MEMPERTIMBANGKAN KONTRIBUSI CHARLES TAYLOR TERHADAP STUDI AGAMA DI INDONESIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artikel ini membahas tentang Charles Taylor, salah satu filsuf dari McGill University, Kanada. Ia telah menghasilkan berbagai karya dalam bidang filsafat, sejarah ide, imajinasi sosial, modernitas, identitas, religi, ilmu kemanusiaan, ilmu sosial, bahasa dan mendapatkan perhatian dari berbagai sarjana di seluruh dunia, kecuali Indonesia. Artikel ini merupakan upaya perdana untuk memperkenalkan karya-karya Taylor, yang hampir semua berbahasa Inggris dan Prancis. Studi bibliografi ini, paling tidak akan memberikan genealogi gagasan-gagasan Taylor. Dalam studi ini dijelaskan siapa saja sarjana yang telah melakukan studi terhadap pemikiran Taylor. Adapun susunan artikel ini adalah biografi intelektual Taylor, karya-karyanya, para penstudi Taylor, dan cuplikan pemikirannya. Akhirnya, ditemukan bahwa karya-karya Taylor merupakan usahanya untuk memberikan peran kembali agama di dalam ruang publik, dimana argumen-argumennya telah banyak mengundang perdebatan di kalangan para sarjana. Paling tidak, artikel ini mampu memberikan masukan bagi para sarjana yang mengkaji Islam di Indonesia, untuk dapat mengunakan model-model argumen yang dilakukan oleh Taylor, dalam memahami religi dalam era kontemporer.This article is about Charles Taylor, a philosopher from McGill University, Canada. He has authored many works in philosophy, history of ideas, social imaginary, modernity, identity, human sciences, social sciences, language, and received many responses from scholars internationally, except Indonesia. This study is an introduction to his works, which are mostly written in English and France. As bibliographical study, this article will map out varieties of Taylor’s ideas in his works. This study listed some of scholars who study Charles Taylor’s thought. Furthermore, this article will examine intellectual biography of Taylor, his works, and works on him by Western scholars. Finally, it argued that his works have taken a step how to integrate the role of religion in public spaces, which is still debated among scholars. Last but not least, this essay will enhance of Muslim scholars in Indonesia to adapt Taylor’s argument in religious in contemporary era.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".