The answer to your life doesn’t lie in your next checkout purchase. The dignity of your being isn’t defined by what device, car, or bag you own. And as you read this, an inner conflict may arise: No, everything around me bases its value on material things. How could I adopt a different set of values when the whole world seems built to comply with consumerism? First of all, this writing isn’t meant to be a guideline. It’s my personal attempt to document my train of thought on how to resist consumerism, based on various sources I’ve read and watched. The entirety of human life, from the late 20th century up until now, can be viewed through a capitalistic lens. As children, our parents told us to befriend only the “good kids,” because they would influence us to become smarter and get better grades, which are crucial for getting into a good school. Why do we need to go to a well-known, reputable school? Because records show that its students often continue to good universities. And why do we need to go to a good university? Because, based on records and alumni testimonies, most of its graduates land jobs at good companies. Why do we need to get into a good company? To earn a good paycheck. And why do we need a good paycheck? Because everything around us is controlled by money, directly or indirectly. So, we need money. The whole world has become a giant laboratory of supply and demand. Large companies bombard us with ads, armed with terrifying levels of personalization that follow us through every corner of the digital and physical world. Buying things has become as natural as breathing. But some of our purchases are useless. The competition to own more has driven us into unwise debt, leading to the slow destruction of human existence in this capitalist era. So, how do we fight consumerism? No, simply a total stopping of ourselves from buying things isn’t the answer. The first thing we must dismantle is the deep-rooted brainwashing that teaches us to see the world only through an economic lens. Let’s expand our collection of “glasses” (not in a consumerist way). See the world through the wisdom of your faith, through the wonders of biology and living things, or through the same curiosity you had when you were six years old. Extend life beyond buying and selling. Capitalism has alienated the kindness and creativity we could have built in this world. Why? Because those things don’t serve the system’s goal of keeping people (now seen purely as customers) buying more. This system depends on structured alienation: separating humans from themselves and their surroundings, to sustain its reach. “Oh, you give free lessons to students? When will you start charging them a subscription fee?” “You make art in your free time? Have you listed it on a digital marketplace? How much does it cost?” Again, this is the result of a capitalist mindset deeply rooted in our unconsciousness. Extend life beyond buying and selling. Look at the sky. Breathe in the morning air. Eat your veggies. Run. Talk to your community. Help an elderly person board the train. All the things you might think have no economic value? Do them anyway, for the sake of kindness, for the sake of learning, for the sake of curiosity. For the sake of fighting the deep-rooted, decaying consumerism.

“Sapere Aude! (Beranilah berpikir sendiri!)”  Begitulah ucap Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) di dalam Esainya yang terkenal berjudul “ What is Enlightenment?”  yang diterbitkan pada tahun 1784. Sesuatu yang ironis sebenarnya kata tersebut diucapkan oleh Kant, seseorang yang membatasi akal murni untuk terbang lebih jauh dalam jeruji besi konsep noumena , konsepnya sebenarnya membuat jalur progres filsafat menjadi lebih teratur, namun Kant betul-betul menutup potensi pikiran dan meninggalkannya dalam keadaan terikat tanpa kejelasan atau hanya sekedar meminta orang lain untuk menerimanya begitu saja.  Memang begitulah filsafat, sebuah “arena bermain” yang dipenuhi dengan konsep saling bertumpuk yang saling berusaha menguasai satu sama lainnya. Apa yang dilakukan oleh Kant sebenarnya mempunyai pola yang sama yang dilakukan oleh para filsuf sebelum dan setelahnya, mereka semua berusaha menggenggam realitas dengan konsep yang mereka ciptakan, lalu mempresentasikannya sebagai kebenaran atau setidaknya yang ia yakini benar. Namun sayangnya belum ada usaha yang berhasil untuk mencapai kebenaran yang absolut tersebut (setidaknya sampai tulisan ini diterbitkan), “arena bermain” tersebut masih terbuka lebar untuk siapapun yang menyebut dirinya pemikir agar segera terjun langsung menawarkan konsepnya untuk “bertarung” dengan konsep-konsep yang sudah ada. Dengan berbagai posibilitas yang masih terbuka lebar, sang kebenaran masih terus melirik ke kanan dan ke kiri memilih pinangan yang menurutnya dianggap cocok. Besarnya posibilitas ini tentu bisa menjadi medan akselerasi bagi para pemikir untuk bisa mengembangkan bahkan menciptakan konsep baru untuk merayu sang kebenaran, namun di sisi lain ada juga orang-orang yang menganggap dirinya pemikir, namun menggunakan konsep yang sudah ada dengan tanpa mengembangkannya sedikitpun, sambil menutup mata dan dalam nuansa dogmatik serta penuh keegoisan yang dengan berpikir sempit menggunakan konsep-konsep ini layaknya palu gada.  Mereka merasa puas dengan konsep yang mereka anggap benar, lalu berjalan berlalu-lalang menghardik para pemikir yang mencoba membuka jalur baru seraya sambil memegang panji “-isme -isme”, atau menggaungkan potongan-potongan kutipan selayaknya hal tersebut sebagai kata-kata Tuhan yang memegang kebenaran absolut pada dirinya. Tindakan ini sungguh kekanak-kanakan secara intelektualitas seperti apa yang sudah dijelaskan oleh Kant, malas atau menyerah dengan kreatifitas pemikirannya dan menggunakan pikiran orang lain dengan semena-mena karena tidak ingin bertanggung jawab terhadapnya. Keberanian serta kebebasan berpikir yang seharusnya merupakan ruh utama dari filsafat perlahan mati dan digantikan oleh keganasan intelektual yang menerkam siapapun yang tidak sepaham. Mungkin saja inilah yang membuat perkembangan filsafat menjadi tidak kreatif dan stagnan, filsafat mulai diperlakukan selayaknya sebuah sains yang kaku, penuh metode yang mengikat dan hanya bertindak seperti cermin pasif realitas yang tidak membebaskan. Filsafat seharusnya bukanlah medan pengulangan, ia seharusnya medan akselerasi, eksplorasi, berani menantang apapun dalam keautentikannya dan bijak dalam ketidaksepahaman.  Filsafat begitu uniknya karena merupakan usaha-usaha untuk menertibkan kehampaan dan memastikan ketidakpastian, dan karena tugas mulia tersebut ia tidaklah bisa direduksi, dipotong-potong dan di skematisasi, percobaan-percobaan sedemikian rupa tidaklah lain dengan menggambar seluruh angkasa dengan sebuah pensil dan penggaris. Dorongan Kant untuk berpikir mandiri ini bukanlah sebuah tuntutan yang menyeramkan, justru anjurannya ini merupakan sebuah ketenangan untuk para pemikir untuk bebas mengarungi lautan yang luas, walaupun terombang-ambing dalam ketidakpastian, para pemikir bisa bebas hidup di dalamnya, ia tidak harus selalu tertunduk dan bisa mengangkat kepala setinggi mungkin menantang berbagai posibilitas yang ada. Berpikirlah bebas!

While the question of multiculturalism became a matter in the post-modern world, mostly  the researchers and policy analysts asserted that the possibility of multiculturalism is naturally associated with religious diversity. I begin with Charles Taylor’s view on multiculturalism  through the lens of recognition. He argues that the acknowledgement of a group’s unique cultural  identity by the authority is a fundamental human need for individual and collective manifestation. Taylor’s multiculturalism is interconnected with various components, especially identity recognition. For instance, he believed that a person’s identity is not formed in isolation but is shaped through the interplays of dialogues with others, or by the lack of dialogue, and by  the social environment. The respect for individual dignity and identity is another essential role in  molding an individual’s identity, cultivated throughout the cultural factors. Moreover, Taylor  asserted that multiculturalism is a political demand for minority or marginalized groups for their  identity to be affirmed publicly.  Similarly, John Rawls claimed that the multiculturalism is for to ensure fair social cooperation and political stability among citizens who hold different, perhaps conflicting, moral,  religious, and philosophical viewpoints. However, Taylor’s intention to redefine secularism is a major leap for accommodating diverse religions in a modern democratic state. He never placed religion in the private sphere, as traditional secularists did. Instead, he believed the modern  democratic state’s central task for achieving religious diversity is not to confine religion to the private sphere, but to ensure the complete freedom of all religions in their practices, ensure the equality between people of different faiths and beliefs, and ensure the inclusivity of all basic  positions, religious or non-religious, by the state. All of these frameworks of Charles Taylor and John Rawls never break the systematic affiliation of state sovereignty. Jason Blakely clearly  mentioned the incompatibility of post-modern skepticism in the thoughts of Charles Taylor and  Alasdair MacIntyre. He stated: “According to Taylor and MacIntyre, social science and political  theory should be engaged both empirically and normatively… both do not offer a radical  postmodern skepticism according to which all facts are colored by value.” In this vantage point, Taylor is trying to assert the possibility of a fare social cooperation within the state's sovereign power, in the most mundane sense, a state critique.  Moreover, while the theorists claim multiculturalism as an essential condition for recognition and social stability, I contend that modern multicultural policy operates primarily as a mechanism for regulating state sovereignty, thereby failing to address the fundamental  challenge posed by demands for religious sovereignty and ultimately reducing religious agency  to a state-defined category of civil society. Charles Taylor defines civil society primarily is “in  Western societies a web of autonomous associations independent of the state, which bind citizens  together in matters of common concern, and by their existence or actions could have an effect on  public policy.” And when I say “religious sovereignty,” most often refers to the ultimate, supreme authority of a deity in the source of law and way of life. The case of the Claimant, a year 10  school pupil in England, that her school prohibits pupils from performing prayer rituals on  school premises, is an example of the state sovereign power asserting its authority over the  manifestation of Claimant’s religious sovereignty. In this case, Claimant admitted that “(1) the  policy breached her freedom to manifest her religious beliefs; (2) the policy indirectly  discriminated against Muslim pupils, contrary to the equality,” and other discriminatory practices  of the school. Here, the administrative court admitted that the school had performed religious discrimination; however, due to the school’s policy and restrictions court allowed the school to continue its right to protect the rules and regulations. The context is very clearly framing the  limitation of religious agency in a modern democratic state.  From this challenge, some scholars suggested certain alternatives by criticizing multiculturalism as well as secularism. Vincent Lloyd, one among them, put forward the idea of  “Black natural law”. He defines Black natural law as a distinctive tradition of ethical and  political reflection within the African American community, rooted in the idea of a higher law  that is superior to human laws, contradicting the worth of the oppressed. At the same time, he radically criticized secularism and multiculturalism. He stated: “As an ideology, multiculturalism  in the United States affirms the value of cultural diversity and some degree of cultural autonomy. I contend that, where secularism excludes and manages religion, multiculturalism excludes or  manages race.” From this point of view, he viewed the Black natural law, which is compatible with the American socio-political landscape, while African Americans were oppressed by white hegemony.  However, Lloyd’s framework that for me, is nothing beyond an ideologically affirmative proposal. It is a potential counter to the secular democratic state by raising the sovereignty of the  marginalized community. The sovereignty that I mentioned here is the concept that is  antagonistic to freedom, singular will, and plurality. Lloyd’s framework shows us how  multiculturalism cannot protect the religious diversity, and asserts traditionally bounded African  American communal sovereignty.   Most poignantly, saying, multiculturalism as an ideology is not about accepting the religious or cultural diversity, instead, it is all about regulating the state sovereignty. For instance, the state has the authority to accommodate the religion and culture until it is tolerable  with the state policy. A modern nation-state cannot recognize any of the communities that are  capable of preserving their own autonomy in ethical and legal order. Therefore, the limit of  individuals from any of the religions or cultures is situated within the boundary of civil society. I contend that the category of civil society does not preserve any specialty other than how other  communities preserve their own. For this reason, civil society as a category is already defined under the state sovereignty. From a perspective of political science, the political ideologies such  as communism, Islamism, and other kinds of “isms” are the fundamental critique of this state  sovereignty while it regulates the category of civil society. More importantly, while the state is  proposing multicultural policies, in fact, the policy is always under the definition of civil society,  nothing beyond that. Therefore, multiculturalism is an ideology that is often failed to protecting  religious and cultural diversity.

Imagine you find a phone lying on the ground. Someone must have dropped it without realizing. What would you do? Most people would say the right thing to do is to return it to its owner, perhaps by checking the emergency contacts or handing it to the police. That is what our sense of morality tells us. Returning the phone seems like the “good” and “right” course of action. But you could also choose the opposite path: keep the phone for yourself or sell it for a quick profit. After all, it’s money. In such moments, we face a small but significant test of our morality. The choice we make reflects who we are or at least, who we aspire to be. When Morality Becomes Complex We all want to be moral individuals. Yet, the question remains: what is morality, really? Is it a set of objective truths that apply to everyone, or is it something subjective, shaped by culture, society, and personal beliefs? Many philosophers have debated whether moral statements describe universal facts or simply express human attitudes. In simpler terms: is morality something we discover, or something we invent? In practice, moral questions are not always easy to answer. Returning a lost phone may seem obvious, but moral boundaries often blur when we move into more complex issues—those that exist in the “grey areas.” On one end of the moral spectrum, we have actions like theft, which nearly everyone agrees are wrong. On the other, there are acts like murder or genocide, which are universally condemned. These extremes are easy to judge. But in between lies a vast field of moral ambiguity. Take, for example, attitudes toward LGBTQ+ communities. In many Western countries, same-sex relationships were once condemned and criminalized. Today, thanks to decades of activism, they are largely accepted, even celebrated. People freely express their identities and wave their pride flags. In contrast, in many Asian countries, including Indonesia, social acceptance remains limited. LGBTQ+ individuals often face discrimination and exclusion. Many people still view them as deviating from cultural or religious norms. This difference raises an important question: if two societies hold opposite moral beliefs, which one is correct? The Idea of Moral Relativism Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote, “If God doesn’t exist, everything is permissible.” He suggested that without divine authority, moral rules would lose their grounding. Similarly, American anthropologist Ruth Benedict argued that morality is not universal, but varies according to culture. History supports this view. Two centuries ago, slavery was accepted in many parts of the world. To own another human being was seen as normal. Only later did societies recognize it as a grave injustice. But imagine living in that earlier time. Would you have questioned slavery, or accepted it as part of life? This illustrates the essence of moral relativism : the idea that moral values are shaped by social norms, traditions, and historical context. What is considered “good” or “bad” depends on the moral framework of a particular culture or era. Meta-ethical moral relativism goes even further. It suggests that moral terms like “right” and “wrong” have no absolute meaning at all. They are relative to a group’s beliefs and practices. In this view, morality is not fixed but fluid, changing as societies evolve. Still, not all morals appear to be relative. Some principles seem to transcend culture and time. A study published by The University of Chicago Press Journals  identified seven moral rules that appear consistently across societies: Be brave Be fair Defer to authority Help your group Love your family Return favors Respect others’ property These principles suggest that while societies differ in their moral details, there are underlying values that most humans share. Courage, fairness, loyalty, and respect seem to be universal moral anchors, even if their expressions vary. Understanding Morality So, what does this mean for us today? It means that morality is both universal and contextual. Some values, like honesty or compassion, are nearly global, while others depend on cultural and historical circumstances. Recognizing this complexity does not mean giving up on moral judgment. Instead, it means approaching moral differences with humility and understanding. When we encounter people whose beliefs differ from ours, we can try to understand the reasons behind their values instead of immediately condemning them. Morality is not just about following rules; it is about empathy, awareness, and reflection. It is about asking ourselves not only what is right or wrong, but also why . In the end, being moral is about striving to understand and respect others while staying true to our own principles. That, perhaps, is the truest expression of what it means to be human.

You ever notice how most of the battles we fight aren’t out there, but in here? Points at head. It’s strange. You can be sitting quietly in your room, not talking to anyone, and still feel like you’re in a full-blown war with yourself. Between what you want, what you need, and what you know you should probably stop wanting. Sometimes I think we forget how powerful desire actually is. It’s like this quiet general giving us orders we don’t even question. “Buy that.” “Message them.” “Scroll a little more.” “You deserve this.” And we obey, almost without thinking. It’s kind of funny, and also kind of scary. Plato once said, “The first and best victory is to conquer yourself.” But no one really tells you how exhausting that can be. Because you can’t exactly walk away from yourself. You can’t raise a white flag. You wake up with your mind, and you go to sleep with it. Every craving, every fear, every “just one more” moment lives rent-free inside you. Nietzsche talked about this thing called the will to power. He said it’s that deep inner drive that makes us want to grow, achieve, and create meaning. Sounds great, right? But if you don’t steer it the right way, it can eat you alive. You start chasing things like money, love, approval, not because you need them, but because the chase itself becomes addictive. You start thinking, if I just get this one thing, I’ll finally feel okay. But when you do, your mind simply replaces it with another “one thing.” And that’s the trap: the illusion that the next desire will fix the last one. Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher, said, “No man is free who is not master of himself.” It’s such a simple line, but it hits differently when you really think about it. Freedom isn’t about doing whatever you want. That’s actually another kind of cage. Real freedom is being able to stop yourself. To look at something you crave and say, “I don’t need this right now.” That’s control. That’s peace. And it’s way harder than it sounds. I think we’re all soldiers to our own desires. Some of us fight with swords, others are just trying to survive another day without giving in. We win some battles and lose others. But the important part is noticing the fight at all. Awareness is already half the victory. Once you can see your own patterns and triggers, you start to catch them before they pull you too far. Desire isn’t the enemy though. It’s what makes us human. It’s what makes us fall in love, create art, take risks, and dream about more. The problem starts when we forget who’s supposed to be in charge: us, or the desire. So maybe being a “soldier” to your own desires isn’t about fighting endlessly. Maybe it’s about learning discipline, like a soldier does. Not to destroy your desires, but to understand them. To know when to move forward and when to rest. Because in the end, we’re all just trying to make peace with the things we want, and with the parts of ourselves that never stop wanting.

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. - Ralph Waldo Emerson – Self-Reliance Essay, 1841   Being a true self can be grueling, especially in modern society. We seem to be overly dependent on how others perceive us, often unwittingly so, since our lives are more exposed publicly with just one click on social media. This makes our online presence more believable than our real ones. It's a bitter truth, yes, but perhaps it doesn't have to be. Perhaps there's a chance for us to stand solidly on our own feet without anxiously catching on to the thoughts about what others think. Perhaps we could learn more about the concept of self-reliance as a way to strive in the world we live in today.   Nothing is really new about the concept of self-reliance. It was introduced in 1841 by Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American essayist, lecturer, and poet, through his essay "Self-Reliance". It relates to Transcendentalism, a philosophical movement in the 19 th  century that emphasized the power of inner self to ‘transcend’ beyond the materialism imposed upon us. As one of key figures in Transcendentalism, Emerson was disgruntled with American society for stipulating social pressure to conform and disregarding the value of oneself. Emerson saw how society could ruin individual self-growth eventually.   How society can have a huge impact on the inner self seems like a familiar situation nowadays. The difference is that today, the 'standard' has reached broader audiences with narrower views. Thanks to the digital age, we are going back in time and reliving the past. Materialism, societal judgment, and expectations are more vividly shown and perceived. Not only are we demanded to comply, but we also feel pressured to showcase our lives. Our values are determined by achievements and the way we flash our lives. Expectations and self-acceptance today seem to rest in the hands of the world, no longer in our own.   As social creatures, it is in our nature to want to know how others perceive us. We want to understand our social standing. With the advent of social media, we can easily compare ourselves to others. The need for social validation increases as our interactions on social media increase too. It seems normal to seek validation. However, problems arise when it impacts our inner self. If we see, value, and judge ourselves poorly because we seem to not fit in, that is when we have to save ourselves.  The Introduction to Self-Reliance    To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Ralph W. Emerson – Self-Reliance     Transcendentalism believes in self-intuition and how it can provide proper guidance for individuals to live their own lives without being affected by societal dictates. To hold such a merit, one must develop enormous self-confidence, which leads us to self-reliance. Merriam-Webster defines self-reliance as reliance on one's own efforts and abilities ; however, this does not delineate the concept enough. So, what exactly is self-reliance? The definition of self-reliance is not distinctly stated, as it intersects with other self-value concepts. From self-belief, self-actualization to self-love, self-reliance encompasses all these virtues. Referring to Emerson's essay, self-reliance relates to an individual's freedom to pursue their desires, make choices, and live according to their beliefs, even if they have to oppose conformity.   These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion.  Ralph W. Emerson – Self-Reliance   The foundation of self-reliance lies within us. It grows as we age. Our principles, values, and perspective on life, are the essentials of self-reliance. It encourages us to think deeply about our self-worth to free ourselves from the fierce pressure of collective opinions and standards. Releasing these burdens could make our life easier. Owning the life that we own allows us to fully understand our existence. No need to wait for the world's approval. Self-reliance can help us live among others without insecurity crippling inside.   Relying on yourself does not mean we have to become isolated and disregard our nature as social creatures. It does not limit our interactions or relationships with others, but rather emphasizes self-autonomy within. It means we have complete control over our lives without any outside interference. Rather than forcing ourselves to conform to societal standards or being overwhelmed by them, self-reliance directs us to focus on ourselves in navigating life, regardless of the circumstances.   A simple way to embark on a self-reliance journey is by truly knowing yourself. Self-awareness is the first step in mastering yourself – your capabilities, advantages, disadvantages, preferences, and values. It sounds simple, but many still lack it. According to a Harvard Business Impact   article, research by Harvard Business Publishing Corporate Learning found that only 15% of people have self-awareness. Without adequate self-awareness, we tend to be prone to others' influences, as we have difficulty determining our own desires and capabilities. We can easily be swayed by social pressure and have a greater thirst for validation to conform to their expectations. Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Ralph W. Emerson – Self-Reliance     Once we understand ourselves better, we instinctively trust our intuition better. Emerson is convinced that the self has a great force to recognize what is true for oneself. When we are brave enough to reckon with that force, we can live the life we want. Decisions about life phases, whether about the school to attend or the career path to pursue, are based on our self-knowledge. Opinions or suggestions from others serve as references, not interference in our decisions.   Every deed and decision about ourselves should be in our hands. The standard we trust must be our own. As long as what we believe in does not harm nor hurt anyone else, we should be the one to hold it firmly. Self-reliance paves the way for a life that is genuinely best for ourselves. As we begin to rely on ourselves, we will believe in our intuition more and be content with what we are and what we were meant to be. That is true happiness. In the end, the only person who knows what is best for us is none other than ourselves.

Humanity is standing at a turning point. On one hand, our planet is facing serious problems: climate change, pollution, deforestation, and widening inequality threaten the stability of societies and ecosystems. On the other hand, advances in space technology have brought the dream of colonizing Mars closer to reality. Private companies such as SpaceX and government agencies like NASA are investing heavily in making human missions to the Red Planet possible within the next few decades. This raises a profound and practical question: should we focus on colonizing Mars, or should we dedicate our efforts into fixing Earth first? The case for colonizing Mars A powerful argument in favor of colonizing Mars is the survival of the human species. At present, humanity depends entirely on Earth. This makes us vulnerable to large scale disasters, whether natural or man-made. A catastrophic asteroid impact, for example, has happened before; scientists from the University of California have pointed out that one such collision led to the wipeout of 75% of the Earth’s population, including the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Other risks, such as nuclear war or climate collapse remain serious concerns. If humanity had a self-sustaining colony on Mars, we would have a backup plan for the survival of our species. Mars colonization could also drive innovation. Historically, explorations and ambitious projects have sparked major technological progress. Space historian and author Andrew Chaiken said that the Apollo missions of the 1960s, for instance, “accelerated advances in computing, materials science, and telecommunications that later shaped everyday life for the average citizen”. Similarly, the effort to build a sustainable colony on Mars would demand breakthroughs in renewable energy, water recycling, advanced food production, and radiation protection. These innovations could then be adapted to solve problems here on Earth. Finally, colonizing Mars appeals to a deeper human instinct: the desire to explore. Throughout history, humans have crossed oceans, climbed mountains, and reached for the skies. Exploration is a part of our identity. As Astronomer Carl Sagan famously wrote,” The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean”. Mars represents the next great frontier, and reaching it could inspire generations to dream bigger. The Case for Fixing Earth First Despite these promises, there are equally strong reasons to focus on Earth before colonizing Mars. The first and most obvious issue is cost. Estimates suggest that building a permanent Mars settlement would require trillions of dollars. Critics argue that these resources would be better spent on urgent global problems: reducing poverty, protecting biodiversity, developing clean energy, and ensuring universal access to food and healthcare. According to the World Bank, more than 800 million people are living in extreme poverty in 2025. From this perspective, funding space colonization while ignoring human suffering seems ethically questionable. Another concern is responsibility. Humanity’s crises are not caused by a lack of resources but because of how we use them. Overconsumption, pollution, and inequality are human-made problems. If we have not learned how to live sustainably on Earth, why should we expect to do better on Mars? Colonization could simply repeat the same mistakes we have made on Earth but in a harsher environment. Critics argue that our priority should be to develop sustainable practices here before expanding outwards. Practicality is also a major challenge. According to NASA,  Mars is an extremely hostile planet. It has an atmosphere that is 100 times thinner than Earth’s and made mostly of carbon dioxide,  it has no liquid water on the surface, extreme cold, and constant radiation. Even with advanced technology, life there would be fragile and dependent on artificial systems. Meanwhile, Earth already provides air, water, fertile soil, and thriving ecosystems. Focusing on restoring and protecting our planet is not only more ethical but also far more realistic than trying to make Mars a second Earth. A Balanced Approach Framing this issue as a strict choice between Mars and Earth may be misleading. The most reasonable approach is a balance between exploration and responsibility. Mars colonization should not replace efforts to fix Earth but can instead work alongside them. In fact, progress in space exploration may help us address problems at home. Rubert Zubrin, an advocate for human exploration on Mars said that technologies designed for Mars, such as closed-loop water recycling, renewable power systems, and vertical farming, could directly improve life on Earth. In the long run, these solutions might even prove essential for coping with climate change and population growth. At the same time, the pursuit of Mars exploration can strengthen our awareness of Earth’s fragility. Many astronauts describe the “overview effect, ” the profound sense of responsibility that they feel when seeing Earth from space as a small, fragile blue sphere. Colonizing Mars might deepen this awareness, reminding us that Earth is uniquely suited for human life and worth protecting at all costs. Conclusion The question of whether humans should colonize Mars or focus on fixing Earth first does not have a simple answer. Colonizing Mars offers the promise for survival, technological innovation, and inspiration, but risks training resources from urgent needs here at home. Focusing only on Earth, however, could leave us unprepared for the long-term survival of the human species. The most responsible path forward is to produce a balanced approach: investing in Mars exploration as a bold vision to the future while dedicating even greater energy to solving Earth’s immediate crisis. Earth is our only true home, rich with air, water, and life. Caring for it must remain our priority. At the same time, reaching for Mars can push humanity to grow, to innovate, and to dream beyond the limits of our planet. In the end, the effort to save Earth and the effort to colonize Mars are not opposites but complementary parts for the same story: humanity’s struggle to survive, to adapt, and to find its place in the universe.

Humans are creatures that have received special treatment since the beginning. We are the dregs of the earth that are given life and freedom to choose the direction of our lives compared to other creations. Since the beginning, freedom and humans are two things that are closely related, cannot be separated and separated. The Creator breathed half of His breath, half of His appearance, and half of His intelligence and wisdom into humans to become His 'representatives' in this world. This may be what makes other creations, plants and animals see humans as someone who has a different aura of presence that makes them submit, although sometimes there is resistance as part of the instinct to survive and defend themselves, but in the end they will submit and become under the control of human domination. Some entrust their lives and devote their entire lives to serving humans as their 'gods'. Having the mandate to control, preserve, and strive for life in the world makes humans have more privileges to move and act. This is what then becomes the basis for thinking about freedom. But the idea of ​​freedom cannot possibly emerge in a state that is basically free. It could be that the idea of ​​freedom actually emerges from a state of being confined, confined, under pressure and feeling imprisoned figuratively in a play on words and thoughts. Humans feel confined because of the rules of the Creator who, in addition to giving freedom, also sets small but absolute rules in the freedom given to humans. In Eden, or the Garden of Eden, humans were given the freedom to do anything, eat anything, it sounds like absolute freedom, but with one absolute rule, namely not being allowed to eat fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. The earliest humans who were free paved the way for more freedom which then became an endless search with different and artificial goals to obtain freedom. The search for freedom in the history of civilization has been rolling for a very long time, starting from the turmoil in the mind to the turmoil between physical, strategy in war with fellow humans who are the same as humans but different in physical criteria, ideology, beliefs, territory and various aspects that are sought as reasons to attack under the pretext of fighting for freedom. Freedom of will is a guide for humans to carry out their will in civilization. Human choices to make choices according to the will they want then make life more varied. Because the life of civilization is a variation of the diverse choices of the will of many humans who live and die as long as this planet rotates. Various freedoms of will meet, synchronize, confront each other to form the flow of civilization. Every human being is equipped with the power of freedom of will given by the Creator, making humans free to realize what they want to do. This is what then popularized the phrase "you can do whatever you want. You can be whatever you want" which is very much based on freedom of will. This power of giving creates dynamics in life. Freedom of will is not only in the form of free choice to do whatever one wants or do as one pleases. Freedom of will also forms free will to create rules and norms that regulate freedom of will. The various rules that are created are based on the free will of the rule maker. The free will to make rules first came from the Great Creator, who then gave half of this power to humans (perhaps animals also have it, as can be seen and observed from the existence of a hierarchy in several groups of animal species). The free will to make these rules then descends to some humans who have the authority to make rules. In making these rules, it can also be divided between rules made for oneself in the form of personal rules (individual rules) and rules made to regulate a group of people. Personal rules are more abstract and vary depending on each individual. Rules for society are binding and coercive in the form of legal rules and community norms, which if not followed can be subject to criminal law sanctions and social law sanctions. Personal rules have sanctions known as consequences. These consequences can be things that are detrimental to oneself in various forms that have physical and psychological consequences, and can also have a wider impact that has an impact on the lives of society. One form of rule created because of the freedom of will possessed by humans or a group of humans, which must be followed by a million people is religion. Religion is a form of freedom of will possessed by humans as a form of freedom of will from humans to translate the task of God's call to attract as many humans as possible to follow a certain belief system with the guarantee of salvation and eternal life. God the Creator of the Universe has given the mandate and power of freedom of will for humans to create a container to organize fellow humans who believe and have faith. Although it is not new that philosophical reflection writings consider religion, spiritual things and God to be the opposite of free will, but if seen from another perspective, religion is actually one of the valid forms of free will that humans have to freely create and regulate other humans with a solid and lasting foundation of rules (even until the end of the world. The last day, judgment). Free will is not only about being free to do anything worldly, capitalist consumerism, and the pursuit of false pleasure with miserable consequences. Free will can also be interpreted as the free will to choose to devote one's life to serving and believing in and living life according to the commands of religion and the Supreme Being who is believed in and believed in. Life is a collection of choices that are freely chosen based on free will. The choice to believe by having a religion, or choosing to believe in life without having a religion, is a free will that is freely chosen by every human being. We are all given this power by the Creator. The freedom of will to make choices as freely as possible will meet and clash with the freedom of will to make choices as long as it follows the applicable rules, laws, and norms. These two models are the same but not the same. It's like there are two sheets of white canvas, one blank white canvas, and the other blank white canvas but with a border. On both canvases, you are given the freedom to do anything to the canvas, you can draw, paint, tear, spit on, throw dirt, anything. On canvas one can do everything freely, but on canvas two you can do anything as long as you don't cross the border. Human life goes on like these two canvases. The border is the rule of law, the rules of society, the rules of religion that are collectively binding on the wider community, which even the type of human who claims to be the freest without rules will follow depending on where they are. This boundary is created by free will to freely determine the boundaries in life, which is then called the attitude of humanity. This attitude is another basis for human civilization, something that makes wars can experience ceasefires, wars can stop, humans have limits not to kill each other too much and too often, there is an attitude of respect and loyalty, there is time to enjoy togetherness and enjoy solitude, and various human attitudes that are considered good and approved by the majority of humans. Freedom of will by adding humanitarian values ​​is a valid combination that does not interfere with other humans. In humanity there is love, sympathy, empathy, good values ​​that maintain freedom of will to have direction and purpose. This boundary in religion is humanity as the implementation of faith in God that is believed, which is implied in religious commands, advice and prohibitions of God in the holy books of each religion, which makes religious adherents, believers can live their lives freely and directed towards the right path according to their faith. There is no confinement or feeling of being locked up in a religious prison if faith is carried out with love and sincerity without selflessness. For those who choose not to believe and not to follow religion (also a form of free will), their boundary is humanity with values ​​inspired by the many views on humanity itself that come from many thinkers in various religious beliefs and various views on life that are chosen according to their free will. Freedom of will is a gift from the Creator given to humans as His 'representatives' on earth. As creatures who have the power to do this, humans have the freedom of will to determine what they want to be, what they want to do, what they want to follow, and what they want to avoid. As long as life is still in the body, breath is still blowing, freedom of will will always be a power expressed in the history of human civilization. It is better if this freedom of will embraces humanity so that this different and diverse life becomes beautiful, different, but not destructive and sustainable without creating barbarity that disturbs fellow humans and other creations.

Introduksi Pada era globalisasi yang terdorong oleh proses digitalisasi, kita mungkin sering mendengar tentang pernyataan banyak orang bahwa untuk bisa mensyukuri nikmat ataupun menikmati kehidupan, kita harus mencari makna atau hikmah dari segala yang kita alami. Pernyataan-pernyataan semacam itu muncul karena selama ini kita hanya melakukan dan mengkonsumsi narasi informasi secara repetitif, untuk menghilangkan rasa kejenuhan yang selama ini kita rasakan dalam kehidupan. Setiap hari kita selalu mengkonsumsi informasi yang bertebaran di realitas virtual maupun realita yang nyata, sehingga terlalu banyak yang perlu kita maknai dan terlalu luas untuk otak kita yang terbatas. Semua menumpuk begitu saja, sehingga pengalaman dan kejadian hanya menjadi tumpukan berkas-berkas yang tidak terbaca. Konsumsi narasi informasi yang terus menerus berulang membuat sebagian orang banal terhadap informasi tersebut. Ketika seseorang melakukan sesuatu secara repetitif atau berulang-ulang maka lama-kelamaan akan menjadi bosan atau dengan kata lain esensi dari tindakan dan perkataan menjadi hilang. Saya menganalogikannya seperti ada orang yang suka dengan misalnya mie ayam. jika dia makan mie ayam dalam setahun penuh alias 365 hari secara berturut-turut tanpa henti maka orang tersebut pasti akan bosan dan beralih pada hal yang lain. Maka dari itu manusia akan terus menerus berubah-ubah. Bisa jadi individu yang awalnya suka mie ayam menjadi suka nasi padang, yang awalnya religius menjadi orang yang membangkang aturan-aturan agama. Karena didorong oleh sebuah perasaan dimana manusia harus menemukan cara untuk mendapatkan kepuasan yang baru dan menghindari kehilangan makna dari kehidupan itu sendiri. Karena manusia adalah makhluk yang dinamis. Dalam tulisan ini kita akan menelusuri bagaimana manusia dapat kehilangan makna akibat konsumsi informasi yang berlebihan, dilihat dari berbagai sudut pandang—mulai dari ekonomi, filsafat, hingga ranah religiusitas dan identitas budaya. Melalui perspektif-perspektif tersebut, kita dapat memahami bahwa manusia bukanlah mesin yang bisa diprogram untuk melakukan sesuatu secara berulang tanpa henti; manusia adalah makhluk dinamis yang senantiasa mencari kebebasan atas kehendaknya sendiri. Bahkan di bawah ancaman dan tekanan yang paling keji sekalipun, manusia tetap berusaha mendobrak jeruji yang membatasi kehidupannya, demi menghadirkan warna-warna baru dalam pengalaman hidupnya. Kehidupan, dengan demikian, tidak pernah sederhana hanya berupa hitam dan putih, baik dan jahat, cantik dan buruk. Ia selalu bergerak dalam dinamika yang terus berlangsung, baik disadari maupun tidak. 1. Matinya empati dan hilangnya esensi akibat konsumsi berlebih narasi. Pada sudut pandang teori ekonomi dari seorang ekonom yang bernama Hermann Heinrich Gossen dalam karyanya yang berjudul The Development of the Laws of Human Intercourse and the Consequent Rules of Human Action (1854) dalam Hukum Gossen I, ia menyatakan: "The amount of pleasure decreases with every increase in the quantity of the good consumed in a given time." Artinya: "Kepuasan yang diperoleh dari konsumsi suatu barang akan menurun dengan setiap tambahan unit yang dikonsumsi dalam waktu tertentu." Ketika narasi dijadikan objek konsumsi yang berulang-ulang, seperti halnya makanan atau hiburan, maka efek emosionalnya akan melemah. Satu narasi memilukan bisa mengguncang hati. Tapi seratus cerita serupa, dalam satu jam, justru membuat kita merasa banal. Konsumsi yang semula dimaksudkan untuk memperluas perspektif dan memperkuat kepedulian malah berubah menjadi aktivitas pasif yang memperlemah daya resap dan penghayatan. Konsep ini dinamakan diminishing marginal utility, di mana bukan hanya kenikmatan yang menurun, melainkan makna dari narasi juga ikut tergerus. Sama halnya dengan yang ditulis oleh Neil Postman dalam bukunya yang berjudul Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Technopoly adalah sebuah keadaan budaya, kondisi pikiran dan pendewaan terhadap teknologi, yang berarti budaya mencari otorisasi terhadap teknologi dan menerima tatanannya dari teknologi. Teknologi mendokrak pasokan (supply) informasi. Ketika supply informasi meningkat, mekanisme kendali informasi menegang. Dan ketika pasokan informasi tidak dapat lagi dikendalikan ketenangan psikis dan tujuan sosial pun mulai tergerus. Tanpa pertahanan (kendali informasi), orang tidak memiliki cara menemukan makna dalam pengalaman mereka (Neil Postman, hlm 99-100). Postman menganalogikannya dengan pertumbuhan sel. Tentu saja pertumbuhan sel adalah proses yang normal. Namun tanpa adanya sistem pertahanan yang yang baik, maka suatu organisme tidak mampu mengelola pertumbuhan sel yang lama-kelamaan akan berubah menjadi sel yang membahayakan yaitu sel kanker (Neil Postman hlm 101). Ketika informasi tumbuh liar tanpa kendali, bukan hanya tubuh sosial yang terganggu, melainkan juga makna narasi itu sendiri. Bisa jadi Baudrillard ia menunjukkan bahwa yang kita konsumsi hari ini bukan lagi narasi informasi, melainkan tanda , simulacra yang menjauhkan kita dari realitas . Menurut Eno dalam bukunya yang berjudul Bagaimana Media Sosial Menghancurkanmu  dia menulis “informasi adalah sesuatu yang diperoleh berdasarkan investigasi, studi, atau instruksi, selain itu membutuhkan kecerdasan, fakta, data dan pemberitaan”. Sedangkan tanda istilah yang digunakan oleh filsuf postmodern Jean Baudrillard dalam bukunya yang berjudul Simulacra and Simulation. Tanda bukanlah realitas sesungguhnya melainkan realitas pseudo, dimana objek itu memiliki makna lain di luar dirinya yang merepresentasikan imajinasi atas objek tertentu (Eno, hlm 10). Dengan kata lain tanda  menurut Saussure adalah objek tidak memiliki makna absolut. Ketika apa yang disebut tanda dikonsumsi secara kolektif maka proses yang kemudian terjadi adalah simulasi. Manusia mulai membentuk realitas pseudonya dan menganggapnya suatu hal yang benar, padahal belum tentu apa yang diintepretasikan adalah kebenaran. Fenomena ini biasa disebut dengan istilah post-truth. Post-truth merupakan kondisi di mana fakta objektif kurang berpengaruh dalam membentuk opini publik dibandingkan dengan daya tarik emosi dan keyakinan pribadi (Lee Mcintyre: Post-Truth, 2018, hlm 5). Istilah ini hampir sama dengan istilah yang digunakan oleh Baudrillard yaitu simulacrum. Hal tersebut dapat kita lihat salah satunya melalui fenomena yang ada di media sosial. Seperti dalam lagu The Winner Takes It All yang dinyanyikan oleh ABBA. Makna dari lagu tersebut seharusnya menceritakan orang yang kehilangan harapan, impian dan angan-angannya karena direnggut oleh orang yang menjadi pemenang. Namun saat ini lagu tersebut digunakan untuk mengglorifikasi atau merayakan kemenangan, hanya karena nada lagunya yang seolah merepresentasikan perjuangan. Sehingga lagu tersebut telah kehilangan makna esensinya. Meskipun tidak semua orang melakukan kesalahan dalam memaknai objek, tapi jika hal ini terus menerus dibiarkan maka lama-kelamaan kesalahan ini akan dianggap menjadi satu hal yang biasa. Atau dengan kata lain orang-orang akan menormalisasikan kesalahan tersebut. Kita yang sekarang hidup di era teknologi yang menawarkan kebebasan dalam bersuara di media sosial telah menyaksikan sendiri bahwa satu objek dapat dimaknai atau diinterpretasikan oleh banyak orang. Ketika semua orang dengan bebas memaknai objek yang mereka konsumsi pada akhirnya hal tersebut akan membuat objek itu perlahan-lahan akan kehilangan makna aslinya. Saya mengutip perkataan dari salah satu karakter dalam seri komik/anime Orb: On the Movements of the Earth yang mengatakan "Menulis merupakan tanggung jawab besar, jika semua orang bisa menulis maka seluruh dunia akan dipenuhi informasi tidak berguna". ~Badeni (Orb) 2. Hilangnya esensi dari ritus rohani  Di era banjirnya informasi, narasi-narasi tentang keagamaan bagaikan ribuan anak panah diluncurkan dari busurnya tapi tidak satupun yang mengenai targetnya. Seolah target tersebut telah dikunci dan ditutup rapat-rapat oleh Sang Penguasa sehingga Dia tidak membiarkan satu anak panahpun masuk ke dalam hati hambanya. Seperti ketika khutbah Jum'at dikumandangkan, kebanyakan jama'ah yang seharusnya wajib mendengarkan khutbah malah terlelap tidur. Sholawat untuk Nabi tercinta hanya digaungkan secara lantang, tapi tidak "dihidupkan" sehingga kehadirannya tidak kita rasakan. Banyak sekali saat ini ritual-ritual keagamaan hanya dilakukan oleh raga tapi jiwanya mati membusuk terdiam dalam kehampaan. Kebanyakan orang akan beribadah karena ingin mencapai kebahagiaan duniawi semata, meskipun dalam hal ini kita tidak bisa mengadili perilaku orang lain secara langsung akan tetapi jika dibiarkan ketika orang tersebut telah mendapatkan segala hal yang ia inginkan di dunia. Maka saya akan yakin bahwa orang tersebut akan melupakan Tuhannya, karena ibadahnya selama ini hanya berdasarkan nafsu dunia. Hal yang dikhawatirkan adalah jika matinya narasi-narasi tentang humanisme yang diakibatkan oleh nihilisme kolektif. Jika informasi/narasi tentang pelanggaran terhadap HAM sudah dianggap suatu hal yang banal maka akan ada banyak orang yang kehilangan sisi kemanusiaannya. Selayaknya era-era peperangan yang menganggap bahwa suatu kerajaan berhak menyerang kerajaan yang lain atas dasar keinginan pemimpinnya untuk menguasai wilayah kerajaan asing, atau seperti suku-suku pedalaman yang masih sering terlibat konflik antar suku yang menganggap membunuh orang selain dari anggota sukunya itu diperbolehkan. Kita tidak dapat menyangkal bahwa manusia selain memiliki sisi yang baik, manusia juga memiliki sisi yang buruk. Namun sisi yang buruk saat ini seringkali dilampiaskan bukan dengan membunuh orang lain melainkan dengan melakukan atau menonton olahraga ekstrem yang menghasilkan hormon adrenalin. Nihilisme yang dialami secara kolektif dikhawatirkan akan menghilangkan rasa empati. Alih-alih memikirkan nasib orang lain, manusia akan lebih mementingkan keinginan pribadinya. Seperti yang dilakukan oleh rezim zionis Israel yang menyerang Palestina. Untungnya saja masih banyak orang yang memiliki rasa empati terhadap kemanusiaan, namun seringkali diantara mereka yang membela Palestina memiliki standar ganda. Seperti pada konflik antara teroris Houthi dengan pemerintahan Yaman yang mana dalam konflik tersebut Arab Saudi dan UEA ikut terlibat atas penyerangan terhadap teroris Houthi yang mengakibatkan jatuhnya ribuan nyawa korban dari warga sipil. Namun dalam konflik tersebut hampir tidak ada respon apapun atau bahkan tidak dihiraukan oleh netizen pengguna media sosial terhadap penyerangan yang dilakukan oleh Arab Saudi dan UAE di Yaman. Standar ganda dalam empati tidak hanya terlihat pada konflik global, seperti tragedi di Yaman yang luput dari perhatian publik, tetapi juga merembes ke ranah identitas personal seperti golongan transpuan maupun orang-orang yang memiliki penyimpangan seksual alias LGBT. Banyak diantara kita yang menghakimi atau menuntut atau bahkan mengutuk kaum LGBT ini karena narasi-narasi dari agama-agama yang kita imani. Tanpa memikirkan alasan rasional dibalik kebencian kita terhadap kaum LGBT ini. Jika spiritualitas bisa kehilangan esensinya, maka budaya pun menghadapi nasib serupa. 3. Globalisasi dan Hilangnya Identitas Diri Globalisasi telah menghapus pembatas baik jarak maupun batas negara. Setiap dari negara memiliki ciri khas budaya, nilai dan normanya masing-masing, namun sekarang semuanya telah berubah. Dulu ketika kita masih memberlakukan standar nilai dan norma masyarakat sekitar, tapi di dalam sosial media nilai-nilai dan norma tersebut tergerus dengan standar norma masyarakat multinasional. Seperti halnya di Indonesia yang melarang unggahan berbau pornografi, tapi di sosial media yang aturannya diatur oleh orang memiliki standar norma yang berbeda maka norma kita menghilang dan tak lagi diterapkan di dalam realita maya tersebut. Sama halnya dengan budaya yang seharusnya kita jaga kelestariannya, tapi globalisasi akan terus-menerus mengikis budaya nenek moyang yang seharusnya menjadi identitas kita sebagai sebuah bangsa. Realita terdistorsi dengan "kehidupan" dunia maya. Itulah yang terjadi dalam kehidupan manusia saat ini. Tak mengenal di negara manapun manusia itu hidup, juga mengalami hal yang serupa. Seperti dalam buku Kita & Mereka karya Agustinus Wibowo menceritakan masyarakat suku pedalaman yang terpapar oleh internet tak lagi menerapkan budaya standar kecantikan yang telah nenek moyang mereka terapkan. Cara hidup, nilai, norma dan budaya manusia yang dulu heterogen berubah menjadi budaya yang homogen. Budaya tak lagi dikenal sebagai identitas melainkan hanya sebagai daya tarik pariwisata. Tujuan pelestariannya tak lagi didasarkan pada ajaran filosofis nenek moyang melainkan hanya dijadikan objek material yang dapat dikomersilkan. Sehingga budaya-budaya tersebut kehilangan nilai esensinya.  Jika sudah menyangkut dengan kebudayaan maka akan sangat berkaitan erat dengan gaya hidup masyarakat. Masyarakat di era ini tak lagi memikirkan makna dalam hidup mereka. Mereka hanya memikirkan kebahagiaan sebagai tujuan utama dalam kehidupan atau biasa disebut dengan istilah hedonisme. Mencari pekerjaan tidak lagi berdasarkan esensinya melainkan juga dijadikan ajang validasi ataupun ketenaran. Semua didasarkan pada pemikiran materialisme karena segala ranah kehidupan kita dibalut oleh jerat kapitalisme. Ketika seseorang tidak mendapat apa yang dia inginkan maka dia akan merasa kehilangan makna hidupnya. Karena semua itu dilakukan bukan berdasarkan pada esensinya tapi untuk mendapatkan validasi dari orang-orang disekitar dan di realita maya (sosial medianya). Setiap kebahagiaan yang ia dapatkan tak akan lupa untuk diunggah di sosial media. Seolah-olah jika dia tidak mengunggahnya maka menganggap eksistensi dirinya tidak ada. Meskipun sebagian beralasan bahwa hal tersebut adalah bentuk kebanggaannya terhadap apa yang ia capai, namun dalam lubuk hatinya ia hanya ingin memuaskan nafsu epithumia atau hasrat mendapatkan kehormatan. Keangkuhan berawal dari rasa kebanggaan yang berubah menjadi kesombongan. Sombong berawal dari sifat bangga yang berlebihan sehingga melahirkan sifat keegoisan. Kesimpulan Hilangnya makna dari eksistensi di era banjir informasi memperlihatkan paradoks kehidupan manusia modern. Di satu sisi, manusia diberi akses tanpa batas terhadap narasi, simbol, dan ritual; namun di sisi lain, kelimpahan tersebut justru melemahkan daya resap, mengikis empati, serta mereduksi esensi menjadi sekadar repetisi. Teori Gossen tentang penurunan kepuasan, kritik Neil Postman atas dominasi teknologi, hingga gagasan Baudrillard tentang simulacra menunjukkan bahwa makna kini lebih sering tergantikan oleh tanda semu dan validasi sosial. Fenomena ini tidak hanya memengaruhi aspek kultural dan sosial, tetapi juga religiusitas, di mana ritus keagamaan kerap kehilangan roh spiritualnya. Globalisasi dan kapitalisme semakin menambah lapisan masalah dengan menyeragamkan budaya, menjadikan identitas hanya sebagai komoditas pariwisata atau ajang pencitraan. Akibatnya, manusia kerap terjebak dalam nihilisme kolektif yang mengaburkan orientasi hidup. Namun demikian, sebagai makhluk dinamis, manusia tetap memiliki peluang untuk merebut kembali otentisitas eksistensinya. Kesadaran kritis terhadap bahaya konsumsi berlebih, banalitas narasi, dan distorsi makna menjadi langkah awal untuk menjaga ruang refleksi personal. Dengan demikian, tantangan utama di era ini bukan sekadar bagaimana manusia mencari makna, melainkan bagaimana ia mampu mempertahankan esensi di tengah arus informasi yang tiada henti. Akhir kata saya ingin menegaskan bahwa “Makna itu rapuh. Ia bisa hilang dalam repetisi. Ia bisa tenggelam dalam banjir informasi”

The world is not a level playing field. It is a pyramid—grand, towering, and merciless. At its peak sit the core nations, dictating global trade, finance, and technology. At its base lie the peripheries, where resources are dug and workers labor for wages that barely sustain them. And in between, suspended in ambiguity, stand the semi-peripheries: restless, aspiring, yet tethered to the same structures that hold them down. Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-System Theory  remains one of the most compelling frameworks for reading this inequality. As Sorinel (2010) notes, the system was never designed for balance; it was designed for extraction. The prosperity of the core, as Roberts & Parks (2009) argue, rests on “ecologically unequal exchange”—a cycle where the environment and labor of the periphery subsidize the lifestyles of the wealthy. When we apply this lens to Indonesia, the reflection is unmistakable. We are not periphery, but neither are we core. We are semi-periphery: growing, aspiring, yet always dependent (Jacob, 2023). The Illusion of Ascent: Morowali and the Nickel Dream Consider Morowali, the epicenter of Indonesia’s nickel boom. In 2020, the government banned raw nickel exports, forcing foreign industries to build smelters domestically. Analysts saw this as Indonesia’s attempt to disrupt the global order (Tritto, 2023). At first glance, this was a bold step—a refusal to remain a mere supplier of cheap ore. Yet the reality is more sobering. Chinese companies dominate the capital flows, environmental damage intensifies, and workers remain underpaid (Ginting & Moore, 2021). The structure of dependency remains intact, even if the form looks new. Our climb did not dismantle the pyramid; it merely shifted our place upon it. The Fragile Prosperity of the New Order History deepens this paradox. Under Suharto’s New Order, Indonesia experienced rapid growth, celebrated as part of Asia’s economic rise (Gupta, 2021). But this prosperity was fragile, built not on equality, but on cronyism and political patronage. As Kochanova et al. (2018) show, competition was curtailed by favoritism, and wealth accumulated in the hands of those closest to power. The Asian Financial Crisis of 1998 exposed the weakness of this model. Growth collapsed, capital fled, and inequality deepened (Juwono, 2017). The semi-peripheral foundation crumbled—neither strong enough to be core, nor resilient enough to withstand shocks. Between Diagnosis and Possibility Wallerstein’s framework illuminates this history, but Indonesia’s story also complicates it. We are not only victims. At times, we resist—as in the nickel policy. Yet too often, we replicate the system’s injustices within our borders. As Ariani et al. (2022) argue, industrial policy in Indonesia continues to be shaped by external pressure and internal inequality. This reveals the deeper dilemma: to aspire to the core risks becoming an oppressor; to remain semi-periphery is to remain suspended. The challenge is not merely analytical, but moral. Imagining Another Horizon What might a different horizon look like? Wallerstein himself left the question open (Chirot, 2015). Perhaps it begins with solidarity among semi-peripheral nations, who choose not to compete as suppliers, but to cooperate as equals. Perhaps it means redefining progress itself—not as GDP growth, but as the capacity to sustain dignity, justice, and ecological balance. Indonesia’s nickel experiment shows both possibility and peril. It is a glimpse of agency, but also a warning that without structural change, we risk reinforcing the very hierarchy we wish to escape. The question, then, is not whether Indonesia will one day be “core.” The question is whether we dare to reject the pyramid itself—and begin to build a world where prosperity is no longer purchased at the cost of exploitation. Because if we cannot imagine beyond the pyramid, we will remain trapped within it: climbers forever ascending, never questioning why the pyramid must stand at all.

Greek mythology is often seen as nothing more than old tales of gods and goddesses, far removed from our lives. Yet the story of Eros and Psyche is the opposite, it mirrors the journey of the modern humans. Behind this love story lies profound questions about the soul, love, trust, knowledge, and suffering. Psyche: the Restless Soul Psyche  means soul.  From the beginning, she is described as so beautiful that people worship her instead of Aphrodite. But beauty becomes her burden. She is admired yet isolated; no one dares approach her. Psyche stands in the middle of admiration and loneliness, just as our own souls do. Plato believed the human soul is always thirsty for true beauty, a longing that no mortal world can satisfy. Psyche becomes an allegory for this search: a restless soul wandering between divine longing and earthly desire. Her beauty is not only physical, it represents the human yearning for transcendence that the world both desires and resents. Eros: Love That Hurts and Heals Eros, the god of love, is not merely a good-looking young man with wings. He symbolizes a force that can hurt and heal. His arrows make mortals madly in love, yet he himself is trapped by his love for Psyche. In the Symposium , Plato wrote that eros  is the impulse that draws the soul toward higher beauty and goodness. Love is not only desire but also transformation of the soul. The meeting of Eros and Psyche is the meeting of love and soul. Something we all long for. The Hidden Face of Love: Between Curiosity and Faith Psyche’s happiness in the enchanted palace came with one rule: she could never see Eros’s face. But curiosity grew stronger than obedience. One night she lit the lamp, and in that moment, happiness vanished. This scene shows the human dilemma: do we choose trust, or do we want to know everything? Like Adam and Eve tasting the forbidden fruit, or Pandora opening the box, Psyche could not resist curiosity. We also often mirror this in our modern lives, stalking partners on social media, seeking certainty that eventually destroys trust. As Michel Foucault reminds us, “knowledge is always linked with power.” Curiosity is never neutral. It can liberate, but also collapse. Psyche’s curiosity was not innocent. It was a will to control, to make love predictable, visible, and safe. But love resists such power. The moment we dissect it, we risk killing its mystery. In love, as in philosophy, some truths can only be sensed, not to be known. Aphrodite’s Trials: How Suffering Shapes the Soul Aphrodite punished Psyche with four impossible tasks: sorting countless grains, gathering golden wool, drawing water from a deadly river, and descending into the underworld. These tasks are symbols of suffering that every soul must endure. Albert Camus wrote that life is absurd, yet humans find meaning by embracing that absurdity. Like Sisyphus pushing his rock, Psyche discovers herself through pain. Her suffering is not punishment, it is the revolt against despair. In enduring what cannot be understood, Psyche becomes free. She accepts the absurd, and through that acceptance, she discovers freedom, and in freedom, she rediscovers love. The Box of Death: Human Ambition and Limits In her final trial, Psyche opened the box from Persephone, hoping to gain eternal beauty—and instead, she fell into an eternal sleep. It shows that human ambition is always desiring more, always crossing limits.This moment is not only about curiosity, it is about the human desire to be loved through perfection. In our modern world, the same temptation persists. We open new “boxes” every day, scrolling through flawless images on social media, chasing validation through likes, filters, and beauty standards designed by consumerism. We are told that to be loved, we must first be beautiful; that to be worthy, we must be admired. Psyche’s longing for divine beauty mirrors our own exhaustion in trying to earn love through appearance. Albert Camus reminds us that the human condition is defined by the search for meaning in an indifferent world. Perhaps the truest rebellion is to love and be loved imperfectly. To find beauty not in control, but in vulnerability. Philosophy has long warned us about limits. From Greek tragedy to modern existentialism, we are reminded that excessive desire can destroy us. Reconciliation: Soul, Love, and the Birth of Joy At last, Eros returned to save Psyche. After Eros begged zeus, Psyche was granted immortality. From their union, they were blessed with a child named Voluptas, commonly known as Hedone, which means pleasure, happiness, and ecstasy. This is the peak of the allegory: love and soul must pass through suffering and betrayal before uniting in maturity. From that union, true joy is born. In today's world, this reconciliation feels rare. Relationships are often fractured by ego, speed, and distraction. We swipe through faces seeking commitment yet fear vulnerability. The immortality of Psyche reminds us that eternal happiness is not found in perfection or possession, but in the quiet reconciliation of two imperfect beings who choose to grow together. Love Must be Blind? Rethinking Psyche’s Sin In Albert Camus’s view, life often feels absurd. We keep searching for meaning in a world that doesn’t always give us answers. The myth of Psyche and Eros reflects this. When Psyche is forbidden to look at Eros, it’s like being told not to seek the truth. But her curiosity wins. She looked and she lost him. At first, this seems like punishment. But maybe it’s something else. Maybe Psyche’s act of looking is her way of saying ”I want to know the truth, even if it hurts”. In that sense, love becomes rebellion. A desire to see clearly, not to stay blind for the sake of comfort. Therefore, Psyche’s decision to look upon Eros was not a sin. It was her first act of consciousness. In our world today, this moment happens all the time. When people choose to see their partners for who they really are. Not just the idealized image. Love becomes more honest, though sometimes more painful. Camus would say that Psyche, by daring to see, steps into the absurd. But she also becomes free. Love isn’t about blind faith; it’s about choosing to see and still stay. Maybe the real tragedy isn’t losing love, but never daring to see  it.

Frithjof Schuon was a Swiss comparative religion philosopher, regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of comparative religious studies. He was part of a movement called traditionalism, famously known as perennial philosophy, alongside other important figures like René Guénon and Aldous Huxley. This movement aims to counteract the rising crisis of modernity by reviving traditional wisdom and striving to reach truth across different cultural, religious, and spiritual backgrounds. This article attempts to uncover timeless wisdom, revealing how modernity sees religion as inherently outdated, restricting, and dogmatic, and then gives a broader point of view of different dimensions of spirituality rooted in tradition. The Secular Age and The Question of Relevance The secular age and the paradigm of modernity suggest that every question of life’s coherence could be solved purely by rational and empirical thinking, that humans are indeed capable of solving big questions, be it the universe, consciousness, or even meaning. People are inherently in thirst of understanding and reaching the ultimate and absolute truth. In a post-truth world, where people deliberately inquire about hard problems and engage in many topics at hand, debating theoretical and empirical perspectives on their own set of schools of thought and their respective truths. The problem with this paradigm of constant questioning and theoretical battlefield is that many thinkers in the past have warned of the very limits of human capacity in reasoning; with that in mind, empirical understanding could also only get us so far to tackle hard problems like consciousness, morality, or reality itself. Many perspectives have arisen to offer solutions, but with the many propagated facets of truths, the dangers of this are to succumb to nihilism and existential despair, where meanings become hollow and truth becomes less and less a coherent narrative in the intellectual world. One must think outside of reason to make sense of forms beyond what is reachable, and that is why metaphysics is an important topic to inquire about life's hard problems. Frithjof Schuon says that a purely intellectual knowledge is by definition beyond the reach of the individual, being in its essence supraindividual, universal, or divine. That is to say, according to Schuon, a pure intellect is not of human agency alone but of something beyond that which directly takes part in the conscious mind. Schuon and The Perennial Philosophy Perennial traditionalism leans towards an underlying objective and universal truth across traditions and cultures in religion. Schuon suggests that there is such a thing as sophia perennis intrinsically meaning, that at the heart of major religions lies the unity of transcendence, a non-dual reality, and ultimately the primordial essence of truth. Schuon argues that beneath the dogmatic structures of the exoteric aspect of religions, there is an esoteric aspect of it that is multidimensional yet universal.   In his work The Transcendent Unity of Religions, he implies that reason alone cannot suffice for the understanding of reality. Furthermore, the important distinction of the intellectual and the intelligible knowledge, namely, knowledge that arrives from divinity, apropos God’s knowledge through the intellect, is entirely not of human reason alone. He further distinguishes the different realities of the esoteric and exoteric dimensions of religion.   Knowledge of esoterism is derived from an ontologically one and ultimate divine source, while exoterism is an attempt to translate the very esoteric reality of objective truth. He narrowly explains further that the exoteric dimension in different religious doctrines attempts to rationalize revelation and thus is ultimately limited. The biggest difference between theological understanding and metaphysical understanding can be applied to this duality.  The Problem of Form Without Spirit and Spirit Without Form Because dogmas are attempts to make revelations intelligible, orthodoxy in every religious teaching is then used as a way to rationalize the generalities of universal truth. Though in turn, reason alone cannot formulate these generalities. Dogmas in religions suggest that these very limited aspects of the exoteric dimensions are objective truth itself, making a coherent unity seem like an impossible narrative. As Schuon wrote in The Transcendent Unity of Religions, dogmatism implies the exclusion of all other religions as valid truths, in every respective tradition. On the other hand, many modern and new age spiritual practices deviate from tradition. This practice of neo mysticism is a salvation for those hungry for meaning, offering quick spiritual solutions often with the sole purpose of enlightenment. In many ways, the essence of spirituality is then reduced to simplistic forms of symbolic meaning-making, reducing its complexity and metaphysical inquiry. Frithjof Schuon offered a solution of transcendence beyond religions, that there is timeless wisdom and universal truth underneath it, not despite it. Relevance of Religion and Spirituality Religion and spirituality were never mere tradition; they have, it has in essence a subtle yet profound wisdom that is timeless and ancient. The notion of metaphysical reality that is beyond the human limits of reason is not just an idea to intrigue philosophically, but a sincere inquiry of life’s ultimate meaning. It is worth considering that theoretical and empirical discoveries are not separate entities from the idea of the ultimate intellect and the unity behind multiplicity. The wisdom of tradition is not to be dismissed but to be studied as an important aspect in our ontological quest for clarity in modernity, where a crisis of meaning is imminent. Rather than to set aside religion as a dogmatic tool. We should actively engage in religious science as discourse, understanding the hidden union par excellence across multiple beliefs.