STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY.

PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

Education and Philosophy

By Daniel L. Espiritu

First, let’s see what some great Filipino thinkers said about education. Then, consider
what a reputable philosopher said about it. And, lastly, look at what kind of education PMA
offers to you. As a result, you should be able to, among other things, appreciate better the
relevance and importance of the study of Philosophy to education in general and to your
PMA education in particular.

Some Filipino thinkers on education

Manuel L. Quezon
According to the historian and philosopher, Rolando M. Gripaldo (2000), the
President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Manuel L. Quezon, believed and taught
that Philippine education should teach Filipinos a means of livelihood but, more
importantly, teach them to better serve their country. Hence, among others things, Quezon
believed in compulsory education, free public primary education, citizenship training for
adults, and in government providing scholarships to deserving students.
However, Quezon believed that only the intellectually gifted should go to college or
university education; the average should, he said, be satisfied with a vocational education—
something for which they should not be ashamed of, for someone’s worth is based not on
the possession of a diploma but on one’s aptitude. Education is useless unless one is able to
make use of it for themselves and their society. In addition, Quezon believed that the
training of soldiers should include, in addition to other things like the effective use of
weapons—the learning of civic virtues.
Filipinos are to be good citizens, Quezon emphasized, not only demanding for their
rights but also learning and doing their duties which include the following:

• To defend the country against foreign aggression, internal rebellion, or

domestic lawlessness;
• To be useful and law-abiding;
• To have the spirit of sacrifice for their country;
• To pay taxes;
• To do one’s work well;
• To promote social justice; and,
• To patronize local products.

1
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

Above all, according to Gripaldo, Quezon placed great importance to the character-
building of the Filipinos, for to him a nation can be strong only as its citizens. Quezon
lamented over two weaknesses in the Filipino character: (1) Easy-going parasitism. The
Filipino, he observed, is not inclined to sustain hard effort. The Filipino is frivolous and
inconstant, hating discipline; and (2) Social inefficiency. Filipinos, Quezon claimed, are
indifferent to social responsibilities. They take pride in a life of ease, not recognizing the
value and dignity of work. To be sure, Quezon was speaking of the Filipinos of his day (the
early years of the 20th century).
To remedy what he thought were the societal weaknesses of the Filipinos, Quezon
issued Executive order No. 217 on 19 Aug 1939 which included a code of ethics consisting of
16 civic and ethical principles with which all were to be indoctrinated. Among these 16
principles were: (1) Have faith in God who guides the destinies of men and nations; (2) Pay
your taxes willingly and promptly; (3) value your honor as you value your life; (4) lead a
clean and frugal life. (See a copy of EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 217 in
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1939/08/19/executive-order-no-217/)

Jorge Bocobo
One of the past presidents of the University of the Philippines, Jorge Bocobo (1975,
p. 13) asked, “Is it possible that our college education may ‘uneducate’ rather than
educate?” His answer: “Yes. It is a paradox but nonetheless the truth—the grim, unmerciful
truth.” Bocobo acknowledged the truth that “most of our students have measured up to
their high responsibilities” but claimed that “in other features—alas, vital ones!—the
thoughts and actions of many of them tend to stunt the mind, dry up the heart, and quench
the soul.” He lamented the fact that—during his time in the 1950s—"many of our students
are getting a college uneducation, for which they pay tuition fees and make unnumbered
sacrifices.”
Many students were getting college uneducation in three ways, according to Bocobo
(p. 14): 1). “Many of our students surrender their individuality to the textbook and lose their
birthright – which is to think for themselves; 2. “Most students make professional efficiency
the be-all and end-all of college education.” 3. The “rage for highly specialized training, with
a view to distinguished professional success, beclouds our vision of the broader perspectives
of life. Our philosophy of life is in danger of becoming narrow and mean because we are
habituated to think almost wholly in terms of material wellbeing.”

Francisco Benitez
Another Filipino educator (at the turn of the 20th century) who established and was
the first editor of the Philippine Journal of Education, Francisco Benitez (1975), asked: “What
qualities should distinguish the educated Filipino of today?” and, in response, explained
what to him are the three marks of the educated Filipino (pp. 11-12):

2
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

1. “No Filipino has the right to be considered educated unless he is prepared to

take an active and useful part in the work, life, and progress of our country as
well as in the progress of the world.”

2. The educated Filipino “should be distinguished not only by his knowledge of the
past and of current events in the world’s progress but more especially by his
knowledge of his race, his people, and his country, and his love of the truths and
ideals that our people have learned to cherish… I would not have the educated
Filipino ignore the culture and history of other lands, but can he afford to be
ignorant of the history and culture of his own country and yet call himself
educated?

3. The educated Filipino “must have ingrained in his speech and conduct those
elements that are everywhere recognized as accompaniments of culture and
morality so that, possessing the capacity for self-entertainment and study, he
may not be at the mercy of the pleasure of the senses or a burden to himself
when alone.”

Jovito Salonga
In his speech “The Educated Man,” the 14th President of the Philippine Senate, Jovito
Salonga, had similar thoughts on education. According to Salonga (2017) educated persons
should be able to read and read worth-reading materials. They should have good memory—
for how can they have good basis for their judgements if they don’t remember facts! They
have developed their skill and talents. Nonetheless, he says, he believes that (para. 2) “one
becomes a great scientist, an able lawyer, or a noted writer, only because he is first — and
pre-eminently a good man. He further says that an educated person is able to provide for
themselves and their families, “since education should teach us how to make a living.” But
(para. 3) “there is one thing we should always remember and it is this — that far more
important than the making of a living, is a living of life — a good life, a meaningful life, an
abundant life.”

3
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

So, what did all these Filipino educators think about Education? Apparently, they all
believed that education is much more than about, in the words of Salonga, “making a
living”—more than earning money just for yourself and your family. Part of your purpose in
life should be service to God and country, even to humanity.

A Philosopher on Education

Many world-renowned philosophers have also written on education. Plato, John

Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Alfred North Whitehead are just a few of
them. A contemporary of the above-mentioned Filipino educators was a French philosopher
of great reputation: Jacques Maritain.

Maritain (1970, p. 306) observed correctly that “education cannot escape the
problems and entanglements of philosophy, for it supposes by its very nature a philosophy
of man.” Meaning, what you believe to be the aims and methods of education is dependent

Education should teach us how to make a living.

But there is one thing we should always
remember and it is this—that far more important
than the making of a living, is a living of life—a
good life, a meaningful life, an abundant life.

Jovito Salonga

on what you believe human beings are (your philosophy of the human person). That is why
thinking about education involves thinking about philosophy! Some believe that, for
example, human beings are essentially no different from, say, cows and dogs, while others
assume that human beings are fundamentally different in kind from whales and monkeys.
These “philosophies of the human person” determine what people believe should be the
goals and means of education.

Maritain (p. 306) writes of “the purely scientific idea of man” which “tends only to
link together measurable and observable data” and does not try to consider questions such
as “Is there a soul or isn’t there? Does the spirit exist or only matter? Is there freedom or
determinism? Purpose or chance? Value or simple fact?” The scientific idea of man does not
make “reference to ultimate reality” says Maritain. The idea assumes that a human being is
“only a set of physical, biological, and psychological phenomena.”

4
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

Maritain holds that education based on such a conception of humans leads to “the
training of an animal for the utility of the state.” What is needed, according to Maritain, is a
“complete and integral idea of man” which, according to him, is “man as an animal
endowed with reason, whose supreme dignity is in the intellect; and man as a free
individual in personal relation with God…” (p. 307). (In chapter 7, we shall discuss the
naturalist and theistic worldviews).

Based on the assumption of Maritain’s “complete and integral idea of man,” what’s
the aim of education? It is (p. 308) “to guide man in the evolving dynamism through which
he shapes himself as a human person—armed with knowledge, strength of judgment, and
moral virtues.” Take note of that—"judgment, and moral virtues.” For Maritain, we are
more than animals of appetites and instinct. Hence, education should include, if not focus
on the development of our judgment and moral virtues. Of, course, Maritain says (p. 308),
the “utilitarian aspect of education—which enables the youth to get a job and make a
living—must surely not be disregarded….” But, again, in his words, “The prime goal of
education is…his liberation through knowledge and wisdom, good will, and love.” In other
words, we are not educating animals; we are educating human beings! We train dogs; we
educate students.

The challenge which Maritain and his generation faced was “the pragmatic
overemphasis in education” which was based on “the pragmatic and instrumentalist theory
of knowledge.” Maritain (p. 310) re-asserted: “The ultimate end of education concerns the
human person in his personal life and spiritual progress, not in his relationship to the social
environment.”

Maritain proposed that the “scientific and technical specialization” (in his day, at
least) be accompanied “by a more vigorous general training.” He continued (p. 313), “an
educational program which would only aim at forming specialists … would lead to a
progressive animalization of the human mind and life… The overwhelming cult of
specialization dehumanizes man’s life.” That is, you need to be good at some skills (like,
writing, driving, firing, construction) but you also need education in, say, the humanities
(literature, arts, language, philosophy, religion, etc.)

Further on, in his book, Maritain (pp. 314-315) observed and lamented: “whereas
the educational system of schools and colleges succeeds as a rule in equipping man’s
intellect for knowledge, it seems to be missing its main achievement, the equipping of man’s
will. What an infelicity!” Moral education in schools needs to be given more emphasis,
according to him. He reminded his readers, “school and college education in only a part of
education.” That is, education should be happening even outside classrooms and during
breaks and after graduation! “Our education goes on until our death.”

To repeat, education is much more than the teaching and learning of skills, especially
for making a living or the accumulation of material goods—important these may be. For
human beings are much more than animals, more than their bodies. As the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Military Personnel in the AFP (2018, pp. 1-2) maintains, a
human being has “inherent dignity,” possessing “inalienable rights,” having been created in
the image of the “Almighty God”. Let’s now turn to PMA’s philosophy of education.

5
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

PMA on Education

PMA does not prepare cadets merely to learn the skills necessary to crush the
enemies of the State. Here’s what
PMA says concerning the education of
its cadets. A merely well-informed man is the most
useless bore on God’s earth. What we
The Honor Handbook Series should aim at producing is men who
2020 (pp. 3-4) states the following:
possess both culture and expert
knowledge in some special direction.
• “The PMA’s mission to instruct,
train, develop and inspire the A.N. Whitehead
cadets is manifested in its
philosophy of education where
it considers every cadet as a
mind, body and spirit.”

• “PMA is principally an institution of military leadership and it is from the total view
of man that PMA's leader development program is based.”

• “The development of character and integrity among cadets is a fundamental

objective of the Philippine Military Academy.”

Mark well the phrases “philosophy of education,” “a mind, body, and spirit,” “the
total view of man,” and “the development of character and integrity.” Thus, PMA’s view of a
human being and of education conforms to Maritain views and the Filipino educators’ views
above. PMA does not subscribe to the materialistic, pragmatic and instrumentalist view of
human beings. This is confirmed by PMA’s core values. The Honor Handbook (p. 17) states:
“The core values of PMA being instilled in the hearts and minds of the cadets are: Love for
God, Love for Country, Courage, Duty, Excellence, Honor, Humility, Integrity, Loyalty,
Respect, Solidarity.”

The PMA Academic Group’s Yellow Book (p. 31-32) says: “As members of an
Academic Institution, Professors/Instructors are to be role models for disciplined behavior
for the cadets.” Instructors are to “behave morally and ethically at all times. All faculty
members are to be guided by the spirit of the honor code that guides cadets’ behavior.” For
what reason? Again, because they are to be role models to the cadets, and because cadets
learn ethics to a large extent via their models—which is not a novel, revolutionary idea!

And not to be forgotten is what the PMA Mission tells us. PMA exists

To instruct, train, develop and inspire the cadets so that each graduate shall possess
the character, the broad and basic military skills and the education essential to the
successful pursuit of a progressive military career.

6
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE

Cadets—who are actually AFP officers-in-training—need to have “the broad and basic
military skills.” But not only these. They also need to “possess the character” without which
we cannot speak truly of cadet education. What are “military skills” for, without courage,
integrity, and loyalty?