The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
KRITIK TERHADAP MODERNITAS: TELAAH KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN BRUNO LATOUR DAN SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR
Modernity emerged as a philosophical project in the post-Dark Ages, initially intended to liberate human beings from dogmatic authority while offering a new worldview grounded in rationality and measurability. However, as it developed, modernity produced a mode of thinking rooted in Cartesian dualism—a sharp separation between subject and object—which later gave rise to the dominance of instrumental rationality. This mode of thought positions humans as the central measure of all things, while nature is reduced to an exploitable object. Such separation generates various epistemological and ontological dichotomies, leading to the fragmentation of knowledge, the distortion of human–nature relations, and the emergence of ecological and spiritual crises. In response to these problems, this study is guided by three main research questions: how Bruno Latour and Seyyed Hossein Nasr formulate their critiques of modernity, and how the points of convergence, divergence, and the possibility of synthesis between their ideas can be philosophically explained. This research aims to systematically elaborate the construction of modernity criticism according to Latour and Nasr, identify patterns of convergence and divergence in their understanding of human–nature relations, and formulate a conceptual synthesis as an alternative to the flaws inherent in the modern paradigm. This study employs a library research method with a qualitative-philosophical approach and comparative analysis, enabling an in-depth examination of both thinkers’ ideas through critical readings of primary texts such as We Have Never Been Modern and Man and Nature, as well as other relevant secondary literature. This approach focuses on conceptual interpretation, argumentative reconstruction, and the comparison of their ontological and epistemological frameworks. The findings of this research show that both Latour and Nasr reject the dualistic foundations of modernity and view anthropocentrism as a primary cause of ecological destruction and spiritual alienation. However, their fundamental differences lie in their ontological bases and proposed solutions: Latour offers a flat ontology through Actor–Network Theory, which conceives the world as a network of symmetrically positioned actants, whereas Nasr grounds his critique in a hierarchical ontology based on Tawḥīd and the concept of Scientia Sacra. Based on the comparative analysis, this study proposes a synthesis termed “Sacred Relational Ontology,” a framework that combines Latour’s non-modern relationality with Nasr’s dimensions of sacredness and spiritual hierarchy, contributing to the development of a holistic, integrative, and theophanic Islamic ecological ethics.
FAKULTAS USHULUDDIN DAN PEMIKIRAN ISLAM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
NIM.: 21105010023 Muhamad Fairus Farizki
KRITIK TERHADAP MODERNITAS: TELAAH KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN BRUNO LATOUR DAN SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR (Text)
KRITIK TERHADAP MODERNITAS: TELAAH KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN BRUNO LATOUR DAN SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR (Other)
HTML Summary of #74953 KRITIK TERHADAP MODERNITAS: TELAAH KOMPARATIF PEMIKIRAN BRUNO LATOUR DAN SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR