Filsafat Ilmu Pertemuan I : Mempersiapkan Diri Memasukki Dunia Filsafat

Main Ideas / Lessons Conveyed

Two targets in studying philosophy

• (1) Becoming a “philosopher” (critical thinker) It’s not about memorizing philosophical schools. The focus is developing the ability to think critically about problems in everyday life.

• (2) Becoming a “philosopher” (second target mentioned, clarified as “not your mandatory goal”) Because the audience is law-focused, they are not required to become professional philosophers, but they are obliged to practice philosophical thinking.

Philosophical thinking = problem-solving

• Problems exist everywhere: on campus, at home, and outside.
• Doing philosophy means finding solutions, whether the problems are simple or complex.

Why philosophy of science matters for law students

• Legal solutions can seem straightforward (books and statutes), but become difficult when applied to real cases.
• Legal rules can be constrained by wording, while real life evolves faster.
• In modern contexts (e.g., AI-generated media), distinguishing reality from fabrication becomes harder—philosophy of science trains critical thinking to evaluate information and evidence.

You need “tools,” not mere memorization

• Memorizing names and figures (e.g., Socrates, Aristotle) is not enough.
• The real aim is understanding how reasoning works, including:
  • How thinkers differ from their teachers (e.g., Aristotle vs. Plato vs. Socrates).
  • How people discover new ideas and create new concepts.

Clarifying key terms about “philosophy”

The video distinguishes multiple meanings:

1. Philosophy: a life perspective/values guiding a group (example: Javanese vs. Batak practices).
2. Philosophical: a perspective aligned with a specific school of thought (example given: preference for postmodern instruments in a criminal law context).
3. Philosophy (as discipline / “science of thinking”): a way to search for essence and truth, including deep/critical thinking about life.

Philosophy as resistance to religious absolutism (historical context)

• Philosophy (especially philosophy of science) is described as historically emerging as resistance to dominant Western religious authority (linked to medieval Christianity and inquisitions).
• Some Islamic clerics (ustaz/kiai) are said to forbid philosophy due to fears it leads to atheism, but the speaker argues philosophy of science can function as critical engagement, not necessarily anti-religion.

Two ways of viewing philosophy

• Philosophy as a product Example: “don’t study Marxism/communism,” treating philosophy as fixed doctrine.

• Philosophy as a tool Thinking correctly—straight and systematically.

How to think critically (method / process)

• Critical thinking is not merely criticizing; it follows procedures.
• Core mechanism: know first, build understanding through references/data, then judge.
• Example: in media scandals, don’t form opinions from social impressions alone—gather references first, then craft reasoned commentary.

“Gates” to enter philosophy / mindset shifts

1. Shift from mythical thinking to logos thinking
   • Mythical thinking: accepting claims without understanding reasons.
   • Logos thinking: argumentative reasoning grounded in evidence and debate-able claims.
2. Open-mindedness
   • Treat differing opinions as inputs (not as obedience).
   • Following only one lecturer can make you miss deeper or alternative insights.
3. Curiosity
   • Curiosity drives scientific/philosophical progress (example: technology evolution).
   • In law faculty, curiosity means investigating legal phenomena, not staying at gossip/social-media surface.
4. Asking questions like a child
   • Asking questions is presented as a core trait of philosophizing.
   • Asking the right questions improves problem formulation for papers/theses.
5. Wisdom + reflective life
   • Wisdom = placing things in the right order (e.g., not being late even when you know your obligations).
   • Reflection = don’t accept even the lecturer’s words uncritically—compare with multiple sources (speaker mentions owning many philosophy-of-science books).

Importance of self-reflection for academic direction

Without reflection, students may be shocked later (e.g., confusion over thesis topics, switching departments repeatedly). Thesis success requires aligning interests and direction with knowledge reflected upon from earlier semesters.

---

Methodology / Instructions Presented

A) How philosophy “should” be approached (not memorization)

• Don’t aim to memorize philosophical schools/figures as the final goal.
• Instead, learn to:
  • Interpret the reasoning patterns behind ideas.
  • Understand why one thinker disagrees with another (how student–teacher understanding shifts).
  • Use philosophy as a thinking tool for real problems in life and law.

B) Procedure for critical thinking (before forming judgments)

1. Gather knowledge first
   • Don’t rely only on headlines, rumors, or others’ claims.
2. Seek references and evidence
   • “Go there directly” means finding sources that provide genuine insight (not necessarily by personally meeting officials).
3. Use logic/reasoning to structure your viewpoint
   • Decide the angle you will use to comment, based on evidence.
4. Then respond
   • Only after enough data should you comment, criticize, or debate.

C) How students should behave in class to build problem formulation ability

• Ask questions actively during lectures.
• Recognize that questions may interrupt flow, but the benefit is opening minds.
• Prioritize the skill most relevant to writing:
  • Formulating problems (good question formulation = good thesis problem statement).

D) Guidance for law-faculty learning (avoid confusion of domains)

• Pursue legal phenomena deeply—not merely social issues or gossip.
• Learn to differentiate:
  • Legal issues vs. social science/social-media issues.
• When writing theses/articles:
  • Don’t rely on tools like GPT if you lack internal conceptual grounding—nothing will “stick.”

E) Argument-focused study (philosophical legal practice)

• When evaluating an opinion, distinguish:
  • Refute the argument, not just the conclusion.
• For court decisions:
  • Don’t read only the ruling—examine legal considerations (the reasoning/argument).
  • Judges’ reasoning must be assessed for correctness.

---

Key Concepts and Examples Used

Unlawful act concept mapping (across legal fields)

• Unlawful acts have different conceptual bases in criminal, civil, and administrative domains.
• Misusing concepts across fields leads to conceptual conflict (speaker uses an analogy of two people using different concepts, thereby “fighting”).

Criticism requires conceptual alignment

• You can’t meaningfully criticize a concept if you misunderstand it or use a different definition than the one the critic is using.

Mythical vs. logos thinking

• Mythical: claims accepted without understandable reasons.
• Logos: debate-able claims grounded in evidence and argument.

---

Speakers / Sources Featured

Speaker(s)

• Primary lecturer / instructor (unnamed): the main speaker throughout the video.

Named figures (referenced as sources/concepts)

• Socrates
• Plato
• Aristotle
• Heraclitus
• Gautama Buddha (Siddhartha)
• Marx (referenced via “Marxism”)
• Kalmak / “Karl Marx” (the transcript suggests “Kalmar,” clearly referring to Marx in context)

Additional references mentioned

• AI (general reference)
• TikTok
• Google
• GPT / ChatGPT (as an example of reliance without conceptual grounding)
• Western philosophy / German thinkers (general, without individual names beyond those listed above)
• Islamic scholars: ustaz and kiai (role groups, not specific individuals)