

Callisto orbits Jupiter. Something must orbit a star in order to be a planet. If something orbits Jupiter, then it does not orbit a star. Therefore, Callisto is not a planet.

Even the conclusion of an argument can be left unstated if it is obvious enough from context that the speaker intends his or her words to provide evidence for a certain proposition. Consider, for instance:

Only children are allowed on the swingset, and Ms. Peabody, you are no child, are you?

Here, the speaker is obviously inviting Ms. Peabody to draw the conclusion that she is not allowed on the swingset.

Normally, a single statement in isolation does not constitute an argument, but simply a declaration or assertion. For example, if a teacher simply announces at the beginning of a class “Councilwoman Radcliffe voted in favor of the tax increase,” she is not arguing for a given conclusion; she simply intends her students to accept her assertion on its own. However, in the right context, a single statement can abbreviate a whole argument if the other implicit pieces of the argument are clear from the context. In a discussion among conservative politicians discussing whom they’d like to see as the next candidate for Senator, where it is agreed by all participants that no one who supports increased taxes is a desirable candidate, someone might implicitly be arguing against Radcliffe’s candidacy with the simple statement, “Councilwoman Radcliffe voted in favor of the tax increase.” When the implicit premise and implicit conclusion are filled in, the argument in its entirety could be stated in this way:

Councilwoman Radcliffe voted in favor of the tax increase. No one who voted in favor of the tax increase is a desirable candidate. Therefore, Councilwoman Radcliffe is not a desirable candidate.

In an argument, the premises are almost always put forth or claimed to provide support for the conclusion; however, the premises do not always actually provide support. If we take as our example the following argument:

The roulette wheel has landed on red the last five spins. Therefore, since black is “due,” the next spin will probably be black.

The person stating this argument probably thinks that the conclusion is justified by the premise, but he or she would be mistaken. The reasoning here is fallacious. The premise could be true without the conclusion being definitely or even probably true. However, this is still an argument, because the premise is at least intended to provide support or evidence for the conclusion, even if it does not.

Logicians study the criteria to be used in evaluating arguments, i.e., the criteria for determining under what conditions a certain set of premises actually guarantees the truth or likely truth of the conclusion.

Arguments are related to inference and reasoning: i.e., the psychological process through which a person forms a new belief on the basis other beliefs. A course of reasoning can usually be recast or reconstructed as an argument. For example, if someone already believed that all Romance languages were derived from Latin, and then learned that Rumanian was a Romance language, she or he would likely form the new belief that Rumanian was derived from Latin. If this person were to express her or his train of thought out loud or write it down, it would take the form of this argument:

All Romance Languages are derived from Latin. Rumanian is a Romance Language. Therefore, Rumanian is derived from Latin.

However, it should not be thought that the psychological process of inference or the nature of cognition are relevant to the evaluation of arguments. Regardless of whether or not the argument above corresponds to anyone’s psychological process or cognitive behavior, it can be analyed by logicians as valid, because the premises do provide support for the conclusion.

Arguments must be separated off from other uses of language, such as to explain something, give an example, or tell a story. In these cases, one might find a connected series of statements, but the author or speaker does not intend it to be the case that some of them provide support or evidence in favor of one of the others. So they are not arguments. Consequently, one must distinguish arguments fromreports of arguments. If a newspaper journalist includes in her article a description of an argument given by Senator Feingold in favor of campaign finance reform, the reporter is not herself arguing in favor of campaign finance reform nor anything else. She is merely making a report.

There are other uses of language that may appear at first blush to be arguments, but are not. Such is the case with explanations. Sometimes it is agreed by participants in a conversation that a certain event has taken place, or that a certain thing is true. Suppose, for example, it is agreed that Alex is late for his job. Someone might explain this fact as follows:

Alex’s car broke down yesterday, and without it he cannot get to work on time. Therefore, he is late for work today.

The above may appear to be an argument. In fact, it has the same structure as an argument, and even includes the indicator “therefore.” However, notice that the person speaking these words is not attempting to provide support or evidence for the truth of the claim that “Alex is late for work today:” that is already accepted as true in this context by everyone involved. Properly speaking, the above example is an explanation, not an argument. However, in another context, in which it was not generally known that Alex is late for work today, these very words could be used as an argument. Consequently, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not a certain utterance is an argument without ascertaining the speaker’s intentions within the given context. (For more on the relationship between arguments and explanation, see the article on “Scientific Explanation.”)

Much of philosophy consists in the evaluation of particular arguments, some simple, some complicated. Descartes’s famous three word saying, “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) represents an extremely compact argument, with a single premise, that he is thinking, to the conclusion that he exists. Other philosophical arguments are more complicated and elaborate. Consider the following argument from Plato’s Apology:

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: — either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again.

Here the character Socrates argues for the conclusion that death is a good. The justification he offers for the conclusion, however, is rather elaborate; he offers quite a few premises, which, taken together, are thought to provide support for the conclusion.

Note: There is another, completely distinct, use of the word “argument,” that can also be relevant to logic, specifically, to the logic of functions and relations. An argument to a function is contrasted with the value of that function. Loosely speaking, the argument is the input, the value is the output. When the square root function takes 9 “as argument,” the value is 3. When it takes 16 “as argument,” the value is 4. Different functions take a different number of arguments. The square root function takes a single argument; whereas addition and multiplication require two arguments to yield a value. I.e., in the equation, x + y = z, x and y are the arguments to the addition function, and z is the value. Sometimes, logicians also speak of predicates and relations as having a certain number of “argument-places.” For example, the relation expression “___ is taller than …” is said to have two argument places, because it requires completion by two terms to form a complete proposition.

See also the articles on Deductive and Inductive Arguments, Validity and Soundness, Propositional Logic, and Fallacies in this encyclopedia.
Selengkapnya...

berawal dari 'Bir' menjadi 'Mabrur'

Mabrur itu pelengkap penderita. Kata dasarnya adalah birr (kebaikan). Artinya, mabrur adalah orang yang diberi kebaikan tertentu,” demikian jelas Cak Nun mengawali uraiannya dalam acara Malam Halal Bil Bihalal dan Pelepasan Jama’ah Calon Haji RU VI Tahun 1430 H yang diselenggarakan oleh Pertamina Balongan Indramayu, 15 Oktober 2009 malam. Dalam kesempatan itu, Cak Nun hadir bersama kelompok musik gamlean KiaiKanjeng dan Novia Kolopaking.

Meneruskan pengertian tentang birr dan mabrur itu
, Cak Nun menambahkan empat jenis kebaikan lagi, yaitu, khoir, ma’ruf, ihsan, dan sholeh. Semuanya berarti kebaikan, tetapi dalam konteks yang berda-beda. Khoir adalah kebaikan yang bersifat anjuran dan universal. Yang dilakukan orang dalam hal khoir adalah menganjurkan orang lain melaksankan khoir. Ma’ruf adalah kebaikan yang sudah menjadi aturan, sehingga diwujudkan, dibakukan, dan ditegaskan dalam bentuk peraturan, regulasi, undang-undang, dan lain-lain. Maka ma’ruf itu diperintahkan, bukan dianjurkan. Ihsan adalah kebaikan yang dikerjakan, meskipun sebenarnya tidak wajib. “Menaikhajikan karyawan oleh BUMN adalah satu bentuk ihsan,” begitu Cak Nun memberi contoh.

Sementara itu, sholeh adalah kebaikan yang sudah jadi atau terbukti terterapkan dengan baik. Sholeh adalah kebaikan yang sangat minimal kontraproduktifnya, karena sudah diperhitungan berbagai sisi dan keterkaitannya dengan faktor-faktor atau konteks-konteks lain. “Naik haji bisa tidak sholeh, kalau dilakukan tiap tahun….,” tutur Cak Nun.

Seterusnya Cak Nun memaparkan, “Birr itu itu bersifat mandiri. Banggalah Anda bisa memenuhi panggilan ke Baitullah. Ibu saya sejak dari Surabaya sampai ke Jeddah mengkhatamkan dua puluh enam juz Alquran. Empat juz sisanya diselesaikan di asrama haji. Begitu pula sebaliknya dalam perjalanan kembali ke tanah air dari Jeddah menuju Surabaya. Orang yang mendapatkan birr itu dimandirikan oleh Allah. Birr itu kebaikan yang sangat khusus. Naik haji mengantarkan seseorang mendapatkan puncak pengalaman intelektual, emosional, dan spiritual. Di sana, jangan masuk masjid tanpa membuka dan membaca Al-Quran. Pengalaman saya dan Mbak Via adalah selalu mendapatkan Surat yang sama ketika membaca Alquran di sana.”

Selain berbicara tentang haji, Cak Nun juga mengulas halal bihalal, dan untuk memperdalam niat halal bihalal itu, Cak Nun mengajak para hadirin yang terdiri atas jajaran pimpinan dan karyawan Pertamina Balongan itu untuk bersama melantunkan Ya Allah Ridho yang dipimpin oleh Yuli Astutik, vokalis KiaiKanjeng. Seturut dengan itu, Cak Nun mengajak para hadirin untuk kembali memahami pengertian dasar muslim dan mukmin. “Muslim adalah orang kata dan tindakannya membuat orang lain aman. Sementara itu, mukmin adalah orang yang kalau ada dia, orang lain menjadi aman hartanya, nyawanya, dan kehormatannya,” tegas Cak Nun.

kenduri cinta Selengkapnya...

seputar budaya

Budaya atau kebudayaan berasal dari bahasa Sansekerta yaitu buddhayah, yang merupakan bentuk jamak dari buddhi (budi atau akal) diartikan sebagai hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan budi dan akal manusia. Dalam bahasa Inggris, kebudayaan disebut culture, yang berasal dari kata Latin Colere, yaitu mengolah atau mengerjakan. Bisa diartikan juga sebagai mengolah tanah atau bertani. Kata culture juga kadang diterjemahkan sebagai "kultur" dalam bahasa Indonesia.

Pengertian kebudayaan

Kebudayaan sangat erat hubungannya dengan masyarakat. Melville J. Herskovits dan Bronislaw Malinowski mengemukakan

bahwa segala sesuatu yang terdapat dalam masyarakat ditentukan oleh kebudayaan yang dimiliki oleh masyarakat itu sendiri. Istilah untuk pendapat itu adalah Cultural-Determinism.

Herskovits memandang kebudayaan sebagai sesuatu yang turun temurun dari satu generasi ke generasi yang lain, yang kemudian disebut sebagai superorganic. Menurut Andreas Eppink, kebudayaan mengandung keseluruhan pengertian nilai sosial,norma sosial, ilmu pengetahuan serta keseluruhan struktur-struktur sosial, religius, dan lain-lain, tambahan lagi segala pernyataan intelektual dan artistik yang menjadi ciri khas suatu masyarakat.

Menurut Edward Burnett Tylor, kebudayaan merupakan keseluruhan yang kompleks, yang di dalamnya terkandung pengetahuan, kepercayaan, kesenian, moral, hukum, adat istiadat, dan kemampuan-kemampuan lain yang didapat seseorang sebagai anggota masyarakat.

Menurut Selo Soemardjan dan Soelaiman Soemardi, kebudayaan adalah sarana hasil karya, rasa, dan cipta masyarakat.

Dari berbagai definisi tersebut, dapat diperoleh pengertian mengenai kebudayaan adalah sesuatu yang akan mempengaruhi tingkat pengetahuan dan meliputi sistem ide atau gagasan yang terdapat dalam pikiran manusia, sehingga dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, kebudayaan itu bersifat abstrak. Sedangkan perwujudan kebudayaan adalah benda-benda yang diciptakan oleh manusia sebagai makhluk yang berbudaya, berupa perilaku dan benda-benda yang bersifat nyata, misalnya pola-pola perilaku, bahasa, peralatan hidup, organisasi sosial, religi, seni, dan lain-lain, yang kesemuanya ditujukan untuk membantu manusia dalam melangsungkan kehidupan bermasyarakat.

Unsur-unsur

Ada beberapa pendapat ahli yang mengemukakan mengenai komponen atau unsur kebudayaan, antara lain sebagai berikut:

1. Melville J. Herskovits menyebutkan kebudayaan memiliki 4 unsur pokok, yaitu:
* alat-alat teknologi
* sistem ekonomi
* keluarga
* kekuasaan politik
2. Bronislaw Malinowski mengatakan ada 4 unsur pokok yang meliputi:
* sistem norma sosial yang memungkinkan kerja sama antara para anggota masyarakat untuk menyesuaikan diri dengan alam sekelilingnya
* organisasi ekonomi
* alat-alat dan lembaga-lembaga atau petugas-petugas untuk pendidikan (keluarga adalah lembaga pendidikan utama)
* organisasi kekuatan (politik)

Wujud

Menurut J.J. Hoenigman, wujud kebudayaan dibedakan menjadi tiga: gagasan, aktivitas, dan artefak.

* Gagasan (Wujud ideal)
Wujud ideal kebudayaan adalah kebudayaan yang berbentuk kumpulan ide-ide, gagasan, nilai-nilai, norma-norma, peraturan, dan sebagainya yang sifatnya abstrak; tidak dapat diraba atau disentuh. Wujud kebudayaan ini terletak dalam kepala-kepala atau di alam pemikiran warga masyarakat. Jika masyarakat tersebut menyatakan gagasan mereka itu dalam bentuk tulisan, maka lokasi dari kebudayaan ideal itu berada dalam karangan dan buku-buku hasil karya para penulis warga masyarakat tersebut.

* Aktivitas (tindakan)
Aktivitas adalah wujud kebudayaan sebagai suatu tindakan berpola dari manusia dalam masyarakat itu. Wujud ini sering pula disebut dengan sistem sosial. Sistem sosial ini terdiri dari aktivitas-aktivitas manusia yang saling berinteraksi, mengadakan kontak, serta bergaul dengan manusia lainnya menurut pola-pola tertentu yang berdasarkan adat tata kelakuan. Sifatnya konkret, terjadi dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, dan dapat diamati dan didokumentasikan.

* Artefak (karya)
Artefak adalah wujud kebudayaan fisik yang berupa hasil dari aktivitas, perbuatan, dan karya semua manusia dalam masyarakat berupa benda-benda atau hal-hal yang dapat diraba, dilihat, dan didokumentasikan. Sifatnya paling konkret diantara ketiga wujud kebudayaan.

Dalam kenyataan kehidupan bermasyarakat, antara wujud kebudayaan yang satu tidak bisa dipisahkan dari wujud kebudayaan yang lain. Sebagai contoh: wujud kebudayaan ideal mengatur dan memberi arah kepada tindakan (aktivitas) dan karya (artefak) manusia.

Komponen

Berdasarkan wujudnya tersebut, kebudayaan dapat digolongkan atas dua komponen utama:

* Kebudayaan material
Kebudayaan material mengacu pada semua ciptaan masyarakat yang nyata, konkret. Termasuk dalam kebudayaan material ini adalah temuan-temuan yang dihasilkan dari suatu penggalian arkeologi: mangkuk tanah liat, perhisalan, senjata, dan seterusnya. Kebudayaan material juga mencakup barang-barang, seperti televisi, pesawat terbang, stadion olahraga, pakaian, gedung pencakar langit, dan mesin cuci.

* Kebudayaan nonmaterial
Kebudayaan nonmaterial adalah ciptaan-ciptaan abstrak yang diwariskan dari generasi ke generasi, misalnya berupa dongeng, cerita rakyat, dan lagu atau tarian tradisional.

Bahasa

Bahasa adalah alat atau perwujudan budaya yang digunakan manusia untuk saling berkomunikasi atau berhubungan, baik lewat tulisan, lisan, ataupun gerakan (bahasa isyarat), dengan tujuan menyampaikan maksud hati atau kemauan kepada lawan bicaranya atau orang lain. Melalui bahasa, manusia dapat menyesuaikan diri dengan adat istiadat, tingkah laku, tata krama masyarakat, dan sekaligus mudah membaurkan dirinya dengan segala bentuk masyarakat.

Bahasa memiliki beberapa fungsi yang dapat dibagi menjadi fungsi umum dan fungsi khusus. Fungsi bahasa secara umum adalah sebagai alat untuk berekspresi, berkomunikasi, dan alat untuk mengadakan integrasi dan adaptasi sosial. Sedangkan fungsi bahasa secara khusus adalah untuk mengadakan hubungan dalam pergaulan sehari-hari, mewujudkan seni (sastra), mempelajari naskah-naskah kuno, dan untuk mengeksploitasi ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi.

kesenian
Kesenian mengacu pada nilai keindahan (estetika) yang berasal dari ekspresi hasrat manusia akan keindahan yang dinikmati dengan mata ataupun telinga. Sebagai makhluk yang mempunyai cita rasa tinggi, manusia menghasilkan berbagai corak kesenian mulai dari yang sederhana hingga perwujudan kesenian yang kompleks.

perubahan sosial budaya
Perubahan sosial budaya adalah sebuah gejala berubahnya struktur sosial dan pola budaya dalam suatu masyarakat. Perubahan sosial budaya merupakan gejala umum yang terjadi sepanjang masa dalam setiap masyarakat. Perubahan itu terjadi sesuai dengan hakikat dan sifat dasar manusia yang selalu ingin mengadakan perubahan. Hirschman mengatakan bahwa kebosanan manusia sebenarnya merupakan penyebab dari perubahan.

Ada tiga faktor yang dapat mempengaruhi perubahan sosial:

1. tekanan kerja dalam masyarakat
2. keefektifan komunikasi
3. perubahan lingkungan alam.[4]

Perubahan budaya juga dapat timbul akibat timbulnya perubahan lingkungan masyarakat, penemuan baru, dan kontak dengan kebudayaan lain. Sebagai contoh, berakhirnya zaman es berujung pada ditemukannya sistem pertanian, dan kemudian memancing inovasi-inovasi baru lainnya dalam kebudayaan.

penetrasi kebudayaan
Yang dimaksud dengan penetrasi kebudayaan adalah masuknya pengaruh suatu kebudayaan ke kebudayaan lainnya. Penetrasi kebudayaan dapat terjadi dengan dua cara:

Penetrasi damai (penetration pasifique)
Masuknya sebuah kebudayaan dengan jalan damai. Misalnya, masuknya pengaruh kebudayaan Hindu dan Islam ke Indonesia[rujukan?]. Penerimaan kedua macam kebudayaan tersebut tidak mengakibatkan konflik, tetapi memperkaya khasanah budaya masyarakat setempat. Pengaruh kedua kebudayaan ini pun tidak mengakibatkan hilangnya unsur-unsur asli budaya masyarakat.
Penyebaran kebudayaan secara damai akan menghasilkan Akulturasi, Asimilasi, atau Sintesis. Akulturasi adalah bersatunya dua kebudayaan sehingga membentuk kebudayaan baru tanpa menghilangkan unsur kebudayaan asli. Contohnya, bentuk bangunan Candi Borobudur yang merupakan perpaduan antara kebudayaan asli Indonesia dan kebudayaan India. Asimilasi adalah bercampurnya dua kebudayaan sehingga membentuk kebudayaan baru. Sedangkan Sintesis adalah bercampurnya dua kebudayaan yang berakibat pada terbentuknya sebuah kebudayaan baru yang sangat berbeda dengan kebudayaan asli.

Penetrasi kekerasan (penetration violante)
Masuknya sebuah kebudayaan dengan cara memaksa dan merusak. Contohnya, masuknya kebudayaan Barat ke Indonesia pada zaman penjajahan disertai dengan kekerasan sehingga menimbulkan goncangan-goncangan yang merusak keseimbangan dalam masyarakat

cara pandang terhadap kebudayaan

Kebudayaan sebagai peradaban

Saat ini, kebanyakan orang memahami gagasan "budaya" yang dikembangkan di Eropa pada abad ke-18 dan awal abad ke-19. Gagasan tentang "budaya" ini merefleksikan adanya ketidakseimbangan antara kekuatan Eropa dan kekuatan daerah-daerah yang dijajahnya. Mereka menganggap 'kebudayaan' sebagai "peradaban" sebagai lawan kata dari "alam". Menurut cara pikir ini, kebudayaan satu dengan kebudayaan lain dapat diperbandingkan; salah satu kebudayaan pasti lebih tinggi dari kebudayaan lainnya.

Pada prakteknya, kata kebudayaan merujuk pada benda-benda dan aktivitas yang "elit" seperti misalnya memakai baju yang berkelas, fine art, atau mendengarkan musik klasik, sementara kata berkebudayaan digunakan untuk menggambarkan orang yang mengetahui, dan mengambil bagian, dari aktivitas-aktivitas di atas. Sebagai contoh, jika seseorang berpendendapat bahwa musik klasik adalah musik yang "berkelas", elit, dan bercita rasa seni, sementara musik tradisional dianggap sebagai musik yang kampungan dan ketinggalan zaman, maka timbul anggapan bahwa ia adalah orang yang sudah "berkebudayaan".

Orang yang menggunakan kata "kebudayaan" dengan cara ini tidak percaya ada kebudayaan lain yang eksis; mereka percaya bahwa kebudayaan hanya ada satu dan menjadi tolak ukur norma dan nilai di seluruh dunia. Menurut cara pandang ini, seseorang yang memiliki kebiasaan yang berbeda dengan mereka yang "berkebudayaan" disebut sebagai orang yang "tidak berkebudayaan"; bukan sebagai orang "dari kebudayaan yang lain." Orang yang "tidak berkebudayaan" dikatakan lebih "alam," dan para pengamat seringkali mempertahankan elemen dari kebudayaan tingkat tinggi (high culture) untuk menekan pemikiran "manusia alami" (human nature)

Sejak abad ke-18, beberapa kritik sosial telah menerima adanya perbedaan antara berkebudayaan dan tidak berkebudayaan, tetapi perbandingan itu -berkebudayaan dan tidak berkebudayaan- dapat menekan interpretasi perbaikan dan interpretasi pengalaman sebagai perkembangan yang merusak dan "tidak alami" yang mengaburkan dan menyimpangkan sifat dasar manusia. Dalam hal ini, musik tradisional (yang diciptakan oleh masyarakat kelas pekerja) dianggap mengekspresikan "jalan hidup yang alami" (natural way of life), dan musik klasik sebagai suatu kemunduran dan kemerosotan.

Saat ini kebanyak ilmuwan sosial menolak untuk memperbandingkan antara kebudayaan dengan alam dan konsep monadik yang pernah berlaku. Mereka menganggap bahwa kebudayaan yang sebelumnya dianggap "tidak elit" dan "kebudayaan elit" adalah sama - masing-masing masyarakat memiliki kebudayaan yang tidak dapat diperbandingkan. Pengamat sosial membedakan beberapa kebudayaan sebagai kultur populer (popular culture) atau pop kultur, yang berarti barang atau aktivitas yang diproduksi dan dikonsumsi oleh banyak orang.

Kebudayaan sebagai "sudut pandang umum"

Selama Era Romantis, para cendekiawan di Jerman, khususnya mereka yang peduli terhadap gerakan nasionalisme - seperti misalnya perjuangan nasionalis untuk menyatukan Jerman, dan perjuangan nasionalis dari etnis minoritas melawan Kekaisaran Austria-Hongaria - mengembangkan sebuah gagasan kebudayaan dalam "sudut pandang umum". Pemikiran ini menganggap suatu budaya dengan budaya lainnya memiliki perbedaan dan kekhasan masing-masing. Karenanya, budaya tidak dapat diperbandingkan. Meskipun begitu, gagasan ini masih mengakui adanya pemisahan antara "berkebudayaan" dengan "tidak berkebudayaan" atau kebudayaan "primitif."

Pada akhir abad ke-19, para ahli antropologi telah memakai kata kebudayaan dengan definisi yang lebih luas. Bertolak dari teori evolusi, mereka mengasumsikan bahwa setiap manusia tumbuh dan berevolusi bersama, dan dari evolusi itulah tercipta kebudayaan.

Pada tahun 50-an, subkebudayaan - kelompok dengan perilaku yang sedikit berbeda dari kebudayaan induknya - mulai dijadikan subyek penelitian oleh para ahli sosiologi. Pada abad ini pula, terjadi popularisasi ide kebudayaan perusahaan - perbedaan dan bakat dalam konteks pekerja organisasi atau tempat bekerja.

Kebudayaan sebagai mekanisme stabilisasi

Teori-teori yang ada saat ini menganggap bahwa (suatu) kebudayaan adalah sebuah produk dari stabilisasi yang melekat dalam tekanan evolusi menuju kebersamaan dan kesadaran bersama dalam suatu masyarakat, atau biasa disebut dengan tribalisme.

kebudayaan diantara masyarakat

Sebuah kebudayaan besar biasanya memiliki sub-kebudayaan (atau biasa disebut sub-kultur), yaitu sebuah kebudayaan yang memiliki sedikit perbedaan dalam hal perilaku dan kepercayaan dari kebudayaan induknya. Munculnya sub-kultur disebabkan oleh beberapa hal, diantaranya karena perbedaan umur, ras, etnisitas, kelas, aesthetik, agama, pekerjaan, pandangan politik dan gender,

Ada beberapa cara yang dilakukan masyarakat ketika berhadapan dengan imigran dan kebudayaan yang berbeda dengan kebudayaan asli. Cara yang dipilih masyarakat tergantung pada seberapa besar perbedaan kebudayaan induk dengan kebudayaan minoritas, seberapa banyak imigran yang datang, watak dari penduduk asli, keefektifan dan keintensifan komunikasi antar budaya, dan tipe pemerintahan yang berkuasa.

* Monokulturalisme: Pemerintah mengusahakan terjadinya asimilasi kebudayaan sehingga masyarakat yang berbeda kebudayaan menjadi satu dan saling bekerja sama.

* Leitkultur (kebudayaan inti): Sebuah model yang dikembangkan oleh Bassam Tibi di Jerman. Dalam Leitkultur, kelompok minoritas dapat menjaga dan mengembangkan kebudayaannya sendiri, tanpa bertentangan dengan kebudayaan induk yang ada dalam masyarakat asli.

* Melting Pot: Kebudayaan imigran/asing berbaur dan bergabung dengan kebudayaan asli tanpa campur tangan pemerintah.

* Multikulturalisme: Sebuah kebijakan yang mengharuskan imigran dan kelompok minoritas untuk menjaga kebudayaan mereka masing-masing dan berinteraksi secara damai dengan kebudayaan induk.

kebudyaan menurut wilayah

Seiring dengan kemajuan teknologi dan informasi, hubungan dan saling keterkaitan kebudayaan-kebudayaan di dunia saat ini sangat tinggi. Selain kemajuan teknologi dan informasi, hal tersebut juga dipengaruhi oleh faktor ekonomi, migrasi, dan agama.

Afrika

Beberapa kebudayaan di benua Afrika terbentuk melalui penjajahan Eropa, seperti kebudayaan Sub-Sahara. Sementara itu, wilayah Afrika Utara lebih banyak terpengaruh oleh kebudayaan Arab dan Islam.

Amerika

Kebudayaan di benua Amerika dipengaruhi oleh suku-suku Asli benua Amerika; orang-orang dari Afrika (terutama di Amerika Serikat), dan para imigran Eropa terutama Spanyol, Inggris, Perancis, Portugis, Jerman, dan Belanda.

Asia

Asia memiliki berbagai kebudayaan yang berbeda satu sama lain, meskipun begitu, beberapa dari kebudayaan tersebut memiliki pengaruh yang menonjol terhadap kebudayaan lain, seperti misalnya pengaruh kebudayaan Tiongkok kepada kebudayaan Jepang, Korea, dan Vietnam. Dalam bidang agama, agama Budha dan Taoisme banyak mempengaruhi kebudayaan di Asia Timur. Selain kedua Agama tersebut, norma dan nilai Agama Islam juga turut mempengaruhi kebudayaan terutama di wilayah Asia Selatan dan tenggara.

Australia

Kebanyakan budaya di Australia masa kini berakar dari kebudayaan Eropa dan Amerika. Kebudayaan Eropa dan Amerika tersebut kemudian dikembangkan dan disesuaikan dengan lingkungan benua Australia, serta diintegrasikan dengan kebudayaan penduduk asli benua Australia, Aborigin.

Eropa

Kebudayaan Eropa banyak terpengaruh oleh kebudayaan negara-negara yang pernah dijajahnya. Kebudayaan ini dikenal juga dengan sebutan "kebudayaan barat". Kebudayaan ini telah diserap oleh banyak kebudayaan, hal ini terbukti dengan banyaknya pengguna bahasa Inggris dan bahasa Eropa lainnya di seluruh dunia. Selain dipengaruhi oleh kebudayaan negara yang pernah dijajah, kebudayaan ini juga dipengaruhi oleh kebudayaan Yunani kuno, Romawi kuno, dan agama Kristen, meskipun kepercayaan akan agama banyak mengalami kemunduran beberapa tahun ini.

Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara

Kebudayaan didaerah Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara saat ini kebanyakan sangat dipengaruhi oleh nilai dan norma agama Islam, meskipun tidak hanya agama Islam yang berkembang di daerah ini.


wikipedia online Selengkapnya...

sumpah pemuda; berubah atau punah!!

kami putra-putri indonesia, sudah berbangsa satu, bangsa indonesia.
kami putra-putri indonesia, sudah berbahasa satu, bahasa indonesia.
kami putra-putri indonesia, sudah bertanah air satu, tanah air indonesia.

jangan pernah sedikitpun kau lupa akan pekikan: "merdeka atau mati"!!!
jangan pernah sedetikpun kau lupakan bahwa hanya kematian yang pantas dipertaruhkan sebagai harga dari sebentuk kemerdekaan.

28 oktober 1928 para pemuda mengumandangkan maha tekat yang bernama sumpah pemuda

dierami dengan kesungguhan dan keteguhan, 16 tahun, 9 bulan, 17 hari kemudian, menetaslah bangsa ini. sang bangsa garuda.

dan hari ini, garuda itu siap untuk terbang keangkasa raya, membelah langit dan menunjukkan jati dirinya. dan disinilah letak pemuda.

tidak ada jalan lain yang dijalani kecuali jalan martabat,
demi bangsa indonesia.
tidak ada pilihan lain yang dipilih kecuali pilihan kedaulatan,
demi bangsa indonesia.
tidak ada kata tidak untuk sanggup berbuat dan berani bertanggung jawab,
demi tanah air indonesia.

hari ini indonesia bukan lagi "merdeka atau mati"!!
hari ini indonesia adalah "berubah atau punah"!!!


noe
Selengkapnya...

Musical comedy finds the right pitch

How did musical comedy get such an awful reputation? And why, suddenly, is it a stadium filler? We talk to the funniest people who can hold a tune.

I saw Stewart Lee perform the other week. Lee is loved by his audience, and is a standup comedian at the top of his game – but even he felt bound to apologise at the end of the show, when he announced he was going to sing a song. "No one thinks it's a good sign," said Lee, "when a comedian picks up a guitar

Old prejudices die hard, and Lee is probably right: musical comedy is still held to be, in Bill Bailey's words, "some kind of horrible social leprosy". But the stigma is fading. This week, the coolest comic act in the world at the moment, the Kiwi spoof folk duo Flight of the Conchords, release their new album, I Told You I Was Freaky (its predecessor won the Grammy award for best comedy album). Back in the UK, Aussie troubadour Tim Minchin is taking musical comedy to an arena-filling level hitherto attained only by Bailey himself. Both prove that there's more to this maligned branch of comedy than the popular conception of it as something a bit naff and unfunny, what Bailey caricatures as "a guitar alongside a weak rhyme".

How did musical comedy pick up its bad reputation? Bailey fingers the "folk singers who did wacky songs" in the 70s – people like Billy Connolly, whose Welly Boot Song was a staple of that decade's entertainment. The era's novelty singles – the Barron Knights' oeuvre; the Goodies' Funky Gibbon; Benny Hill's Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West) – likewise cast a long shadow. To others, the artform is damned by its association with the innuendo-laden music hall tradition – a genre that reached its zenith, or nadir, with the Two Ronnies, and whose spirit was cruelly distilled by a notorious Not the Nine O'Clock News parody: "We're titting up and down on the willy bum bum/ Pillocking around with the cobbler's nobblers." Then again, to others,"musical comedy" conjures terrifying images of ladies and gents in evening wear being frightfully witty to the sound of a plinkety piano, in the style of Flanders and Swann, when today's audiences prefer something less genteel.

Musical comedy has been criminally misrepresented. As Bailey says, when put alongside straight standup, it can "make for a more rounded show. Stand-up demands a cerebral engagement. With music, you don't have to think too much about it. It hits people on a visceral level." At their best, comic songs are a giddying delight, as the dual pleasures of humour and musical uplift join forces in a two-pronged assault on our defences. Good comedy songs are conjuring tricks, Houdiniesque escapes from what the comedian Rich Hall calls the "jail cell" of musical form and lyrical convention. "The structure you're forced into is what makes the joke funny," Hall says, "because the audience knows that's all you have to work with."

However, it must be admitted that comedy songwriting had reached a low ebb a few years ago, and needed to be reinvented – which is where Bailey came in. It was he who relocated the comedy from the lyrics to the music; he who made the music itself funny. Sometimes that involves a loopy kind of parody: his Kraftwerk-sing-the-Hokey-Cokey number, for example. Sometimes – as per his current tour with orchestras – it's about anatomising music, much as observational comedians anatomise life. "You have to know intimately the music you're ripping off," says Bailey. "There's a knowingness about it, which the audience participate in when they recognise familiar riffs or chord changes. So there's no point saying, 'I'm now going to subvert the minimalism of Arvo Pärt.' It's the comedy of recognition. The standup equivalent would be talking about shared cultural references."

Bailey's success challenged the suspicion that, as Graham Fellows (who performs as amateur organist John Shuttleworth) argues, "if you were a virtuoso musician, you wouldn't waste your time on comedy songs". To today's musical comics, the music must be as good as the comedy. Rich Hall won the Perrier award with his alter ego, the country singing jailbird Otis Lee Crenshaw, and he approaches comic songwriting "as music that just happens to have funny lyrics," he says. "I always imagine someone driving along listening to the radio and not paying attention to the words. And I'd want them to think, 'This is a nice song.'"

The better the music, of course, the funnier the song – because nothing elevates daftness like disproportionate effort applied to it. Chris Larner is a comic songwriter for the theatre, whose perfect numbers for double-act the Right Size (of The Play Wot I Wrote fame) never fail to raise a smile. A connoisseur of golden-age musical theatre, Larner marvels at "the absolute care that Richard Rodgers takes with his tunes, and Oscar Hammerstein takes with his lyrics. If somebody goes 'la la la, this is a funny song', you might as well be in the pub. But if a comic song is given due care and attention, the astonishment you feel at such ludicrousness is heightened, and it becomes truly absurd."

That's why, when fellow comedians tell Mitch Benn, composer of topical songs for Radio 4's The Now Show, that musical comedy is the easy option, he gets irritated. Yes, he admits, "if you turn up with a guitar and hit the audience when they're pissed enough for a sing-song, and get a bunch of rude words to go with the tune of Wild Thing, you can bring the house down." But musical comedy is usually tougher than that. "It's not easy to write the tune and the words," says Benn, "and to withhold the punchline until the chorus, so people have to sit through the whole verse before they know what the joke is about. That is by no means a sure thing in a comedy club."

Benn, like Bailey (and, after a fashion, the Conchords) dabbles in pastiche, in spoofing other bands. His songs include a cod-Eminem number that recasts Macbeth as a rap: "Now Malcolm was back/ To attack and harass the Mac/ With a pack of Sassenachs." Its popularity has convinced Benn that his audience is more akin to a music than a comedy crowd – because "they whinge if I don't play the old stuff," he says. Benn sees himself as working in a similar vein to Neil Hannon and Jarvis Cocker, songwriters capable of writing with a comic twist. And making people laugh is "as valid a thing to do with music as anything else. You wouldn't dispute a songwriter's right to try and make you cry. Or Billy Bragg's right to make you angry."

The best comic songs bear repeated listening, not only because the jokes continue to delight, nor even because the music's good – but because they access weirdly profound truths. From Eric Idle's Always Look on the Bright Side of Life to Randy Newman's Political Science, from Ivor Cutler's Squeeze Bees to John Hegley's gnomic verses about his Luton childhood, comic songs can express social and emotional realities just as ineffably as their "serious" counterparts. "You can get away with a depth of feeling," says Rich Hall, "that you can't to the same degree when you're standing onstage telling a joke." Larner cites Gershwin's Our Love Is Here to Stay as an example of a light-hearted lyric in which "there is emotional truth as well as gags. You don't have to sacrifice poetry for a laugh. If someone in the audience is pissing himself, and the person next to them has a tear in his eye, I think I've done my job."

I'd cite Shuttleworth's hymn to tea-time tradition, I Can't Go Back to Savoury Now, as just such a song. The lyric finds Shuttleworth at the dinner table, reluctantly spurning an invitation to finish his daughter's main course. "That shepherd's pie was stunning," he laments, "but I'm halfway through my pudding." It's funny, it's catchy – but it's also heartfelt, about the kind of everyday experience conventional songwriters overlook. "It's a subject everyone can identify with," says Fellows, who wrote it. "And it's sung in a grandiose way, but about something as mundane as eating your tea." And obviously it helps, in musical comedy, if the initial premise is funny. Bailey's Insect Nation (about an invertebrate takeover of Earth) is one example. Likewise Tim Minchin's signature tune, Canvas Bags. "If you were to break that down to its lyrics," says Rich Hall, "you would go, 'Eh? What?'" But the concept – a bombastic rock anthem about eco-conscious shopping – is memorably incongruous.

Shuttleworth's song is also notable for its dotty wordplay. "I like to really push myself with tenuous rhymes," says Fellows. Music may have risen in the mix, but in the comic song, the words are where most laughs still reside. Hall, for all his dedication to the music, writes a mean couplet: "When I see her, there'll be tears down my face," runs his song Women Call It Stalking. "It might be love and it might be mace."

Larner is a veritable scientist of the funny lyric. "Funny rhymes are the same as music," he says. "When you're listening to a tune for the first time, you play games in your head. How is this phrase going to be answered? How is it going to work? The trick of both melody and lyric writing" – as for comedy in general – "is in part to confirm your audience's expectations, so they're comforted, and in part confound them, so they're surprised."

The success of these comedians' lyrics doesn't lie just in wordplay, but in character. If there was something clever-clever about old-school comic song, today's practitioners defray that danger by inventing (usually idiotic) characters to sing their songs for them. It's hard to seem smug when you're an ex-security guard at a Rotherham sweet factory, as Shuttleworth is supposed to be. These personalities also give an extra dimension to the songs. "You're getting extra laughs from the sense of character," says Fellows. "If Max Bygraves sang my songs, they might not have quite the same humour."

That fashion for character-based musical comedy has revitalised the art-form. Likewise, the advent of YouTube, which launched acts such as American teenager Bo Burnham, whose Ku Klux Klan and underage sex ditties have been watched 52m times. YouTube also enabled the introduction of Britain's first Musical Comedy award, which launched earlier this year (the winner's were double-act Adams and Rea) and has recently invited applications for 2010. The day may be dawning, then, when musical comedy gets the kudos it deserves.

"For me," says Bailey, "the greatest accolade came when I was outside a club one night, and John Entwistle from the Who was getting into a cab. And he saw me, and he focused a bit, and he came towards me and poked me in the chest. And with each poke, he went: 'Insect Nation.'" What Entwistle knew, and everyone else is fast learning, is that when a comedian picks up a guitar, it's no longer anything to be scared of.

Selengkapnya...

d'final twist in Nabokov's untold story

Vladimir Nabokov was one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. Now, 30 years after his death, his last novel is finally to be published. But should it be? On the eve of his death, fearing it was imperfect, he instructed his wife to destroy the manuscript, sparking a fierce controversy that embroiled family, friends and the literary establishment, writes Robert McCrum
Vladimir Nabokov, the acclaimed author of Ada, Pnin, Pale Fire and that transgressive bestseller Lolita, is a writer whose imaginative mastery continues to torment successive generations. Behind the imminent publication of his posthumous 18th novel is an extraordinary story, a literary magician's spell.

On 5 December 1976, the New York Times Book Review published a pre-Christmas round-up in which a number of famous writers selected the "three books they most enjoyed this year". Vladimir Nabokov's response to this routine inquiry was at once moving and mysterious. Having revealed that he was seriously ill, he listed "the books I read during the summer months of 1976 while hospitalised in Lausanne": Dante's Inferno in the Charles Singleton translation, The Butterflies of North America by William H Howe (Nabokov was a world-famous lepidopterist) and, finally, The Original Of Laura. This, he wrote, was "the not-quite-finished manuscript of a novel which I had begun writing and reworking before my illness and which was completed in my mind".

With artful cunning, Nabokov proceeded to reveal a mystery that is only now, 33 years later, on the brink of being solved. "I must have gone through it [The Original of Laura] some 50 times," he confided, "and in my diurnal delirium kept reading it aloud to a small dream audience in a walled garden."

Who could resist such entrancing fabrications ? "My audience," Nabokov went on, "consisted of peacocks, pigeons, my long dead parents, two cypresses, several young nurses crouching around, and a family doctor so old as to be almost invisible. Perhaps because of my stumblings and fits of coughing, the story of my poor Laura had less success with my listeners than it will have, I hope, with intelligent reviewers when properly published."

With that fleeting reference to "my poor Laura", the spell was almost wound up. There was just one more twist. Shortly after Christmas, provoked by that tantalising fragment in his newspaper, Herbert Mitgang, a New York Times reporter specialising in books and writers, began to make inquiries of Nabokov's publisher and confirmed, as he reported on 5 January, that the celebrated author of Lolita had indeed "completed his next novel in his head". This news he corroborated with Nabokov's New York editor, who told him: "It's all there: the characters, the scenes, the details. He [Nabokov] is about to do the actual writing on three-by-five-inch cards."

Writing on index cards, in pencil, had become Nabokov's preferred method of composition. He would fill each card with narrative and dialogue, shuffle the completed pack and then, in the words of his editor, "deal himself a novel". What literary news could be more thrilling? In summary, we now know that the novel concerns beautiful and promiscuous Flora Lanskaya, "the original of Laura", and her unhappy marriage to the grossly fat Philip Wild. The theme of the book, central to Nabokov, is Death and what lies beyond it. Wild is engaged on a process of self-dissolution, thinking away his corporeal self in a bizarre act of cerebral suicide. Next month we shall at last discover what this fabled manuscript actually amounts to; at the time there was only gossip.

Mitgang reported that the working title of this new novel by a contemporary European master was "Tool". This was, he speculated, "presumably an anagram, somehow based on a character named Laura". Fired by the mystery of "Tool", and the excitement of the quest, Mitgang flew to Switzerland. The 77-year-old Nabokov and his devoted wife, Vera, had lived there, amid the marble and chandeliers of the Montreux Palace Hotel, for more than 15 years.

Mitgang was to be slightly frustrated. The celebrated author refused to grant the New York Times an interview, but he was, apparently, happy to entertain a purely social visit from Mitgang, who told the Observer last week that he'd had "about half an hour in the hotel lobby with Nabokov". Mitgang says he found Nabokov to be "very cordial", but that he got little else from the meeting. He later wrote that it would be "idle to speculate about the title or the meaning [of 'Tool'] because Mr Nabokov likes to play games with words, ideas, and publishers". The true nature of the new book would not be vouchsafed "until those shuffled cards are typed into a manuscript".

None the less, having made the pilgrimage to Montreux, Mitgang was not going to go away empty handed. "And what," he asked, breathlessly breaking the rules of the encounter, "is the new novel about?"

"If I told you," Nabokov demurred, with teasing courtesy, "that would be an interview." Never had the magician cast a better spell. He had done it often enough before, in print. As he said in his memoir, Speak, Memory: "I like to fold my magic carpet, after use, in such a way as to superimpose one part of the pattern upon another." This time illusion and reality would become tragically fused.

For Nabokov, art and life were always "a game of intricate enchantment and deception". Lolita, his most famous creation, is an enchantress. His greatest novels display extraordinary narrative legerdemain and fiendish invention, partly inspired by the ludic interaction of English and Russian. Of himself, he wrote that, in his imagination: "I appear as an idol, a wizard, bird-headed, emerald-gloved, dressed in tights made of bright-blue scales."

Perhaps you have to be an aristocrat born on Shakespeare's birthday to play Prospero. Nabokov came from a family of almost impossible grandeur, Russian liberals who fled the Crimea in 1919. As a young man, after a Cambridge education, he stumbled into a career as a drifter, a collector of butterflies and author of strange books. A brilliant outsider, he established a modest literary reputation across the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s, supporting himself through lessons in English and tennis and crossword puzzles composed for a Russian emigre newspaper.

In 1940, fleeing the Nazis, Nabokov embarked on a second exile to America, landing in New York with just $100. Here, in his early 40s, he started to write in English for the first time. His young cousin, the renowned French publisher Ivan Nabokov, says: "Vladimir had an English nanny. English was his first language and he always had a terrific ear."

Nabokov eventually found his niche, teaching at Wellesley College and Cornell and finally publishing Lolita, after many rejections, in 1955. After years of living in a kind of literary twilight, the sensational success of that great literary narcissist, Humbert Humbert, and his scandalous predilection for "light of my life" Dolores Haze, thrust Nabokov under the hot lights of American celebrity. It was not a congenial experience and in 1961 he retired to Switzerland with his wife to devote himself to his books.

Now the plot thickens again. The first major novel to spring from his pencil after Lolita spookily rehearses the strange afterlife of "Tool". Pale Fire (1962) has been described, by Mary McCarthy, as "a jack in the box, a Fabergé gem, a clockwork toy, a chess problem, an infernal machine".

John Shade, a famous American poet, murdered in 1959, has left a final poem. Nabokov gives the reader four cantos of Pale Fire, 999 lines of rhyming couplets, plus an editor's foreword and scholarly annotations. When the disparate parts of the manuscript are fitted together, a novel of many planes and levels is revealed, a novel inspired by games of chess, the heroic couplets of Alexander Pope and the lambent mysteries of nature (Pale Fire is full of lakes, trees and butterflies).

And the poem? This, we are informed by Charles Kinbote, the editor of Shade's posthumous masterpiece, "consists of 80 medium-sized index cards" on which the poet, Shade, has written out "in a minute, tidy, remarkably clear hand, the text of his poem..." Already, The Original Of Laura has its antecedents.

But not yet a title. When "Tool" first surfaced in Nabokov's notebooks, in 1974, it was Dying Is Fun and then The Opposite of Laura. If Nabokov hoped he could tease his worldwide readership, some of whom loved him close to idolatry, with The Original of Laura as work in progress, he was to be cruelly denied. Mitgang says that when he met the novelist in the new year of 1977, "he seemed to be old, but in good health". In fact, Nabokov was dying. When the BBC filmed him in the spring of 1977, he was low in the water and visibly sinking. He moved slowly, his skin was "grey and flabby" and he was breathing hard.

As his condition deteriorated, he worked obsessively to finish the new novel that was so synaesthetically vivid in his imagination. In the end, he had to acknowledge his fate. If the manuscript could never be finished to its perfectionist author's satisfaction, it must never see the light of day. Now the spell he had nurtured would become an old man's malediction. He instructed Vera that, after his death, it should be destroyed forthwith.

Nabokov died from bronchitis on 2 July 1977, in the presence of his family and, according to his son, Dmitri, "with a triple moan of descending pitch". The writer's departure seems like just another piece of wizardry. "The echo is so strong," his son writes, "that I imagine that it is indeed all staged, that he will soon speak again."

It could not be and the spell became a curse. The 138 index cards of "Tool" were placed in a safe deposit box in the vault of a Swiss bank while Vera wrestled with her late husband's injunction. From time to time, she enlisted sympathetic outsiders for advice. Brian Boyd, Nabokov's distinguished biographer, was given a taste of the manuscript amid conditions of great secrecy during the mid-80s and advised against publication, an opinion he later rescinded. "People shouldn't expect to be swept away," he has said, tactfully. "It's the kind of writing that induces admiration and awe but not engagement."

Those for whom Nabokov is, in the words of Martin Amis, "the laureate of cruelty", see his deathbed decree as peculiarly vexing. But it was not unique. Virgil instructed his heirs to destroy The Aeneid, and was defied by the emperor Augustus. Kafka asked his friend Max Brod to burn all his papers, which included the novels we know as The Trial and The Castle. "Fortunately," said Nabokov in his own lecture on Kafka, "Brod did not comply with his friend's wishes." This remark has been used by the Nabokov estate as a prescient approval of its failure to destroy The Original of Laura.

The burden of administering the Nabokov estate had fallen to the writer's beloved son, "my dearest Dmitri", who was also known to his father as Mitya, Mityusha, Mityenka, Mityushenka and Dmitrichko. An only child, Dmitri has always expressed a quasi-tribal loyalty to the Nabokov name, but that is not the whole story. Vladimir loathed music and never learned to drive; Dmitri is a one-time opera singer with a love of fast cars. In the narrative of what happened next, the complexity of the father-son relationship has played a vital part. Last week, his cousin Ivan Nabokov described to the Observer the executor's anguish. He remembers Dmitri telephoning for support. "If you're asking me, I replied, you've already made up your mind: your instruction was to destroy it. ."

Now 75, Dmitri, known to the Italian press as "Lolito", is as tough, vivid and entertaining, fast-talking and Americanised as his father was elusive, sweet-natured and immemorially Russian. For years, he lived in the Nabokov apartment in Montreux, or in Palm Beach, enjoying a playboy lifestyle with Ferraris and a string of girlfriends. In his time, he has been a passionate mountaineer and a racing driver until a near-fatal crash in 1980 curtailed all climbing, singing and driving.

When Vera Nabokov died in 1991, there was no escaping the family curse. Dmitri, who had already made an admired translation of Nabokov's ur-Lolita, The Enchanter, welcomed an immersion in his father's work as a way of remaining close to him. "When the task passed to me," he writes in his introduction to The Original of Laura, it was as though he "had never died, but lived on, looking over my shoulder in a kind of virtual limbo, available to offer a thought or counsel to assist me with a vital decision".

It is not known when Dmitri first began to study the 138 index cards, but when he did he seemed to make up his mind. The Original of Laura, he wrote, was "the most controlled distillation of my father's creativity, his most brilliant novel". Nevertheless, he continued to vacillate, like Hamlet, in the execution of his filial obligation to his late father's request. Once again, he turned to his publisher-cousin.

About 10 years ago, the index cards of "Tool" were converted into a 76-page typescript and shown to Ivan Nabokov and some others in the estate's inner circle. Nabokov says, pointedly, that, "We were all of the same opinion. It was just a torso, and not a glorious torso." But now, once again, life was intruding on art. Entering his 70s, Dmitri Nabokov was progressively unwell with a grim tally of geriatric afflictions involving expensive Swiss doctors. To put it bluntly, he needed the money. Then, in 2005, there was a new twist.

Ron Rosenbaum is a New York journalist who happens to believe, as he told the Observer, that Vladimir Nabokov is "the greatest writer of the 20th century, the only one close to William Shakespeare's level". In November 2005, Rosenbaum, who enjoys a reputation as a literary gadfly, wrote a column, "Dear Dmitri, Don't burn Laura!" in the New York Observer.

Having rehearsed the history of "Tool", Rosenbaum reported an email exchange with Dmitri Nabokov about the manuscript ("He will probably destroy it before he dies!") and closed with a passionate plea: "Won't some university library step forward with a detailed plan for funding the preservation of The Original of Laura, this irreplaceable literary treasure ?"

The result: uproar. The eccentric, worldwide fraternity of Nabokov scholars had a field day. Dmitri, apparently maddened by the controversy, now adopted his father's teasing stance. He declared himself to be "torn" between his obligations to posterity and to his father's shade. Asked if he would burn or shred the manuscript, he replied, mischievously: "Perhaps I already have and prefer not to reveal the method."

The teasing went both ways. In 1991, an American librarian published a literary critical essay, apparently by a Swiss professor, entitled "A first look at Nabokov's last novel", which was quickly exposed as a brilliant spoof. Others became entangled in the debate. "It's perfectly straightforward," said Tom Stoppard. "Nabokov wanted it burnt, so burn it." Novelist Edmund White, whose early work had been championed by Nabokov, was equally blunt. "If a writer really wants something destroyed," he told the Times, "he burns it." John Banville said that this situation was "a difficult and painful one". Conceding that The Original of Laura may turn out to be inferior, Banville decided that it should be saved from the flames. "A great writer is always worth reading," he said, "even at his worst."

So how good was The Original of Laura, and what was its place in the Nabokov canon? Ron Rosenbaum, who had begun to exhibit some of the symptoms that afflict everyone who approaches this manuscript, was now on a mission to find out and it left him wanting, he said, "to spend the rest of my life trying to evaluate its relationship to the rest of VN's work". But when he spoke to the Observer recently, Rosenbaum admitted that he was "deeply conflicted" about what he had seen.

Ivan Nabokov, who has watched this saga from the privileged position of one who actually knew the author, can't quite see what the fuss is about. "To me, it's an inconsequential matter," he told the Observer, but as a distinguished former editor he fully understands the publishers' dilemma. Never mind the "burn or not to burn" question; here is a highly publicised, highly prized volume that's barely 76 pages long, by an author who wanted it destroyed, for which several imprints worldwide have paid a lot of money.

"Sonny Mehta at Knopf has come up with a brilliant solution," he says. Designed by Chip Kidd, The Original of Laura will appear in a highly collectible edition: Nabokov's handwritten index cards are reproduced in facsimile to display his neat handwriting, his furious crossings-out and his fascinating inserts. There's one valedictory wink from the great magician, a final card containing a list of synonyms for "efface" – expunge, erase, delete, rub out, wipe out and... obliterate. Selengkapnya...

the week in betting: benitez vs ferguson in the english premier league

With both Chelsea (7/4) and Liverpool (14/1) faltering in the Premier League at the weekend, Manchester United are now 7/4 to win the domestic title, with Arsenal 4/1 and Manchester City 10/1.

I mentioned an interest in City several weeks ago and can't believe they are still such a big price considering their only defeat came in injury time at Old Trafford. They also showed character with a gutsy performance to
secure a point at Wigan with only 10 men last week, but can take maximum points this Sunday at home to Fulham (13/2). Odds of 2/5 won't do much to pay the winter bills, though, so bigger odds about the double result (to be winning at half-time and full-time) make more sense at 9/10.

The big match of the weekend kicks off an hour earlier at 2pm when Liverpool (6/4) come up against old rivals Manchester United (8/5) at Anfield.

The Reds did the double over United in the league last year, but they have been below-par of late, failing to score on their last three outings. They also face a tough home tie against Lyon in midweek, which could dent confidence further if the French champions get a result.

With the last six corresponding Premier fixtures at Anfield finishing 2-1, 0-1, 0-1, 0-0, 0-1, 1-2, I can see Fergie's men stealing a narrow away win at 8/5, with the 1-0 scoreline available at 7/1.

Last week I mentioned Burnley's hot and cold form home and away, which predictably saw them lose at Blackburn – so why did I advise the draw? This week they host Wigan at home, who haven't won away since the opening day of the season and are a team that also rely on their home form. Burnley are surprisingly odds against (13/10) for this clash which looks a touch generous considering they have taken care of Birmingham, Sunderland, Everton and Manchester United at Turf Moor this season.
Of the remaining fixtures in the Premier this weekend, both the form teams, Aston Villa (19/20) and Sunderland (6/4), could return with maximum points on their travels to Wolves and Birmingham, respectively, while Arsenal (1/2) should land the honours at Upton Park against an unpredictable West Ham outfit.

The midweek action revolves around the Champions League on Tuesday and Wednesday, with the Europa League taking over on Thursday.

The Champions League sees Liverpool (3/4) host Lyon (16/5), while Arsenal (9/20) travel to AZ Alkmaar (23/4). Lyon are likely to prove a handful at Anfield, so instead, I'll look to Robin Van Persie (4/5) to score at any time in Holland.

Wednesday sees Chelsea (1/3) face a simple task at Stamford Bridge against Atletico Madrid (7/1), while Manchester United (evens) head east to CSKA Moscow (12/5) where a point for the draw is the call at 9/4, considering United could have Sunday's clash at Anfield in mind.

The punting pick in Thursday's Europa League fixtures is Hamburg (6/5) to triumph at Celtic (2/1). The Germans are unbeaten this season and will fancy their chances against a team that has only won three of their last eight matches, including a tame goalless draw at Motherwell last week. Celtic also have had their proud home record in Europe ripped apart by Arsenal and Dynamo Moscow of late.

Green is certainly the colour on Thursday as week six of snooker's Premier League takes place in Lincolnshire, while golf's Castello Masters gets underway in Spain.

Sergio Garcia will figure at the head of the betting in his homeland, but of more value could be Justin Rose, whose last victory came in Spain two years ago. The Englishman could well figure throughout the four days – he was an eye-catching sixth in last week's Portugal Masters and looks to be hitting form.

As for the snooker, defending champion Ronnie O' Sullivan takes on Stephen Hendry in a match that should provide a few big breaks. Anyone looking to take on the Rocket, however, should think twice as he has only lost once to the Scotsman in their eight Premier meetings since 2005, with five wins and two draws: 3-3, 5-1, 2-4, 4-2, 6-0, 3-3, 5-0 and 4-2.

The best bet of the night, though, is Shaun Murphy to beat Marco Fu, who hasn't been at his best for while, making correct frame scores of 5-1 and 4-2 a real possibility. Don't forget to check Sportingbet's site for the latest odds, including in-play betting.

In-play punting will also be available for the tennis this week, where Russia's Kremlin Cup takes place for both men and women, while the Paribas Open in Luxembourg has attracted some of the leading women players, including Kim Clijsters.

Clijsters plays here for the first time since her comeback victory in the US Open in the summer, and she has a fantastic record in Luxembourg, winning four titles between 1999 and 2003.

from guardian Selengkapnya...

Michael Owen has returns as a devil

Michael Owen returns to stick dagger into Anfield hearts

It might have been different had the call to Michael Owen been placed by Rafael Benítez instead of Sir Alex Ferguson.

Maybe the Owen brochure was lost in the Wirral post, or perhaps Owen was too far down Rafa's to-do list when Fergie stepped in.

It does not matter now. In saying yes to Manchester United Owen forfeited the right to the freedom of
the Kop. Robbie Fowler returned a hero after spells at Leeds and Manchester City.

Fowler left reluctantly on the end of Gérard Houllier's toe cap. Owen left of his own accord against the wishes of Benítez to further his career in Madrid. Not good but not the betrayal perpetrated in Ferguson's front room.

Football is a universe of parallel parts, one governed by the head, the other by the heart. Players exist in the first world, fans in the second. Only special travellers are invited by supporters to cross the threshold into the land of eternal love.

Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher will never walk alone in Liverpool. Owen, a contemporary of theirs and still a friend, requires a police escort to pass through the Shankly Gates.

He will discover on Sunday where he stands in Liverpool lore. The badge on his chest offers a clue, as does the hailstorm of invective that rained down on Carlos Tévez at Old Trafford months after United fans had urged Ferguson in song to sign him up.

The reaction conformed to the ancient football practice of hate thy neighbour. That he moved to Manchester City for greater reward does not play out in football's schoolyard, as Sol Campbell learnt observing his effigy hanging from a Tottenham rope following his move to Arsenal.

Tévez demonstrated a poor understanding of English club dynamics. He would not so readily switch from Boca Juniors to River Plate and live to tell the tale in the barrios of Buenos Aires. Campbell knew what was coming when he returned to White Hart Lane. Ferguson is not expecting a garden party for Owen, who will feature on the bench if not in the starting line-up, pending the fitness of Wayne Rooney.

"Paul Ince got a bad reception from our fans when he joined Liverpool. Michael may well get that again on Sunday. The goals he scored for them mark him down as one of their best ever strikers. Everyone wants to be liked but I don't think it will bother him," Ferguson said.

Owen's decision to leave Anfield in August 2004 was based on conventional rules that apply outside of football worship. Liverpool had dismissed Houllier. The resurrection at Anfield was to begin anew under the leadership of Benítez.

The Houllier regime had failed to return Liverpool to the sacred turf marked out by Shanks and maintained by Boot Room devotees from Bob Paisley to King Kenny.

Owen weighed the prospects of career fulfilment. He had given seven seasons of stellar service, ending each one as the club's top scorer. He remains the only Liverpool player to win the European Footballer of the Year award.

He felt that the big opportunities lay beyond Anfield. Gerrard agonised over the same issue before saying no to Chelsea. One wonders whether he will consider the Champions League Trophy in 2005 sufficient compensation.

Despite a scoring ratio per minute played superior to any in Spain, Madrid was not the fantasy for Owen that it proved to be for David Beckham. Four years on, via Newcastle, the opportunity Owen sought at the Bernabeu is provided by United. The testimony of Ferguson is a stake through the heart of Anfield.

"It [Liverpool] was never mentioned. I never even thought about it. I don't know if Liverpool were in for him in the summer. I made my mind up about Michael and there was no negotiation. He was desperate to come. It was so simple. Half an hour meeting and concluded in that half an hour. He wanted to be back at a top club and have European football."

Owen has already left an indelible mark at Old Trafford. If he does not score again in a red shirt the goal that won the Manchester derby in the final seconds is enough to guarantee his ordination into the United sainthood.

What would Benítez have given for a touch like that in the feet of David Ngog when the French striker was presented with the chance to put Lyon out of the Champions League tie last Tuesday? Ngog disintegrated in a chaotic dance of legs and feet before topping his drive.

All hope rests on the potency of the returning Fernando Torres, a point tacitly acknowledged by Benítez when asked if he regretted not moving for Owen.

"I had a lot of good players before in my squad and I have a lot of good players now. I'm really happy with Torres. Kuyt is a fantastic striker, Ngog, Voronin, Babel will be there helping the team, so I am really happy with my players. Hopefully, we will score two or three goals and won't be thinking about [Owen]. When I arrived here he was going to Real Madrid after only two or three days with us."

Regret, funnily enough, has no hold over Ferguson either: "He has a proven record. If you are looking only at his CV, then every club in the world would have taken him. The only issue was his appearance record over the last two or three years.

"That was putting one or two clubs off. I spoke to one or two people about him, Nicky Butt in particular, and Nicky was almost forcing me to sign him. He had so much good to say about the lad. It was good advice and I took that on board."

froms telegraph.co.uk Selengkapnya...