MAMARIL, Shaira Mae A.

1 March 2018
2014063421 4PHL2

Abstract: This aims to start with the problem of Filipino philosophy with the aid of Dr.

Pada’s paper on the problem of methodology in Filipino philosophy as an introduction to

Florentino Hornedo as an intellectual and his philosophy. The main point of this paper is

of two-fold: (1) what is the philosophical anthropology of Hornedo?; and what is his

notion of freedom? With both questions, I will expound and relate Locke’s theory in

which he had also discussed in his book, The Power To Be.

Florentino Hornedo’s Philosophical Inquiries on Man and Freedom

The question for authenticity of the so-called “true” Filipino philosophy has

always been a huge debate for those in the academe. As Dr. Roland Pada had stated in

his paper concerning the problem of Filipino philosophy methodology:

Some scholars argue that the existence of Filipino philosophy is

dependent upon the condition of thought and worldviews that are consistent in
the behavior of people in the Philippines; this view is shared by the works of
Mercado and Timbreza, whose analysis of language and folk-sayings insists that
there is a common ground to which Filipino thought, as a Philosophy, can be
observed. Other scholars insist that Filipino philosophy is the product of how
Filipinos are able to engage in the discourse of philosophy through their own
unique concerns and anxieties.1

Since accounts on how our country has developed were mostly based on the

colonization of other countries, education sprouted from their tradition and that goes the

1 Hornedo, F. (2000). The Power To Be: A Phenomenology of Freedom. Manila: UST Publishing House.

Pada, R. T. (2014, June). The Methodological Problems of Filipino Philosophy. Kritike, 8(1), 24-44.
same with academic philosophy wherein their theories and ideologies are still prevalent.

In Dr. Pada’s analysis:2

Various historical and critical perspectives are offered by scholars

regarding this view; one of the seminal perspectives in the history of philosophy
in the Philippines comes from Cullum3—he notes that the tradition of philosophy
in the Philippines is marked by its connection with its colonizers, particularly that
of Spain.4 Furthermore, Cullum remarks that the initial tradition of scholarship for
philosophy in the Philippines revolved around the scholastic tradition of dividing
the study of philosophy under logic, physics, and metaphysics.5

Some have argued that the introduction of philosophy came to the Philippines when

privileged Filipino scholars studied in foreign universities which in return paved the way

for a broad understanding of philosophy. This introduction of understanding even led to

revolutions that made a big impact on Philippine history. Revolution aside, an authentic

Filipino philosophy still remains questionable.

“If we were to abide by the notion of philosophy itself, it would be

impossible to simply talk about a discourse that has its originary roots in Filipino
culture. Philosophy, in general, is a connected series of discourse that has been
responding to various cultural traditions in and out of a culture. Isolating our idea
of what a “grassroot” philosophy is as an ethnic practice fails the implicit criteria
of philosophy as a constantly continuing discourse, which I think is not only
detrimental to the idea of what philosophy is, but is also against the idea of
philosophy as a discourse. If Filipino philosophy is restricted to the ethnological
descriptions of culture, it will diverge from the practice of philosophy as a
discourse.”6

The notion of what is Filipino is difficult to unify particularly if one is intending to look at

ideological and ontological bases for a “universal” definition of Filipino. The cultural

practices of Filipinos consistently vary because of ethnic and geographic divisions that

characterize the idea of the word “Filipino.”

2 Ibid.
3 Cullum, L. (1959) “Notes for a History of Philosophy in the Philippines,” in Philippines Studies, 7:4
4 Ibid., 456.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., Pada (2014)
 A celebrated Filipino intellectual who ventured the paths of philosophy, literature,

social science, ethnology and history – was born on October 16, 1938 in Batanes, the

northern most part of Luzon. Accounts about the origin of human beings were told

differently in different parts of the world – may it be tales, mythologies and religious

metaphors. Charles Darwin, a controversial “philosopher” shed some light about the

origin of this superior being, man, and how it came to be. However, this vital idea raised

different reactions – ranging from ferocious condemnation to ecstatic allegiance,

sometimes tantamount to religious zeal.7 In his account, he theorized that man

descended from lower species that then evolved to the species we participate in this

current era. The traces of the descents bore in human structure; the similarities of man

and the lower animals; the mental faculty of man compared to the primitive man and a

lot more are presented in his book8 like fire melting ice. But what makes a man? Is it the

physical attributes – a man having a head, two arms and two legs? Or is it an

individual’s emotional and intellectual capacity? Hornedo had dwelled to answer the

aforementioned queries in the context of Filipino philosophy.

Ever since the dawn of life, man has shown his mental prowess “to keep with an

unchanged body in harmony with the changing universe.”; adapting habits to new

conditions like the usage of clothes, building of sheds, and making of fire to survive the

cold climate.9 In The Descent of Man, the emphasis of the similarity of man with the

7 Darwin’s theory has been abused and misinterpreted by friend and foe alike. It has been
misappropriated to lend scientific respectability to appalling political and social doctrines. (Dennett, Daniel
C. “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.” The Sciences, 1995: 34)
8Darwin, Charles; The Descent of Man (1859)
9 When he migrates into a colder climate he uses clothes, builds sheds, and makes fires; and by the aid

of fire, cook food otherwise indigestible. He aids his fellow-men in many ways, and anticipates future
events. Even at a remote period he practiced some subdivision of labour. (Darwin, Charles; The Descent
of Man (1859). Chapter 5: 158)
lowly descents; the homological structure, embryological development and the

rudimentary organs were indeed evident.

Man has always been deemed as the dominant animal amongst all the living

things here in the blue planet. We wouldn’t be called as the dominant animal without a

distinction – preserving and communicating design: culture.10 It is obvious that language

is the primary medium of culture that only man is privy to make use of. Man would

inevitably feel some pride at existing but not in the sense of its own labours but through

the pinnacle of natural selection that would provide hope for a still higher destiny in the

distant future. Putting Daniel Dennett’s Emotional Aversions11 regarding the fear of

some people about the idea of human culture in evolutionary terms, they are afraid that

their ground and belief that they cherish would crumble its way down to the dark abyss.

Terrified of the truth that lies beyond those doors, once entered, it would seem

impossible to return without it in our mind blotched like ink in water. Although hope and

fear comes as contradicting concepts, they both lead to falsity. The quest for truth is

innate to us; truth is our only concern as far as our reason allows us to discover –

turning a blind eye to hopes and fears. Nonetheless, it’s still essential to acknowledge

man’s noble qualities – sympathy, benevolence and intellect.12 We’re lucky enough that

our origins which we evolved from bore these characteristics. Without all these, there

10 Other species have some capacity to transmit information “behaviourally” as well as genetically but
they have not developed culture to take off point that our species has. (Dennett, Daniel C. “Darwin’s
Dangerous Idea.” The Sciences, 1995: 39)
11 Dennett, Daniel C. “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.” The Sciences, 1995: 40
12 We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with

sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to
the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and
constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the
indelible stamp of his lowly origin. (Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man, 1859. Chapter 21)
would be no mankind existing; chaos would prevail and obviously, no man will survive

as they dwell upon the cruelty of the world.

For Locke, each rational creature is made equal and that freedom for him is

stated in his treatise as: “Where there is no Law, there is no Freedom”. Therefore, man

can be said born free through one’s own definition of freedom. Also, man’s state of

nature, in which the rationality of man makes us equal, each individual has rights that

validate the consent of the people to give political power. Through this, it helps in the

upbringing of the laws for the common good of each individual in the society. Locke has

greatly emphasized, through the idea of property, the human rights and equality that

society should possess.

John Locke published two books that were to make him famous not just as a

philosopher but also as a political theorist: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

and Two Treatises on Civil Government. Other philosophers had written important

works on political theory; Locke’s second of the Two Treatises came at a time when it

could shape the thoughts of an era and affect the course of future events.13 The idea

that we are “all equal and independent” and that we hold the natural rights to “life,

health, liberty and possessions” from his Two Treatises became the inspiration of

following generations.14

In Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, he discussed his social and political

theories. He gave attention to the idea to the individual rights of men, in which he uses

the idea of property (in which Locke distinguishes as the lives, liberty and estates of

man). It is said that each men has this private property, it is because everything that

13 Two treatises and An Essay show Locke’s way of combining his practical and theoretical interests and
abilities. Two Treatises was expressly formulated to justify the English revolution of 1668.
14 Declaration of Independence and American Institution
man possesses are through his labours. It is also through man’s labour that gives a

different value and characteristic to each individual. Locke also says that through this

difference it would cause disputes, which is why man needs law - for it is discussed that

in the state of nature men live accordingly through reason (which is said to be the law).

Through reason, each individual is aware to not cause any harm to each other for they

are all equal and created by God. Also, Locke says that the civil government is the

preservation of property (it is because the government gives protection to one’s right), in

which it is through each individual’s consent gives a political power to the legislatives

that compromise the sovereignty (along with executive and the federative). Locke gives

emphasis on the concept of trust in regards with the legislative power that is why Laws

made by the legislatives must conform to the individual rights of each human being and

to the trust given by them, for it is said that it is also through the consent of each

individual that one’s legislative power may also end. It is the people who shall judge and

the ultimate appeal will be of God.

Arguments here and there continuously arise regarding the political theories that

try to explain and suggest the most suitable one for the society, but the one that is at

stake is the true concept of freedom. Locke states that freedom is a “two-way” power, a

combination of two conditional powers belonging to an agent who is endowed with a

will. Man has the power to think or not to think in accordance with his own mind – a

human person is free of any particular action that wills him but this quality has some

liabilities that concern someone’s will. For example, the inevitability to do something to a

situation (falling from a building – you are not free to go back since it is already

unavoidable even you badly want to). We are only free to do things in accordance to our
will but when it comes to things that are external and out of your concept to will (an

exploding volcano), freedom is only limited as a concept of the mind.

As for Hornedo, man extends his freedom by being a man for others. “The inquiry

into the wholeness of himself changes the meaning of the world around him by relating

them to him not as things or objects but as meaning. He discovers that meaning is not

objectivity but relatedness. And that relatedness does not happen simply as a given, but

that it is a project of his freedom.”15 Furthermore16, freedom is a more than a rhetoric

device, more than a rallying point for those who have a flair for heroics – that freedom is

as real a human concern as human development. He related and discussed John

Locke’s libertarian philosophy17 in his book, The Power To Be.

However, in whatever undertaking you ought to embark on, it is ‘you’ who

naturally and personally imposes them as the foremost obstacle, which will further fuel

the zeal that guides your intentions. And this is what I impose to myself in relation to my

program. Philosophy, per se is this field that revels and enjoys in the infinity and

inconsistency of knowledge with the finite and uncertainty of life. To embody such a

central value embraced by this field is identical in embodying the meaning of committing

one’s life only in service of living your life not just for yourself but also for others. As one

great philosopher once said: “He who has a ‘why?’ to live, can bear with almost any

‘how?’”.

15 Florentino Hornedo, “Catholic Education: Growing to Become Men/Women for Others,” in Unitas 61:3
(1988), 633-646. See also Florentino Hornedo, Christian Education: Becoming Person-for-Others: Essays
in Philosophy of Education (Manila: UST Publishing House, 1995).
16 Hornedo, F. (2000). The Power To Be: A Phenomenology of Freedom. Manila: UST Publishing House.

17 Ibid., 44
Bibliography:

Cullum, L. (1959). Notes for a History of Philosophy in the Philippines. Philippines

Studies, 7(4).

Darwin, C. (1859). The Descent of Man

Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The Sciences, 40

Hornedo, F. (1988) Catholic Education: Growing to Become Men/Women for Others.

Unitas 61(3) 633-646.

Hornedo, F. (2000). The Power To Be: A Phenomenology of Freedom. Manila: UST

Publishing House.

Pada, R. T. (2014, June). The Methodological Problems of Filipino Philosophy. Kritike,

8(1), 24-44.