Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian
<p>Kajian ilmiah ini berfokus kepada empat objektif kajian iaitu menganalisis</p><p>elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant, mentafsir ajaran tanggungjawab dalam</p><p>agama Kristian, membandingkan elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant da...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | thesis |
| Language: | zsm |
| Published: |
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9475 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| id |
oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:9475 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
uketd_dc |
| institution |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| collection |
UPSI Digital Repository |
| language |
zsm |
| topic |
LC Special aspects of education |
| spellingShingle |
LC Special aspects of education Chong, Yok Fong Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian |
| description |
<p>Kajian ilmiah ini berfokus kepada empat objektif kajian iaitu menganalisis</p><p>elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant, mentafsir ajaran tanggungjawab dalam</p><p>agama Kristian, membandingkan elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant dan</p><p>agama Kristian serta merumuskan sejauh mana Immanuel Kant dikatakan</p><p>bersifat sekularisme dalam menghujahkan konsep tanggungjawab. Dengan ini,</p><p>pendekatan kualitatif yang berpaksikan kaedah perbandingan menjadi tunjang</p><p>metodologi kajian. Hasil kajian mendapati bahawa elemen tanggungjawab</p><p>Immanuel Kant iaitu pengetahuan, kehendak, kebebasan, dan perbuatan</p><p>menampakkan persamaan yang ketara dengan apa yang diajar dalam agama</p><p>Kristian. Apa yang membezakan pandangan Immanuel Kant dengan agama</p><p>Kristian ialah elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant adalah berpusatkan tiga</p><p>prinsip Kategorikal Imperatif iaitu kesejagatan, kemanusiaan dan kesatuan.</p><p>Manakala tanggungjawab dalam agama Kristian pula adalah berpaksikan</p><p>keimanan kepada Triniti iaitu Tuhan Bapa, Tuhan Anak dan Roh Kudus. Hasil</p><p>dapatan ini seterusnya menjadi hujahan kukuh untuk membuktikan bahawa</p><p>Immanuel Kant bukan seorang ahli falsafah sekular yang menafikan sama sekali</p><p>kewujudan Tuhan. Kesimpulannya, dapat dirumuakan bahawa aliran pemikiran</p><p>Immanual Kant tentang tanngungjawab menampakkan banyak persamaan</p><p>dengan ajaran Kristian itu sendiri. Diharapkan kerangka konseptual yang</p><p>membandingkan persamaan dan perbezaan pandangan Immanuel Kant dan</p><p>ajaran agama Kristian berhubung dengan tanggungjawab dapat menjadi asas</p><p>untuk memperlebar kajian-kajian lain yang boleh membandingkan konsep</p><p>tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant dengan agama lain.</p> |
| format |
thesis |
| qualification_name |
|
| qualification_level |
Master's degree |
| author |
Chong, Yok Fong |
| author_facet |
Chong, Yok Fong |
| author_sort |
Chong, Yok Fong |
| title |
Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian |
| title_short |
Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian |
| title_full |
Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian |
| title_fullStr |
Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian |
| title_sort |
perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran immanuel kant dengan agama kristian |
| granting_institution |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| granting_department |
Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| url |
https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9475 |
| _version_ |
1783730264495620096 |
| spelling |
oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:94752023-09-07 Perbandingan elemen tanggungjawab dalam pemikiran Immanuel Kant dengan agama Kristian 2022 Chong, Yok Fong LC Special aspects of education <p>Kajian ilmiah ini berfokus kepada empat objektif kajian iaitu menganalisis</p><p>elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant, mentafsir ajaran tanggungjawab dalam</p><p>agama Kristian, membandingkan elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant dan</p><p>agama Kristian serta merumuskan sejauh mana Immanuel Kant dikatakan</p><p>bersifat sekularisme dalam menghujahkan konsep tanggungjawab. Dengan ini,</p><p>pendekatan kualitatif yang berpaksikan kaedah perbandingan menjadi tunjang</p><p>metodologi kajian. Hasil kajian mendapati bahawa elemen tanggungjawab</p><p>Immanuel Kant iaitu pengetahuan, kehendak, kebebasan, dan perbuatan</p><p>menampakkan persamaan yang ketara dengan apa yang diajar dalam agama</p><p>Kristian. Apa yang membezakan pandangan Immanuel Kant dengan agama</p><p>Kristian ialah elemen tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant adalah berpusatkan tiga</p><p>prinsip Kategorikal Imperatif iaitu kesejagatan, kemanusiaan dan kesatuan.</p><p>Manakala tanggungjawab dalam agama Kristian pula adalah berpaksikan</p><p>keimanan kepada Triniti iaitu Tuhan Bapa, Tuhan Anak dan Roh Kudus. Hasil</p><p>dapatan ini seterusnya menjadi hujahan kukuh untuk membuktikan bahawa</p><p>Immanuel Kant bukan seorang ahli falsafah sekular yang menafikan sama sekali</p><p>kewujudan Tuhan. Kesimpulannya, dapat dirumuakan bahawa aliran pemikiran</p><p>Immanual Kant tentang tanngungjawab menampakkan banyak persamaan</p><p>dengan ajaran Kristian itu sendiri. Diharapkan kerangka konseptual yang</p><p>membandingkan persamaan dan perbezaan pandangan Immanuel Kant dan</p><p>ajaran agama Kristian berhubung dengan tanggungjawab dapat menjadi asas</p><p>untuk memperlebar kajian-kajian lain yang boleh membandingkan konsep</p><p>tanggungjawab Immanuel Kant dengan agama lain.</p> 2022 thesis https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9475 https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9475 text zsm closedAccess Masters Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan <p>Acton H.B. 1970. Kants Moral Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Co Ltd.</p><p>Albi Anggito & Johan Setiawan. 2018. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Sukabumi: CV Jejak.</p><p>American Bible Society Resources, A Brief Description Of Popular Bible Translations (https://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/a-brief-description-of-popular-bible-translations)</p><p>Anon. 2011. What is the heart, according to the Bible?. https://www.compellingtruth.org [17 November 2019]</p><p>Banner M. 2009. Christian Ethics A Brief History. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.</p><p>Barackman F. H. 2001. Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith - Practical Christian Theology Fourth Edition. Kregel Academic: Grand Rapids.</p><p>Benner D C. 2007. Immanuel Kants demythologization of Christian theories of atonement in Religion within the limit of Reason Alone. EQ 79.2. 99-111</p><p>Beyleveld D & Ziche P. 2015. Toward A Kantian Phenomenology of Hope. Ethic Theory Moral Practical. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10677-015-9564-x.pdf</p><p>Bible New International Version. diperoleh daripada https://www.biblegateway.com</p><p>Birsch B. 2002. Ethical Insight A Brief Introduction. McGraw-Hill: Boston.</p><p>Bloom J.2015. What is Your Doing Saying. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-your-doing-saying [5 Januari 2020]</p><p>Bryman A. 2008. Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.</p><p>Chalier C. 2002. What Ought 1 to Do. Morality in Kant and Levinas. London: Cornell University Press.</p><p>Crook R.H. 2007. An Introduction of Christian Ethics. Canada: Pearson Prentice Hall.</p><p>Davies P. 1992. The Mind of God The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. New York: Simon & Shusster Paperbacks.</p><p>Deizell D. 2013. Why God Is Looking at Your Heart. The Cristian Post Contributor</p><p>Dewi Nur Harasha Alias. 2019. Buang bayi: Selepas nenek, ibu dan bapa pula ditahan polis http://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/buang-bayi-selepas-nenek-ibu-dan-bapa-pula ditahan-polis-206034 [28 Disember 2017]</p><p>Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2007. United States of America: Baker Book House Company</p><p>Fox R M, Demarco J P. 2001. Moral Reasoning: A Philosophic Approach To Applied Ethics. Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.</p><p>Encyclopedia Britannica. 1768. Kantianism Philosophy. https://www.britannica.com [16 Mei 2021]</p><p>Fairchild M. 2019. Are Christians Justified by Faith or by Works? Reconciling the Doctrines of Faith and Works. Learn Religion. https://www.learnreligions.com/christian-justification-by-faith-or-works-700638 [1 Januari 2020]</p><p>Fredriksen P. 2018. When Christian Were Jews The First Generation. New Haven: Yale University Press.</p><p>Fredriksen P & Reinhartz A (pnyt.). 2002. Jesus, Judaism Christian and Anti-Judaisme. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.</p><p>Flick U (pnyt.). 2014. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.</p><p>Fox R M, Demarco J P. 2001. Moral Reasoning: A Philosophic Approach To Applied Ethics. Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.</p><p>Goldstein C R. 2015. The First Freedom. North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.</p><p>Guyer P (pnyt.). (2006). The Cambridge Companion To Kant And Modern Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Hare J E. 2009. God And Morality A Philosophical History. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication</p><p>Heeren J. 2019. What Does "Do Unto Others" (The Golden Rule) Mean in the Bible? https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/what-does-do-unto-others-mean-in-the-bible.html [30 Disember 2020]</p><p>Hill T. E. (pnyt.). 2009. The Blackwell Guide to Kants Ethics. Southern Gate: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.</p><p>Holmes R L. 1998. BasicMoral Philisophy. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing Company.</p><p>Holzhey H & Mudroch V. 2005. Historical Dictionary of Kant and Kantianisme. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.</p><p>Hornby A S. 2001. Oxford Fajar Advanced LearnerS English Malay Dictionary. Terj. Asmah Haji Omar. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Fajar Bakti</p><p>H. Zainal Abidin. 2021. Implementasi Etik dalam Perspektif Moral dan Agama Medianya Orang Cerdas. Sulawesi Tengah: Radar Sulteng Membangun.</p><p>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). 1995. https://iep.utm.edu/home/about/ [26 Februari 2018]</p><p>Kant I. 1819. Logic. Terj. John Richardson, London: W. Simpkin R. Marshall. Stationers' Court, Ludgate-Street. https://archive.org/details/logiclogic00kant [20 September 2018]</p><p>Kant I. 1780, The Metaphysical Elements Of Ethics. Terj. Thomas Kingsmill Abbot https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5684/5684-h/5684-h.htm [23 Ogos 2019]</p><p>Kant I. 1871. The metaphysic of ethics. Terj. J. W. Semple. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. https://archive.org/stream/cu31924029021562?ref=ol#page/n5/mode/2up [27 Mac 2020]</p><p>Kant I. 1889. Kants Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics. Terj. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, Longmans, Green, and Co. https://oll-resources.s3.useast2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/360/Kant [2 April 2020]</p><p>Kant I. 1960. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Terj. Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson. New York: Harper & Brother.</p><p>Kant I. 1981. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. Terj. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.</p><p>Kant I. 1998. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Terj. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. </p><p>Kant I. 1998. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason And Other Writings. Terj Allen Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Kant I. 1998. Religion and Rational Theology On the miscarriage of all philosophical trialsa in theodicy. Terj. Allen Wood dan George Di Giovanni. New York: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Kant I. 1998. Critique of pure reason Terj. Paul Guyer & Allen W. Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press I998.</p><p>Kant I. 2002. Critique Of Practical Reason Terj. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.</p><p>Larson M. L. (1998). Meaning-Based Translation A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Lanham: University Press of America.</p><p>Life Application Study Bible New International Version. 1998. Illinois: Tyndale House Publisher, Inc.</p><p>MacKinnon B. 2015. Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues. United State of America: Cengage Learning.</p><p>Matthew G.B (pnyt.). 2002. Augustine On the Trinity Book 8-15. Terjemahan Stephen McKenna. New York: Cambridge University Press</p><p>McCarthy. 1986. Quest for A Philosophisal Jesus, Christianity and Philosophy in Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Schelling. Macon: Mercer University Press.</p><p>Miller B. 2015. Does Freedom have Boundaries?. BibleResources.org. https://bibleresources.org/bible-freedom-boundaries/ [12 January 2019]</p><p>Mohd. Janib Johari. 1994. Moral Teori Applikasi dan Permasalahan. Johor Bahru:Cetak Ratu Sdn Bhd.</p><p>Mortimer R. C. 1950. Christian Ethics. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.</p><p>Muhammad Atiullah Othman. 2015. Tanggungjawab dalam Pemikiran Ibnu Taymiyyah dan Immamuel Kant. Tesis Ph.D. Bangi: UKM.</p><p>Muhammad Atiullah Othman. 2015. Konsep Tanggungjawab: Analisis Perbandingan antara Istilah Duty Menurut Immanuel Kant dan Istilah al-Taklif Menurut Ibnu Taymiyyah. Jurnal Perspektif Jil. 7. Bil 1 (22-29) ISSN 1985 496X.</p><p>Muhammad Atiullah Othman, Indriaty Ismail & Ibrahim Abdu Bakar. 2015. Rasional dan Agama dalam Justifikasi Baik dan Buruk Menurut Immanuel Kant. Jurnal Perspektif Jil. 7. Bil 3 (59-67) ISSN 1985 496X.</p><p>New World Encyclopedia. 2007. Noumenon https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org [23 Februari 2019]</p><p>Noor Mohamad Shakil Hameed. 2016. Henti Budaya Menuding Jari. Utusan Malaysia. .http://www.utusan.com.my/rencana/utama/henti-budaya-menuding-jari [28 Disember 2017]</p><p>Noresah bt. Baharom (pnyt.). 2010. Kamus Dewan edisi keempat. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.</p><p>Otto Allen Bird (pnyt.). 2021. Brittanica Last years of Immanuel Kant https://www.britannica.com/biography/Immanuel-Kant/Last-years</p><p>Oxford English Dictionary. 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p><p>Palmquist S R. 2016. Comprehensive Commentary on Kants Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Malden: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</p><p>Parrinder G (pnyt.). 1971. World Religions From Ancient History to the Present. New York: Facts On File Publications</p><p>Plantinga A. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press.</p><p>Plantinga A. 2015. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</p><p>Pojman L.P. 2001. Ethics Discovering Right & Wrong. Canada: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.</p><p>Riggle K. 2001. Freedom, Knowledge and Relationship In the Genesis Story of Temptation. Denison Journal of Religion Volume 1 Article 3. Denison University</p><p>Schaefer G.E. 1996. Responsibility. Michigan: Baker Books</p><p>Siti Uzairiah Mohd Tobi. 2017. Kajian Kualitatif dan Analisis Temu Bual. Kuala Lumpur: Aras Publisher.</p><p>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002. Philosophy and Christian Theology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/</p><p>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Immanuel Kant. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/</p><p>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2014. Kant's Philosophy of Religion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/</p><p>Srensen A. 2008. Deontology Born And Kept In Servitude By Utilitarianism. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, Vol. 43, 69-96. https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/508/53340-DYP_3_069-096K.pdf. [7 Julai 2020]</p><p>Soroski J. 2019. What Does "Bible" Mean and How Did it Get That Name? https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/explore-the-bible/what-does-bible-mean.html [9 Oktober 2020]</p><p>Stump, Eleonore & Kretzmann, Norman (pnyt.). 2002. The Cambridge Companion To Augustine. New York: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Sullivan R J. 1994. An Introduction to Kants Ethics. Cambrige University Press: Cambrige.</p><p>Seyyed Mohammad Musavi Moqaddam1, Ali Almasi, Shima Mahmudpur Qamsar. 2015. A Review of Theory of Immanuel Kant: Distinguish of the Realm of</p><p>Religion and Science. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy. Vol 6 No 6 S4 December 2015.</p><p>Taylor S J, Bogdon R, Devault M. 2015. Introduction to Qualitative Research Method: A Guidebook and Resource. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</p><p>The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)(ISSN 21610) https://iep.utm.edu/ [6 Januari 2020]</p><p>Theodore Mawuli Kwaku Viwoto. 2014. God Will Judge Our Motives And Intents. https://www.modernghana.com/news/526947/god-will-judge-our-motives-and-intents.html [29 Disember 2020]</p><p>Thiroux J.P. 2001. Ethics: Theory and Practice. USA: Prentice Hall.</p><p>Tim May. 2006. Social Research Issues, Methods and Process. Open University Press: United Kingdom.</p><p>Timothy Sng. 2018. The Good Son, What our Father in Heaven expecst of us. Thomas Nelson. Inc. </p><p>Tovermiller. 2018. Lesson 7: Form and Meaning in English Bible Translation. https://shepherdthoughts.com/baptistchurchny/lesson-7-form-and-meaning-in-english-bible-translations/ [25 April 2021]</p><p>Walters K (pnyt.). 2011. The Age of Reason. Canada: Broadview Editions.</p><p>Ware B A. 2011. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: The Trinity as Theologial Foundation. The Journal of Family Ministry. Volume 1 Issue 2. Spring / Summer 2011.</p><p>Wood W.A. & Giovanni G.D. 1996. Religion and Rational Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press.</p><p>Zeuschner R B. 2001. Classical Ethics: East and West. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p> |