Andai kita Hannah Arendt dan Martin Heidegger

“Obat yang paling baik untuk menyembuhkan cinta adalah obat yang telah diketahui sepanjang zaman: membalas cinta[1]”  .

“Orang yang memahami sesuatu hingga kedalamnya jarang sekali tetap bisa mempercayainya selama-lamanya. Sebab mereka membawa kedalaman tersebut ke tengah-tengah terangnya matahari siang yang cerah; dan segala sesuatu yang terdapat di kedalaman itu biasanya tidak enak untuk dilihat[2]”. 

“Bahkan orang-orang yang paling berani pun jarang sekali memiliki ketegaran atas apa yang benar-benar mereka ketahui[3]”.

Sudah berapa ratus tulisan ku untai untuk menggambarkan dirimu dalam batas bayang yang tak pernah lekang. Kau yang manis, selalu menyalakan api dalam diri, hingga aku memiliki warna yang berbeda dengan orang lain. Aku bukanlah bintang dan bulan dalam sungai hitam, tapi aku adalah gambaran dirimu, yang selalu sharing di serambi mesjid itu.

bibirmu tipis serasa senja di taman kampus. Ku senang waktu itu, duduk berdua denganmu, berbagi tawa, cerita, dan membincangkan sains dan filsafat. Entah apa yang ku rasa selama ini. Dalam gerimis Hujan, kau tanyakan tenang hal,

Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology

The hermeneutic impulse of Arendt’s method consists in its orientation to understanding, i.e. to the meaning of phenomena and events in their very particularity, newness and contingency. This interpretive current in Arendt’s work is particularly manifest in relation to the phenomenon of totalitarianism. 4 It is accentuated in her well-known and much repeated insistence that the ‘desire to understand’ animates her research: Ich will verstehen The accent on understanding phenomena through the way they are experienced is nicely illustrated by her introductory remarks to  The human condition: ‘What I propose in the following is a reconsideration of the human condition from the vantage point of our newest experiences and our most recent fears. (…) What I propose, therefore, is very simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing. 6 And in the introduction to The origins of totalitarianism, she writes:

This book is an attempt at understanding what at first and even second glance appeared simply outrageous. [Understanding means] examining and bearing consciously the burden that events have placed upon us  – neither denying their existence nor submitting meekly to their weight as though everything that in fact happened could not have happened otherwise”.

Understanding thus means ‘the unpremeditated, attentive facing up to, and resisting of, reality – whatever it may be or might have been.’Arendt’s method is to approach political events through the  shared, i.e.

intersubjective and worldly, experience of these phenomena. These experiences constitute ‘the true, the only reliable teachers of political scientists, as they are the most trustworthy source of information for those engaged in politics’.28Research ‘arises out of’ the experience of incidents and should ‘remain bound to them; as the circle remains bound to its focus’. Arendt summons the cultivation of a scholarly attitude or ethos of commitment to incidents, events, facts, and appearances and of radical openness to the factual, that is, contingent and unpredictable nature of events:

 I have always believed that, no matter how abstract our theories may sound or how consistent our arguments may appear, there are incidents and stories behind them which, at least for ourselves, contain as in a nutshell the full meaning of what we have to say (…); and the only gain one might legitimately expect from the most mysterious of human activities are neither definitions nor theories, but rather the slow, plodding discovery and, perhaps, the mapping survey of the region which some incident had completely illuminated for a fleeting moment. Events are central to Arendt’s analyses because they disclose or illuminate the meaningfulness of the world in a certain way.

What  we experience is this illumination. Subsequently, the experiences of disclosed parts of reality require explicit interpretation (‘slow plodding discovery’ and ‘mapping survey’) in order to appropriate their full meaning and significance. Several aspects of this description demand closer inspection by situating them in the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition.

Dengan sedikit senyum, hatimu memelukku untuk kala pertama. Sungguh ku bahagia kala itu. Memang ku sedikit bingung, karena tak tahu siapa Hannah Arendt itu? dengan sedikit malu, ku akui bahwa aku tidak mengerti. Hanya bisa memberikan sedikit komentar yang usang…..

Bellongs to idea..

Arendt adopted the emphasis Heidegger typically put on the dimension of disclosure, appearance, showing and unconcealment (Unverborgenheit); respectively disappearance and concealment, in his analysis of what phenomena are. For Heidegger, phenomena appear against a background of concealment, carrying some things into the light from darkness.

This process he called world-disclosure Entirely implicit, Arendt also adopted Heidegger’s emphasis on the worldly nature of human existence. This worldliness was Heidegger’s critical response to the Western tradition of metaphysical and scientistic thought. He called human being Dasein in order to avoid the metaphysical notion of the subject and argued that Dasein’s primary existential way of being or of relating to the world, others and itself (expressed in the so-called ‘existentials’), is  in-der-Welt-sein, being-in-the-world. Unlike things, human beings do notcoincide with themselves, nor are they not enclosed in themselves. On the contrary, they are always already outside of themselves (Ek-sistenz), open unto things and other human beings, in the midst of the world and engaged in the world of which they are part, and in their own being. Arendt’s conception of the structures of human existence as human conditions is certainly informed by this phenomenological analysis of human ways of being and their primordially worldly existence.

Aku tahu ia memakai buku apa, namun itu telah dibaca dahulu kala. Dimana aku terus diguyuri oleh ketidakmengertian. Bagiku, “Mengerti berarti memaafkan segalanya”. Memang selain kau cantik, manis, dan pintar, Kau juga pintar melebihiku, dimana dulu kala kau sering share denganku, Hannah Arendt.

Ku telah ungkapkan hatiku padamu, dan dalam pesan itu kau tersenyum untukku. Secara langsung, ku tersenyum dan terlelap dalam imajinasi bila kita duduk di bawah pohon dan ku peluk dirimu untuk selamanya. Itu semua ingin ku lakukan sebelum kita melanjutkan akademisi ke luar negri bersama namun berpisah. Sejujurnya, ku ingin bersamamu, Hannah Arendt. Hatimu dan hatiku berseru. Kau padaku, dan ku padamu.

“Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child. Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength[4]“.

Tak ada kata metafor yang bisa menggambarkan kebahagiaan kita, Hannah Arendt. Semoga bumi memeluk kita berdua secara bersamaan, karena kita berdua telah berlengkarnasi. Kembali secara abadi, untuk terus menerangi dunia ini, oleh kehidupan kita.

_________________________________________________________

1. The Dawn Of Day  : Friedrich Nietzsche : Buku IV : Aforisme 415

2. Human, All Too Human : Friedrich Nietzsche : Aforisme 489

3. Twilight of the Idols ; Friedrich Nietzsche aforisme 2 : Maxim and Arrows

4. Friedrich Nietzsche. Also Sprach Zarathustra : THE THREE METAMORPHOSES : Aforisme : 1-2

About Falah

Keepsmile and .... and... and....
This entry was posted in Filsafat, Sastra. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s