#falsafah

"Manusia seperti daun kering yang hanyut ditiup angin musim gugur."

~ Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)

Katamu aku tak perlu bicara panjang kali lebar, supaya kau mengerti apa yang aku butuhkan.

Katamu aku tak perlu marah membabi buta, supaya kau sadar apa yang aku cemburukan.

Katamu aku tak perlu menangis sesegukan, supaya kau sadar bahwa aku merindukan.

Itu pesanmu, yang dengan lancang kutafsirkan.

Tapi aku terlalu lelah diam. Diam-diam justru sepertinya kau sudah menemukan seseorang. Aku terlalu lelah bertahan. Bertahan untuk menunggu, dan entah untuk apa pula menungguku itu. Saat ini pun kau juga tak kunjung datang. Atau, memang kau diciptakan agar tak pernah datang.

Sampai saatnya kita harus dipertemukan oleh dua keabadian.

Keabadian hati.

Hati yang tulus menerima, bahwa hati cukup diletakkan untuk pintu pengaguman. Tidak lebih dan tidak bisa kurang. Bahwa mata cukuplah terpejam, yakin ketika mata terbuka kau akan hilang.

Sialnya, tidak. Aku merasa gagal.

Keabadian takdir.

Sekuat apapun hati bersatu dalam kemenangan, takdir akan selalu di atas kemenangan. Segiat usaha dan doa yang dilakukan, hasilnya tetap bernama takdir kan?

Ini rancauku, tak usah kau pikirkan.

The Tabi'ī who said: "I do not know which of the two blessings of Allah upon me is greater: that He guided me to Islam or that He saved from [following] these desires?!" And Ibn Taymiyyah's warning against Ahlul-Kalām...

Abu Isma’īl Al-Harawi (d. 481H) stated in his tremendous work entitled, “The Dispraise of Theological Rhetoric and it’s People” with his chain of narration to Al-A’mash from Mujāhid who said: “I do not know which of the two blessings of Allah upon me is greater, that He guided me to Islam or that He saved from [following] these desires?!” — Dhamm Al-Kalām wa Ahlihi, 4/56 no. 786.

Shaikh Sālih…

I’ve been living inside Berkeley’s head for a few days now and I still can’t tell if he’s a genius, a madman, or someone who simply followed a thought further than most people are willing to go. I started with Principles of Human Knowledge, thinking it would be another tidy philosophical system I could read, understand, and move on from. It didn’t work like that. It felt more like being slowly cornered by someone who keeps asking very simple questions until your certainty starts dissolving.

The idea of a solid, mind-independent world turns out to be something inherited, not examined. Useful, maybe necessary for daily life, but oddly abstract once stripped of habit.

What’s unsettling isn’t the claim that the world is unreal. Berkeley never says that. What’s unsettling is the suggestion that “material substance” might be a placeholder. damn.. a word used to avoid admitting how dependent reality is on perception. Remove perception and nothing remains that can actually be pointed to. Only a concept, empty of content. deep sial.

That’s where the discomfort starts. Because this isn’t skepticism meant to collapse meaning. It’s skepticism aimed at cleaning metaphysics. Matter begins to look less like a foundation and more like an unnecessary duplication also an extra layer added because people feel safer believing there’s something solid underneath experience.

Because if everything we know is within perception, then what holds reality together when no one is looking? What keeps the world from dissolving into private hallucination? Berkeley’s answer is God, an infinite perceiver sustaining continuity. Which make sense doh.

The Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous takes that pressure and stages it through conversation. Hylas carries the confidence of ordinary certainty. Philonous asks questions. Slow, deliberate questions. If heat feels different depending on the body that experiences it, where does heat truly reside? If color shifts with light and perception, can it be said to exist independently? Again and again, what seemed to belong to objects slips back into experience.

Hylas isn’t foolish. He represents what most people assume without thinking. That’s why the dismantling feels gradual rather than theatrical. There is no sudden collapse. Only the realization that what appeared self-evident rests on ideas never fully examined.

By the second dialogue, stability becomes the concern. Without matter existing independently, what holds the world together? Doesn’t reality risk becoming fragile, subjective, unreliable? Berkeley reverses the anxiety. A material world that exists beyond perception can never actually be reached. It remains hypothetical. In trying to secure certainty, it introduces distance. Experience becomes a veil rather than contact.

The third dialogue closes the circle. Matter has lost its necessity. It cannot be sensed, cannot be conceived clearly, cannot be verified outside perception. It survives mostly because people are accustomed to imagining it. Berkeley’s solution is to ground continuity in a constant perceiver..God.. as structural necessity. Whether one accepts that move or not, it reveals the core of his project: not to dissolve reality, but to remove what he sees as redundant metaphysics while preserving coherence.

What lingers after all this isn’t disbelief in the world. It’s a thinning of certainty about what “world” means. Reality begins to feel less like something standing apart from awareness and more like something inseparable from it. Not imaginary. Not subjective in the shallow sense. But intimately tied to perception, sustained through it.

The shift is subtle but difficult to reverse. Once the idea of mind-independent matter loosens, attention itself begins to carry a different weight. Experience is no longer just a window onto reality. It becomes part of its architecture.

And strangely, this isn’t entirely foreign to older cosmologies closer to home. In Kapitayan thought, before religion hardened into doctrine, there was no rigid separation between visible and invisible, material and spiritual. The world was not treated as dead matter moving through empty space. It was understood as layered presence..seen and unseen woven together. Stones, trees, rivers, ancestors, breath: all participating in a field of existence that did not require proof of material independence to be real.

What mattered was alignment, not objectivity in the modern sense. Presence, not possession.

Berkeley arrives from a different lineage, using reason rather than ritual, but he circles a similar intuition: reality cannot be fully separated from the act of perceiving it. Existence is not a cold object sitting outside awareness. It is encountered, sustained, and given meaning within it.

The difference is that Kapitayan never needed to argue this geometrically. It lived it. Berkeley had to dismantle centuries of material certainty to reach something that older traditions never abandoned.

So what remains after reading him isn’t the feeling that the world has disappeared. If anything, it feels more immediate. Less like a stage set and more like a living field of perception where presence itself carries weight.

Not everything needs to be solid to be real. Not everything real needs to exist outside awareness.

Padang, Sumbarlivetv – Polda Sumbar berkomitmen dalam pemberantasan segala bentuk permainan judi yang meresahkan masyarakat, karna bagi Sumatera Barat Judi ini tidak sesuai dengan Falsafah yang dijunjung oleh masyarakat minan “adat basandi syarak,syarak basandi kitabullah”. Kabid Humas Polda Sumbar Kombes Pol Dwi Sulistyawan, SH. S.Ik. M.Si menyampaikan, adanya keresahan dari masyarakat Sumbar…