Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filipino Philo
Filipino Philo
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
1
ABULAD’S CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES QUITO’S
PERIODIZATION INVOLVEMENT
First Colonial Unchallenged Predominance of Thomism
Phase
Quito’s training at UST
My secondary reasons for selecting her as the subject are: first, she is one of the very
few Filipino philosophers who problematized the underdevelopment or the absence of
Filipino philosophy; and second, she is definitely one of the greatest philosophy
professors, if not philosophers, this country has ever produced. Consequently, her
thoughts concerning the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy are not only
intellectually reliable, but historically significant as well. Thus, a systematic critique of
her thoughts can offer us a promising pathway towards a re-investigation of the
problems of Filipino philosophy.
The problem that this paper is going to address is how come that after almost
two decades since Quito laid down her reasons why there is no Filipino philosophy, an
authentically Filipino philosophy still has not emerged? In almost two decades’ time,
many things have changed, the reasons that Quito cited are now mostly rectified, but
why is it that the authentically Filipino philosophy is still nowhere to be seen? To
address this problem, we have to do four things: 1) first, to re-read Quito’s thoughts
concerning the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy; 2) second, to subject her
thoughts to a point by point critique; 3) third, to investigate further into the grounds that
Quito failed to touch; and 4) fourth, to propose a non-defeatist, realistic and concrete
program of action that can hopefully catalyze the development of an authentic Filipino
philosophy. My main contention is that Quito’s investigation, like what most pioneering
works are, is limited owing to her lack of more critical theories and concepts. Though
she failed to cut through the heart of the problem, she opened for us a pathway upon
which we, equipped with more contemporary theories and concepts, can venture
further. Hopefully with our sharper conceptual tools, we can make deeper incisions on
the problem at hand to unveil the more radical ailment of Filipino philosophy. From such
a diagnosis, we can propose a non-defeatist, realistic and concrete prognosis.
2
QUITO’S DIAGNOSIS
2
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 49.
3
symbolic prestige the philosophy profession in the country encountered problems in
motivating the professors’ academic performance, and problems in recruiting the more
intelligent students with the right aptitude for philosophy. Aside from these problems in
human resources development, Quito stressed that philosophy in the country suffers
because of some institutional problems, like lack of research funds, too much teaching
assignments given to professors, absence of research policies and absence of
systematic professional development program, in particular the opportunity of taking
graduate studies abroad.
If there is a problem in the international level, Quito also found another linguistic
problem in the national level. “Indigenous Filipino thought is stilted by a foreign
language such as English in which the average Filipino expresses himself." 4
Consequently, “until the Filipino people recover the native tongue, it will not develop an
indigenous philosophy, for the soul of a people is better expressed in a native
language.”5
On the popular or grassroots level, the term ‘pilosopo’ (Pilipino word for ‘philosopher’) is a
pejorative name for anyone who argues lengthily, whether rightly or wrongly. The term
alludes to a character called “Pilosopo Tasyo’ (Tasyo, the Philosopher) who perorates
endlessly in one of the novels of the Philippines’ national hero, Jose Rizal . . . . the term
‘pilosopo’ has seeped into the academic consciousness with a damaging effect.6
For her this is one of the reasons why Filipino philosophy is underdeveloped.
33
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 49.
44
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 53-54
55
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 53-54.
66
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 10-11
4
Quito’s Prognosis on Filipino Philosophy
Though Quito presented a very harrowing picture of the state of philosophy in the
Philippines, that is mangled by historical, economic, institutional, linguistic and cultural
problems, she is hopeful that Filipino philosophy can overcome these obstacles and
barriers. Though her diagnosis is rather gloomy, the prognosis that she presents is
brighter. Her idea of the emergence of an authentic Filipino philosophy can be seen in
her schematization of philosophy in the Philippines into:
Academic
Popular/
Grassroots
In the academic level, Quito laments the facts that we do not have real
philosophers, and that what we are mere expositors of alien theories who are mostly
Thomists. In the popular or grassroots level, however, though nominally we have the
pejorative term ‘pilosopo’, we have conceptually speaking a rich heritage of diwang
Filipino, or Volksgeist, which is composed of native concepts and schemata. By
exploring these local knowledges, she hopes to discover catalysts for the emergence of
Filipino philosophy. She says:
This collective mind, this general attitude toward life, this concerted effort to acquire
wisdom which is manifest on the popular or grassroots level constitutes the folk spirit
(Volksgeist) of the Filipino and it should (or will) eventually emerge as the formalized
philosophy on the academic level. This philosophy however, is still in the process of
formalization.7
7
7
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 10.
5
Here, she is pushing further the endogenous method of Florentino Timbreza that
deploys native concepts and schemata to understand sublime philosophical ideas. As
far as this prognosis is concerned, Quito belongs to Abulad’s early phase of
indigenization.
6
to generate legitimate philosophical knowledge, the Philippine philosophical profession
as well as its institutions must stand on power which is basically economic in nature,
and secondarily cultural and symbolic. I agree with Quito that without these economic
and institutional rudiments it is impossible for Filipino philosophy to emerge. However,
Quito wrote her critique almost two decades ago, and since then, many things have
changed. We already have a number of academic institutions that provide modest living
out of the academic profession, that offer handsome research grants and doctoral
scholarships abroad, and had promulgated rigorous research policies. How come that
after these favorable windfalls there remains no authentic Filipino philosophy?
I don’t agree with Quito that our inability to read German or French is significant
enough to hinder the development of Filipino philosophy. My first reason for this stand is
that the American and British publishing industries are strong enough to support the
needs of Filipino scholars who wish to specialize in any major European philosopher.
What we need primarily is a strong book purchasing policies, in order to get the right
books in the right quantity. My second reason for this stand is that knowledge of
German or French languages must come only after a strong research agenda that
genuinely requires working knowledge of such languages. We do not study German, or
French or Italian, just for the sake of knowing these languages. Rather we study any of
these languages because we want to explore further and master the thoughts of say
Friedrich Nietzsche and Jurgen Habermas, or say Emmanuel Levinas and Francois
Lyotard, or say Antonio Gramsci and Umberto Eco.
I perfectly agree with Quito’s point that the real spirit and experiences of a people
can only be expressed fully by the native tongue. However, she failed to realize that this
native tongue is a problematic issue in the Philippines. We are talking here of a
language of the spirit, which cannot be altered by a mere stroke of congressional
legislation. If in legal papers it is clear that Tagalog or Filipino is our national languages,
the language of the Cebuano spirit, or Ilocano spirit, or Bikolano spirit, remain Cebuano,
Ilocano or Bikolano. Ten years or twenty years from now, the Filipino language might
fully evolve into a true language of the Filipino spirit. But at the moment, it is very
difficult for many of us who do not belong to the Tagalog ethno-linguistic block to say
that Filipino is the language of our spirit. This is the main reason why I cannot deliver
this paper in Filipino. The use of a native tongue is the ideal. But in the absence of a
real native tongue, we have to settle for an acceptable lingua franca. Besides, if we
really insist that our failure to use the Filipino language is a significant barrier to the
development of Filipino philosophy, there are already a number of scholars led by
Emerita Quito, Roque Ferriols, Florentino Timberza, Manuel Dy, Romualdo Abulad, and
Herminia Reyes, who insisted on the use of this language, but how come there remains
no authentic Filipino philosophy?
7
I think Quito’s isolation of Pilosopo Tasyo as a cause for the underdevelopment
of Filipino philosophy is rather superficial. I would rather argue that Tasyo is not a cause
why there is no Filipino philosophy, for he is instead a symptom of the absence of
Filipino philosophy. In literary criticism, particularly in the theatrical genre, we have a
stock character called a raisonneur, a personage who is emotionally detached from the
other characters, and whose function is to advise others, to comment on critique various
situations in the fictive world. This is the personage of Tasyo, the sage whose level of
consciousness and acumen surpasses that of the young idealistic Crisostomo Ibarra.
Ideally speaking Tasyo should have been a real philosopher, but Rizal probably realized
that he has no place for a real philosopher in his 19th century Philippine society. If he
were to package Tasyo as a legitimate philosopher, then Tasyo would have been a
Thomistic friar, and that would totally subvert the unity of his novel, and he would have
committed a sacrilege against his country and his enlightened reason. Tasyo, the
raisonneur, has to be placed outside the margins of the society, because this society
offers no place for him.
Though Quito failed to cut through the heart of the problem, she opened for us a
pathway upon which our autocritique may venture further. Though many scholars have
successfully breached the Aquinian wall, I believe that there is something more to the
problem of Thomism. Though most of the defective economic and institutional
structures are now significantly corrected, I believe there is something more to the
economic and institutional problems. Though I am not convinced about the impossibility
of a philosophy to emerge independently of a native language, I believe there is
something more to the linguistic problem of Filipino philosophy. Though I do not fault
Pilosopo Tasyo as a significant cause for a cultural resistance against philosophy, I
believe there is something more to such a cultural resistance. From these convictions, I
want to push a little further the frontier cleared by Quito. For each problem that I will
reveal, I am going to sketch a non-defeatist, concrete and realistic program of action.
Quito had been very vocal about the fact that philosophy in the Philippines is a
product of a colonial accident. Being a colonial artifact, I suspected that our very
concept of philosophy embodies some radical distortions. Such distortions can be easily
revealed by a simple structural comparison between what philosophy should be and
what philosophy has been in the Philippines. Graphically, this should be the structure of
philosophy.
P
A
R
A
D
Reality Question Search Answer
I
G
M
8
Theories
Ideally speaking, philosophy is a paradigmatic (in the Kuhnian sense of the word)
reflection on reality that generates questions which calls for a search in order to come
up with an answer, and whose answer can be deposited back to tradition to be used in
providing further paradigms and research methodologies. The circuit from tradition, to
paradigm, to question, to search, to answer, and then back to tradition constitutes the
lifeblood of philosophy. Cutting this circuit means killing philosophy. Philosophy in the
Philippines, however, had deviated from this ideal structure.
P
A
R
A
D
Reality I Question Search Answer
G
M
WesternT
heories
TRADITION
First and foremost, philosophy here in the Philippines is alien in origin. Secondly, it
places a fatal emphasis on the answer component of philosophy. Third, it disregards the
life-giving circuit from tradition, to paradigm, to question, to search, to answer and back
to tradition. Because of such procedure, philosophy before it can ever take root on
Philippine soil is already dead. It is like cutting the head of Frantz Fanon, bringing it
back to the Philippines and telling everybody “this is Frantz Fanon!” Just as the dead
and severed head of Frantz Fanon is not the living Frantz Fanon, the answer
component of philosophy is not the whole and living philosophy. If out of six structural
components in our diagram, we had been concerned only with just one component, we
cannot expect Filipino philosophy to ever live and much less develop on our soil.
Furthermore, this way of doing philosophy is not simply alien to Philippine reality, it is
9
indeed alien on five counts: namely alien to our tradition, alien to our paradigms, alien to
our questions, alien to our search, and alien to our answers.
I would not suggest that we go on harping on the colonial accident that is the
beginning of philosophy in the Philippines. Rather I would rather suggest a pro-active
program of action. Our realization and acceptance of our historically distorted concept of
philosophy can already constitute half of the solution. Its fullest solution can happen in
the way we holistically conceive, present, and do philosophy that will give due emphasis
of all its structural components as well as on its life-giving circuit.
The lingering question left behind by Quito’s unveiling of the defects in Filipino
philosophy’s economic and institutional structure is that how come that after having a
number of academic institutions that provide modest living out of the academic
profession, that offer handsome research grants and doctoral scholarships abroad, and
formulated rigorous research policies, there remains no authentic Filipino philosophy? I
would like to re-examine this problem from the perspective of Michel Foucault’s
thoughts concerning the interrelationship between power and knowledge, or more
specifically between the economic and institutional practices as the power base
supporting or generating Filipino philosophy as a body of knowledge. Foucault argues
that legitimate knowledge cannot emerge from a floating field of utterances alone, for
knowledge needs an underlying discursive formation that is composed of heterogenous
elements such as objects, instruments, practices, research programs, skills, social
network and institution. Though it is beyond question that at least the rudiments of these
of a discursive formation are already in existence in at least some of our key
universities, the fact remains that a legitimate body knowledge, that is a Filipino
philosophy, is still nowhere to be seen. For this situation, Foucault has a convincing
answer. He stresses that the heterogenous elements of the discursive formation must
interact with each other over a certain stretch of time, before a body of knowledge
emerges as a legitimate body of knowledge. An element taken in isolation will certainly
not constitute a legitimate body of knowledge. Taking these elements collectively is not
a guarantee either that a legitimate body of knowledge will emerge. The crucial thing is
that these elements must hum with life through interaction. A research grant given by
the Commission on Higher Education, for instance, in itself will not constitute a Filipino
10
philosophy, but if this grant is taken by a Filipino academician and this academician
does a philosophical research, publishes his findings in a monograph, and then luckily
other academicians and students react to his output and use this as foundation for other
researches, then most probably a Filipino philosophy will emerge sooner or later. What I
mean is that even though we already have the basic economic and institutional
structures, or the rudiments of a discursive formation, their heterogeneous elements are
still not interacting properly. It is beyond question, that we have enough philosophical
utterances. But it is sad to say that these utterances remain scattered, isolated from
each other, and hibernating beneath the pages of some philosophical journals or
monographs. I believe that Filipino philosophy basically should be a tradition of
interrelated and interacting philosophical utterances of Filipino intellectuals, despite the
fact that these may be grounded on the most rudimentary discursive formation.
I agree with Quito that we have a linguistic problem in Filipino philosophy. But I
do not agree with her that this problem is constituted by our inability to read German or
French, nor by our unsettled problem of national language. The linguistic problem of
Filipino philosophy refers primarily to our poverty in terms of philosophical theories and
concepts, it is a poverty of philosophical language so to say. Philosophical language is
supremely important, because this is the same language that provides us with
paradigms and research methodologies. Without a philosophical language, philosophy
cannot take flight. The major cause of the Filipino philosophy’s linguistic poverty stems
from the Filipino culture’s lack of a solid textual tradition in literature or religion.
Normally, philosophy germinates from the textual language of literature and religion.
There is Greek philosophy, or Hindu philosophy, or Chinese philosophy, because these
bodies of knowledge are preceded by some rich textual tradition of Greek, or Hindu, or
11
Chinese literature and religion. Without a textual heritage that supports it, where can
Filipino philosophy get its language? Another cause for this linguistic poverty is our
historically distorted concept of philosophy that is inclined to present western
philosophies as finished products, as canned goods, or as answer components only,
instead as a rich source of philosophical theories and concepts. We failed to look at
western theories as a language that can be appropriated as paradigms and research
methodologies. Still another cause for this linguistic poverty is our hesitance to borrow
western philosophical, sociological and cultural theories and concepts, because we are
paranoid that such borrowings will only propagate further our cultural colonization.
At the very root of this linguistic poverty, is the fact that we do not have our own
philosophical tradition from which we can get paradigms and research methodologies.
The program of action that I am going to propose, therefore, will directly address this
underlying problem. If we do not have our own tradition, and we are convinced that
Filipino philosophy has to develop, then we have to shamelessly borrow the right
theories and concepts from philosophy, sociology and cultural studies. This borrowing
will not be similar anymore to the borrowings done by the first and second colonial
phases in Abulad’s scheme, which presented the loaned theories and concepts as mere
answer components. If we are to borrow theories and concepts they have to be invested
as paradigms and methodologies.
P
A
R
A
Reality Question Search Answer
D
I
G
M
WesternT
heories
TRADITION
But how about the question of the possibility of the propagation of our cultural
colonization? In Philippine studies, we have encountered a similar dilemma. There are a
number of theorists, like Virgilio Enriquez in psychology, Prospero Covar in
anthropology, and Randolf David in sociology, who vocally opposed Philippine studies
importation of theoretical and conceptual tools from the western world, for the same
reason that such borrowing would only reinforce our colonial bondage. But I find the
position of the anthropologist Raul Pertierra more sober. “Theoretical productions, like
other forms of production,” he says, “is best improved by building on existing models. As
Filipinists we can contribute to a conceptual dialogue by familiarizing ourselves with the
reigning paradigms and testing them against our experience of Filipino society.” 9 This
proposal in sociological theory is similar to Florentino Timbreza’s exogenous method in
99
Raul Pertierra, “The Practice of Theory and the Theory of Practice: Its Relevance for Philippine
Studies,” Diliman Review, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1999, p. 28.
12
philosophy.1010 Since western theories and concepts will be deployed as paradigms
and research methodologies, they will undergo some reflective tunings to suite the
Philippine reality and questions. Thus their output would not be alien anymore, but
tinged with the Philippine experience. The output as a product of a Filipino effort can be
properly deposited back to our tradition.
P
A
R
A
Reality D Question Search Answer
I
G
M
WesternT Filipino
heories Theories
TRADITION
At every turn of the vital circuit from tradition to paradigm to question to search to
answer and then back to tradition, a tradition of Filipino theories grows bigger and
stronger. This projected growth of a Filipino philosophical tradition side by side with a
continuous western borrowing, can sooner or later provide more paradigm and
methodologies for succeeding philosophical endeavors. To my mind, the circuit’s
continued movement is the vital sign that Filipino philosophy is taking root and finally
emerging.
Though, I do not agree with Quito that Pilosopo Tasyo is a significant obstacle to
the development of Filipino philosophy, I agree with her that there is some sort of
resistance in Philippine culture against philosophy. Instead of isolating Tasyo as the
scapegoat, I would rather explore the texture of Philippine culture to know the
underlying reasons for such a resistance.
10
Maaaring humiram ng mga dakilang ideya ng manga ibang pantas upang lalong maipaliwanag
at maipahayag ang mga katutubong sistemang pangkaisipan at mga pagpapahalaga, tulad ng
pagpapaliwanag ng utang na loob sa konteksto ng imperatibong kategorikal ni Immanuel Kant.” Emerita
Quito, Ed, “Pilosopiyang Filipino,” Ensayklopidiya ng Pilosopiya (Manila: De La Salle University Press,
1993) pp. 187-195, p. 190.
13
bilang sentro o pamantayan o sukatan ng pagpapasyang moral,” and 6) “maka-diyos
kaysa maka-agham.”11 There is a rather hotly debated theory in cultural studies
proposed by Walter Ong, an American communications theorist and student of Marshall
McLuhan. Ong theorized on the differences in the epistemological processes and
structure of consciousness between a people belonging to an oral culture and another
people belong to a literate culture. An oral culture is a culture that is not dependent on
writing and consequently on reading; while a literate culture, which is either a
manuscript or a print culture, is a culture that is dependent on writing and reading. Ong
argued that based on the presence or absence of textuality, a distinction arises on how
a culture thinks. When Ong started to enumerate the characteristic features of the
epistemological processes and structure of consciousness of a people belonging to an
oral culture, we cannot help but hear the echoes of Quito’s list of the dominant features
of the Filipino Volksgeist. Graphically I have juxtaposed their thoughts in the chart
below.1212
Ong’s List of Dominant Features of an Oral Culture Quito’s List of Dominant Features of the Filipino
Volksgeist
Additive rather than subordinative, with details piled on upon the other
praktikal at pangkabutihang-asal sa halip ng teoretikal at kognitibo
Redundant or copius, with much repetition of the just said to keep hearers
and speakers on the same track
sikliko at holistiko sa halip ng pahalang o pahiga
Concrete in its processing of the lifeworld because the only way to test
knowledge claims in nonabstract ways is referentiality
Conservative or traditionalist, with the culture’s primary commitments maka-Diyos kaysa maka-agham
frozen in narratives and aphorisms
11
11
Quito, “Pilosopiyang Filipino,” p. 190-191.
12
Descriptions for Ong’s list are taken from Bruce Gronbeck, “Rhetorical Studies Tradition and
12
Walter J. Ong: Oral-Literacy Theories of Mediation, Culture, and Consciousness,” (Bruce Gronbeck,
Thomas Farell and Paul Soukups, eds. Media, Consciousness, and Culture (London: Sage Publications,
1991), pp. 5-24, p. 14-15.
14
It will be ironic to think that the cultural elements that Quito is trying to scrounged to
become the foundation of a Filipino philosophy, are themselves an explanation why
there is no Filipino philosophy. If we take Quito’s list of face value, then we have to
accept as an implication that our national culture is still basically an oral culture. In fact
we never had a textual culture. Our literary and religious practices that the Spaniards
allegedly systematically destroyed were not necessarily textual. Ong talks about
residual orality referring to the “habits of thought and expression tracing back to pre-
literate situations or practice, or deriving from the oral as a medium in a given culture, or
indicating a reluctance or inability to dissociate the written medium from the
spoken.”1313 Though manuscripts and prints are unquestionable present in our country,
culturally speaking, we are still subsisting in a lingering residual orality. If this
preliminary diagnosis is correct, this will have an astounding impact to philosophy. One
of Ong’s influences is a 1963 book entitled Plato written by Eric Havelock.
Havelock identifies concreteness with primary orality, and more abstract thinking with
literacy. Havelock maintains that the primary oral cast of mind constituted the chief
obstacle to abstract classification of experience, the arrangement of cause and effect,
the use of analysis, and scientific rationalism. The primary oral person was involved and
committed to a given position on matters, whereas the fully literate person could be
detached and look on matters from different points of view. Highly literate persons can
examine experience and rearrange it, separate themselves from their experiences
instead of just emphatically identifying with them, and stand apart from the object,
reconsider it, analyze it, and evaluate it.1414
In effect, Havelock and Ong are saying that an oral culture cannot support the
development of philosophy, only the epistemological processes and structure of
consciousness from literate culture can. In fact, Havelock suggests that Plato’s
hypothetical banishing of the poets from his Republic had been precipitated by the
exclusion of orality from the realm of literate philosophy. If indeed in our country there is
some sort of a cultural resistance against philosophy, such a resistance is definitely not
caused by Pilosopo Tasyo. Rather this resistance is caused by a cultural mind frame of
residual orality that is not attuned to philosophizing.
Walter Ong, Rhetoric, Romand and Technology, quoted by David Heckel, “Francis Bacon’s
13
New Science: Print and Transformations of Rhetoric,” Bruce Gronbeck, Thomas Farell and Paul
Skoukups, eds. Media, Consciousness and Culture (London: Sage Publications, 1991), pp. 64-76, p. 65-66.
14
Thomas Farell, “An Overview of Walter J. Ong’s Work,” Bruce Gronbeck, Thomas Farell and
14
Paul Soukups, eds. Media, Consciousness, and Culture (London: Sage Publications, 1991), pp. 25-43, p. 31-
32.
15
Philippines is that must be able to pull its students from a culture of residual orality into
a culture of literacy. But there remains for us a moral obligation to pull our culture from
residual orality–which is I suspect is one of the root causes of our social and economic
underdevelopment–to literacy. Such a sublime moral obligation can be indirectly met
when a Filipino philosophy is strong enough, credible enough, legitimate enough to
dialogue with the ordinary Filipino’s lifeworld. Meanwhile, we have to focus on an
epistemological re-engineering of our student’s cultural mind set.
I agree with Quito’s prognosis that ultimately the Filipino Volksgeist should
fertilize and catalyze the development of an authentically Filipino philosophy. But after
knowing the residual orality of such a Volksgeist, I find Quito’s prognosis inadequate.
Thus, philosophy should not be afraid of borrowing theories and concepts from other
nations, as long as such borrowings are done reflectively and as long as such
borrowings are applied as paradigms and methodologies. Thomas Aquinas borrowed
freely from Arabics, and he contributed greatly to the development of Italian philosophy.
Martin Heidegger borrowed from the Danish Soren Kierkegaard, just as Hans-Georg
Gadamer borrowed from the Greeks, and both of them contributed much to the
development of 20th century German philosophy. There is no reason, therefore, to
pontificate that Filipino philosophy must be free from western borrowings.
Finally, I end up this essay with the broad strokes on what Filipino philosophy
should be. I believe first and foremost, that it must be a reflection and questioning on
and of the Philippine reality creatively using any philosophical, cultural, or sociological
paradigms; secondly it is a Filipino’s search for answers creatively using again any
philosophical, cultural, or sociological paradigms. Third, which I think is the most
important, whatever its output may be, it must go back to tradition that will supply the
future philosophical endeavors with paradigms and methodologies. To reiterate one
point that I made previously, it is at each turn of the vital circuit from tradition to
paradigm, to question, to search, to answer, and then back to tradition, that an authentic
Filipino philosophy emerges and develops.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abulad, Romualdo, (1988) “Contemporary filipino philosophy,” Karunungan/Sophia, Vol. 5.
Farell, Thomas. (1991) “An Overview of Walter J. Ong’s work,” Bruce Gronbeck, Thomas Farell and Paul
Soukups, eds. Media Consciousness, and Culture. London: Sage Publications, pp. 25-43.
Foucault, Michel. (1980) “Prison talk.” Power knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, Ed. Colin
Gordon. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1975) Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press.
Gronbeck, Bruce. (1991) “Rhetorical studies tradition and Walter J. Ong: Oral-Literacy theories of
mediation, culture, and consciousness.” Bruce Gronbeck, Thomas Farell and Paul Soukups, eds.
Media Consciousness, and Culture. London: Sage Publications, pp. 5-24.
Habermas, Jurgen. (1996) “Philosophy as stand-in and interpreter.” Richard Keamey and Maria
Rainwater, eds. The Continental Philosophy Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 238-253.
16
Heckel, David. (1991) “Francis Bacon’s new science: print and transformation of rhetoric.” Bruce
Gronbeck, Thomas Farell and Paul Soukups, eds. Media, Consciousness, and Culture. London:
Sage Publications, pp. 64-76.
Kuhn, Thomas. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Quito, Emerita. Ed. (1993) “Pilosopiyang filipino,” Ensayklopidiya ng pilosopiya. Manila: De la Salle
University Press, pp. 187-195.
Quito, Emerita. (1982) Teaching and Research of Philiosophy in the Philippines. UNESCO Commissioner
Paper.
Quito, Emerita. (1983) The state of philosophy in the Philippines. Manila: De la Salle University Press.
17
AN ACCOUNT OF THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY
FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
He was convinced Martial Law was the beginning, the long twilight that
had finally come. . . . “What can we expect now, Roly?” Ermi asked.
She was again in a green silk dress Rolando Cruz liked very much. . . .
“For those who have the means to weather this calamity life will not
change. It will remain comfortable. Particularly if you are not political.
But this twilight will lengthen into night. Look around us—what can we
see?. . .”
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
This paper will tackle the miserable plight of Filipino philosophy in the twenty-first
century from a historical point of view. Unlike other post-colonialist accounts, however,
that would predictably wind up castigating the distant and shadowy figures of the
colonial masters as the root cause of all maladies, this paper will neither go that far nor
to that extent. Instead, this will merely examine our immediate historical backyard, that
is the late twentieth century, and assume that our Filipino philosophers at that time
wielded enough power and opportunity to chart a more progressive pathway for Filipino
philosophy. But somewhere, somehow a fatal shortcoming happened that resulted to
the present condition. This paper will also attempt to visualize a possible pathway for
the rehabilitation of Filipino philosophy.
For students and scholars who are interested with the current concerns of
Filipino philosophy, there are two illuminating essays that can satisfactorily address their
queries. One is entitled Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino, written by Fernando
Nakpil-Zialcita in 1971, and the other is entitled Contemporary Filipino Philosophy,
written by Romualdo Abulad in 1988. While Nakpil-Zialcita talked about Filipino
philosophy, as he saw it in the early 70’s, Abulad talked about the same thing from an
evolutionary and developmental point of view taking the ecclesiastical Thomism as his
starting point and the developments in the late 80’s as his end point. Though these
essays came out seventeen years apart, and seem to have some very divergent views
on the historical status of Filipino philosophy, a careful comparative reading would
actually reveal a handful of convergent opinions as well as some astonishing revelations
regarding the state of affairs and problems of Filipino philosophy.
18
According to Nakpil-Zialcita there are three forms of Filipino philosophy. He
wrote:
Filipino Philosophy
Critique of the Political and
Economic Structures of
Philippine Society
Filipino Content
1
Fernando Nakpil-Zialcita, “Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino,” Trans. Nicanor Tiongson, in
Virgilio Enriquez, Mga Babasahin sa Pilosopiya: Epistemolohiya, Lohika, Wika at Pilosopiyang Pilipino (Manila:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House, 1983) p. 318.
2
Nakpil-Zialcita, p. 320-321.
19
philosophy can be a hallmark of being Filipino philosophy, its existence is strictly
speaking still something hypothetical; while the second form of Filipino philosophy has
an unquestionable existence, it is considered as definitely not a hallmark of being
Filipino philosophy. The third form of Filipino philosophy, that is Filipino philosophy as
interpretation of the Filipino world-view, transcends the problems of both the first and
second forms, in the sense that this third form really exists and can surpass even the
first form in being a hallmark of Filipino philosophy. Nakpil-Zialcita stressed: “Mas
maliwanag ang pagka-Pilipinong sa ganitong anyo ng Pilosopiya kaysa sa unang
dalawang nabanggit na.”3 However, this third form of Filipino philosophy generated
another theoretical problem. Nakpil-Zialcita pointed out: “Ang may kalabuan ay ang
layunin ng ganitong pilosopiya.”4 While it is true that the third form of Filipino
philosophy exists, in fact it actually proliferates, and while it is true that its being Filipino
is unquestionable, what remains to be pondered is its purpose. “Matapos niyang
maitanghal ang pananaw-sa-mundo ng Pilipino, mayroon pang dapat gawin ang
pantas,” argues Nakpil-Zialckita, “dapat niyang isipin kung paano itong magamit sa
kasalukuyan at sa hinaharap. Ito ang lalong magpapabigat sa kangyang katungkulan.5
For him, Filipino philosophy as interpretation of the Filipino world-view must not end with
the interpretation but must theorize further on the impact of such a world-view on the
present and the future of the Filipinos.
He calls the first meaning the neutral conception, and the second meaning the critical
conception of ideology. For Thompson, in between the neutral and the critical
conceptions there lies a theoretical tension. Whereas the neutral conception is geared
towards knowledge and understanding, the critical conception is geared towards the
Marxist ideals of critique and emancipation. Nakpil-Zialcita’s second form of Filipino
3
Nakpil-Zialcita, p. 323.
4
Nakpil-Zialcita, p. 323.
5
Nakpil-Zialcita, p. 325.
6
John Thompson, Studies in the Theory of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984), p. 4.
20
philosophy is an ideological study in its critical conception, while his third form of Filipino
philosophy is an ideological study in its neutral conception.
Abulad, on the other hand, did not look only on the present concerns of Filipino
philosophy, but on the group of concerns that preoccupied the history of Filipino
philosophy. Using an evolutionary schema, he demonstrated that the history of Filipino
philosophy has four stages: 1) the first colonial phase, which is characterized by the
unchallenged predominance of Thomistic philosophy; 2) the second colonial phase,
which is characterized by the influx of contemporary philosophical theories brought
home by western-trained Filipino academicians; 3) the phase of early indigenization,
which is characterized by the Filipino academicians’ concern over the existence and
progress of Filipino philosophy, and the quest for a Filipino philosophy, identity and
world-view; and 4) the beginnings of the late indigenization, which is characterized by
Filipino academicians’ distantiation from the agenda of the early phase of indigenization.
Graphically, what he stated can be represented by the following figure:
Filipino Philosophy
The question on the existence and
Early progress of Filipino Philosophy, and
Indigenization Description of the Filipino Identity
21
is, Abulad did not freeze time but instead analyzed Filipino philosophy along time’s
trajectory. Another difference is their historical contexts that are separated by a stretch
of seventeen years. There were obviously things seen by Nakpil-Zialcita in 1971 that
may not be visible anymore for Abulad in 1988. Just as there are things seen by Abulad
in 1988 that are obviously unforeseen by Nakpil-Zialcita in 1971. Still another
difference is the content of Filipino. For Nakpil-Zialcita the content of Filipino philosophy
is totally devoted to ideological study and criticism, both in the neutral and critical
conceptions. For Abulad, on the other hand, the content of Filipino philosophy is more
diverse and ranges from expository works, ideological study, and the critique and
movement away from previous agenda. However, since the two scholars are talking
about the same subject matter, there must be a way of piecing together their seemingly
divergent thoughts. In fact, by fitting together their thoughts, like what we do to a
jigsaw puzzle, we might be able to come up with a clearer and more complete picture of
Filipino philosophy. Hence, in the following chart we superimposed, with some graphic
adjustments of course, the thoughts of Abulad on the thoughts of Nakpil-Zialcita.
Second Colonial
Phase
22
Filipino Critique of the Political and
Economic Structures of
Method
Philippine Society
ology
From this chart we can garner a number of important points. First, Nakpil-Zialcita did
not mention the first and the second colonial phases of Abulad, the former merely
focused his analysis on what was the current in the 70s. Second, Nakpil-Zialcita’s
third form of Filipino philosophy (that is, philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino
worldview) corresponds neatly with Abulad’s third stage of Filipino philosophy (that is,
the stage of the early indigenization). Third, Nakpil-Zialcita’s first form of Filipino
philosophy (that is, a distinctive Filipino method for philosophizing) is more or less
spread of over Abulad’s third and fourth stages.
The most astonishing point revealed by this comparative reading, however, is the
glaring disparity between the two classifications: whereas Nakpil-Zialcita talked about a
Filipino philosophy as critique of political and economic structures, or about ideological
study in its critical conception, Abulad is silent about this. We can only justify this
difference if we hypothesize that in the 70s there had been indeed an emerging current
of an early critical Filipino philosophy, so as for it to merit a place in Nakpil-Zialcita’s
morphology, and that in the 80s this trend had drastically slackened, so as to justify
Abulad’s silence. This hypothesis can only be tested by looking back at the track of
intellectual activities of our Filipino philosophers, as well as professors, instructors and
students of philosophy, congealed for posterity in the form of publications.
23
Rolando Gripaldo’s monumental work entitled Filipino philosophy: A Critical
Bibliography, 1774-1997 will serve as our gateway for this needed retrospect. 7
Gripaldo’s bibliographic research, published through a CD ROM, documented more
than 5,500 entries on Filipino philosophy. By transferring his tremendous amount of
data from its word processing program (Microsoft Word) to a spreadsheet program
(Microsoft Excel), the task of periodization, classification and analysis becomes much
easier. We may focus our attention to the entries from the years 1965 to 1992, to
provide ample margins to Nakpil-Zialcita’s 1971, as well as to Abulad’s 1988 points of
reference. This delimitation trimmed down the list from over 5,500 to 3,202 entries. A
closer look at this listing, however, would actually reveal a wider spectrum of works that
spreads over the Philippine social sciences, humanities and language. Added to this
is the fact that the delimited listing also includes isolated publications by isolated
individuals that make no bearing at all to our concern of studying the trends of Filipino
philosophy. Hence, the list was further trimmed down by eliminating those entries that
are clearly non-philosophical works, as well as by focusing only on the works of
individuals who published five times or more. Finally, a streamlined list of 928 entries
came out (See Appendix A). A periodization with an interval of three years (that is,
1965-1968, 1969-972, 1973-1976, and so on) was constructed to classify the entries in
accordance to their year of publication. Each entry was then classified in accordance to
its theme or concern: whether it is critical philosophy, existential/continental philosophy,
logical positivist philosophy, oriental philosophy, scholastic philosophy, dealing with the
Filipino worldview, or modern western philosophy. The whole classification is presented
at the end of this paper as Appendix A. Concerning the trend of critical Filipino
philosophy, the bar graph below shows its behavior from 1965 to 1992.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
7
Rolando Gripaldo, Filipino philosophy: A Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997 (Manila: De La Salle
University Press, 2000).
24
Critical philosophical publications constituted 8% of the delineated works from
1965-1968. These increased to 13% in the period 1969-1972, and remained at 13% in
the following period 1973-1976. These dropped to 8% in the period 1977-1980, and
dropped furthermore to 7% in the period 1981-1984. Critical philosophical publications
increased to 16% of the delineated works from 1985-1988, and dropped again to 11% in
the period 1989-1992. Hence, in the later part of the 60s and the early part of the 70s,
there had been indeed an emerging trend critical Filipino philosophy, corroborating
Nakpil-Zialcita’s morphology. But in the later part of the 70s and the early part of the
80s, this trend slackened, regaining its upsurge only in the later part of the 80s. This
drop is what probably made it difficult for Abulad to notice the significance of such a
trend. These observations gain more weight, when the trend of critical Filipino
philosophy is placed side by side with the other trends. The following table shows the
periodized percentages of the classifications of Filipino philosophy.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
25
15%
10%
In the period 1965-1968, critical Filipino philosophy ranks only fourth, standing behind
existential/continental philosophy, scholastic philosophy, and those dealing with the
Filipino worldview. In the period 1969- 1972, however, critical Filipino philosophy
surged to the second rank, behind existential/continental philosophy, and tying with
scholastic philosophy. This drastic movement from fourth to second rank is most
probably what caught the attention of Nakpil-Zialcita. In the period 1973-1976, critical
Filipino philosophy dropped to fourth rank; in the period 1977-1980, it further dropped
down to the fifth rank; in the period 1981-1984, it climbed to fourth rank, but it remained
way below the researches and publications dealing with the Filipino worldview which
was at its highest point at this period; in the period 1985-1988, it climbed further to
second rank; and in the period 1989-1992, it dropped down again to the third rank. The
equally drastic drop from the second rank to the fourth rank, then to the fifth rank, as
well as the fact that critical philosophizing had been overshadowed by works dealing
with the Filipino worldview as well as by existential/continental philosophizing, are most
probably what conditioned Abulad to miss the subtle trend.
Today, whenever Filipino scholars and students talk about the trends of Filipino
philosophy, they tend to talk about local pockets centered on the leading institutions of
philosophy: namely, scholastic philosophy at the University of Santo Tomas;
existential/continental philosophy at the Ateneo de Manila University; and logical
positivism/linguistic philosophy at the University of the Philippines. Added to these
localized trends is another one that cuts across these leading institutions and flourishes
even outside them, which is that trend that deals with the Filipino worldview. Filipino
scholars and students would tend to miss the subtle undercurrent of critical Filipino
philosophy, which to a very large extent remained barely noticed, barely discussed, and
almost forgotten. Nakpil-Zialcita’s morphological study revealed that the content of
Filipino philosophy is totally devoted to ideological study and criticism, one takes
ideology in its critical conception while the other in its neutral conception. The second
bar graph presented above shows that in the late 60s the critical and the neutral
26
ideological study had been in more or less the same bracket, with critical philosophy
constituting 8% of the publications and works dealing with the Filipino worldview
constituting 10% of the publications. In the early 70s, critical philosophy surged to 13%
while works dealing with the Filipino worldview dropped to 7% of the publications.
Nonetheless, the neutral ideological study, or the works dealing with the Filipino
worldview, came out to be the leading trend of doing Filipino philosophy, and the critical
ideological study, or the critical Filipino philosophy, remained a barely known and barely
recognized undercurrent. What happened to the upsurge of critical Filipino philosophy
in the early 70s? What happened to this very promising and relevant form of Filipino
philosophy as critique of political and economic structures? The sudden decline of
critical Filipino philosophy, side by side with the sudden boom of works dealing with the
Filipino worldview, only calls for a closer historical analysis.
20%
15%
10%
5%
The chart shows that the surge of the critical Filipino philosophy in the late 60s and the
early 70s had been in perfect synchrony with the general political restlessness,
27
manifested by the founding of the Communist Party of the Philippines in 1968 with its
flare for Marxism, Leninism and Maoism, the second term election of Ferdinand Marcos
in 1969 that marked the beginning of his shrewd ascent to dictatorship, the protests
occasioned by the dispatch of some engineering troops to Vietnam in 1970, and the
height of student and youth activism throughout 1970 and 1971. The chart shows
further that the plateau and the decline of critical Filipino philosophy in the early and mid
70s respectively coincided with the declaration of the Presidential Decree Number 1081
that placed the nation under Martial Law on 23 September 1972. However, the lifting of
the Martial Law in January of 1981, seems to have no effect on the trend of critical
Filipino philosophy. But this is understandable because even after the Martial Law, the
dictator retained some extralegal powers like the Presidential Commitment Order (PCO)
that can allow him to put into detention any person suspected of subversion or
rebellion. Finally, the chart shows that the resurge of critical Filipino philosophy in the
late 80s occurred during the EDSA Revolution that happened on 22-25 February 1986.
The question that was raised earlier why ideological study in its critical sense, or critical
Filipino philosophy, remained an undercurrent while its analogue the ideological study in
its neutral sense, or those works dealing with the Filipino worldview, boomed to become
a leading trend in Filipino philosophy, could not just be explained in terms of chance.
The combined bibliographic and politico-historical analyses strongly suggests that the
two were about to rise in the early 70s, but the Presidential Decree Number 1081
stunted the surge of the first one. Critical Filipino philosophy was simply too colored
with the hues of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, and under the totalitarian gaze of a dictatorial
regime, and scholars and students involved with it could easily be taxonomized with the
leftists subversives, insurgents, and rebels. Hence, even Filipino philosophy which
today is pathetically a-political, a-sociological, and a-historical is actually formed by the
cataclysmic political, social and historical forces.
Definitely, the martial law was so repressive, it wanted to promote a hegemonic world-
view. But I think it promoted the seeds of criticism and seeds of critical thought
especially in the universities. It maybe subversive to publish critical things during that
time but it does not mean that people did not risk. They took risks. So I wont
understand the idea that would suggest that critical thought flourished during the 60s
28
and the 70s but died during the martial law and so on and so forth. It depends on what
you are talking about. 8
For Filipino philosophy, the most logical and the most ideal scenario simply did not
transpire. On 8 February 2002, during the open forum of a symposium with the theme
Philosophy as Critique of Society and Institutions at the University of Santo Tomas, I
had the rare opportunity of asking the professor emeritus Emerita Quito about what
happened to Filipino philosophy in the Martial Law period. The participants were moved
when she said “I confess, I am guilty of what happened.” She recalled that she tried to
critique Martial Law in one of her books, but apparently an agent approached her and
demanded to excise the critical portion from her book. From that time on, she
explained, her philosophy never dared to engage again in critical ventures. Florentino
Timbreza, another respected senior Filipino philosopher, attested:
Kasi sa panahong yon di natin maiiwasan yong survival, eh. Whether you like it or not,
you want to survive. Lalo na siyempre kong may pamilya ka, medyo lay low nang kunti.
. . Karamihan naglay-low. Kumampi rin yong iba. Pero noong panahong yon in silence
inaatake nila ang administrasyon. Wala lang yong in print. Ayaw payagan, di
makapagpublish talaga. Mayroon din pero padaplis lang. Sabi nga laylow muna
habang malakas ang hangin. 9
Manuel Dy talked about the fear that gripped the professors at the Ateneo de Manila
University that followed the arrest of their literature professor, Bienvenido Lumbera. His
interview with Richard Sanchez happened as follows:
Manuel Dy: Aba, oo. Napaka-repressive yan, eh. Di ka pwedeng magsulat. Kasi yong
magsulat ka ng against Marcos, eh, naku bagsak ka sa kulungan. Black listed ka,
ganoon. Tulad nga ng nangyari sa isang propesor naming si Bien Lumbera.
Manuel Dy: Pero, di ko maaalala kong nagsulat siya. Pero, black listed siya. Tapos,
kung nagkita kami patago sa Book Mart. Naguusap kami dyan pero nakatakip yong
libro. Bulong-bulongan.10
There were younger philosophy professors, like Alfredo Co, who stressed that they did
not remain silent during those dark years. During the same 8 February 2002
8
Interview with Randolf David by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 15 February 2002.
9
Interview with Florentino Timbreza by Richard Sanchez, Manila, 31 January 2002.
10
Interview with Manuel Dy by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 19 February 2002.
29
symposium at the University of Santo Tomas, he recalled that many of them went to the
streets joining the students and the youth. But one thing is to be an activist, and quite
another thing is to sit and write critical philosophy and contribute to the formation of a
critical philosophical discourse. Abulad explained the situation this way:
We were of course not in the political forefront. The government will not go after us
because we are not instigating. . . revolutionary movements. . . . We, on our private
initiatives, we can join them. But when we do Filipino philosophy in our own brand of
philosophy, we never lost progressive dimensions but we were just starting. Filipino
philosophy is just in its infancy. And so the advantage there is that we were looked
upon as infants who are harmless. . . . So nobody touched us. We did not make a
difference in their concerns.11
Thus, the controversial finding from the combined bibliographic and politico-historical
analyses is confirmed by the testimonies of the leading Filipino philosophers of today.
The Presidential Decree Number 1081 had indeed stunted the surge of the critical
Filipino philosophy in the early 70s.
But it is noticeable that the people making testimonies so far are either already
tenured in the 70s or on their way to academic tenure, which make them fairly
conservative ones. Is it not possible that there were more radical Filipino philosophy
professors who despite the odds dared to continue doing critical philosophy? As David
earlier said: “It maybe subversive to publish critical things during that time but it does
not mean that people did not risk. They took risks. So I wont understand the idea that
would suggest that critical thought flourished during the 60s and the 70s but died during
the martial law and so on and so forth.” 12 In fact, when the theme of this paper was
presented for the first time, two of my colleagues at San Beda College suggested an
alternative scenario that could have happened to critical Filipino philosophy.
Naging iba naman ang tugon nina (Jose Arcadio) Malbarosa at (Maxwell) Felicilda sa
sitwasyong ito. Ayon sa kanila nagpatuloy ang pilosopiyang Pilipino lalo na ang kritikal
na pamimilosopiya. Napigil man ito sa kalunsuran pero lumaganap ito sa kanayunan
dahil sa mga gawain ng mga kilusang radikal o ang “underground movement.” Isiniwalat
ni Malbarosa ang pamumundok ng mga intelektwal lalo na noong panahon ng Marial
Law (Batas Militar). Idinagdag rin ni Felicilda ang pagsali nina Fr. Edicio Dela Torre at
Fr. Balweg sa NPA bilang patunay ng pagpapatuloy ng kilusang kritikal. . . 13
The Martial Law, they speculated, could have succeeded in repressing the critical
activities of the mainstream philosophy professors, but it simply could not control the
11
Interview with Romualdo Abulad by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 20 February 2002.
12
Interview with Randolf David by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 15 February 2002.
13
Richard Sanchez, “Isang Pag-uusisa at Pagguhit sa Naging Landas at Agos ng Pilipinong
Pilosopiyang Kritikal sa Panahon ng Batas Militar” (AB Thesis, San Beda College, 2002) p. 4.
30
activities of those who went underground. They suggested that critical Filipino
philosophy could have flourished in the underground movement. This scenario, though
admittedly provocative, is very problematic. The underground, as proven over and
again by history, can successfully sustain ideological and armed movement, but
philosophy is an entirely different thing. First, philosophy needs a stronger intellectual
sphere to flourish. If philosophy today is experiencing tremendous difficulties thriving on
the free and above-the-ground Philippine intellectual sphere, how can it thrive in the
confined spaces of the underground? Second, when we have in mind is a philosophy
that critiques political and economic structures, we presuppose an equal footing
between the critic and the thing being critiqued. The sociologist/philosopher Jurgen
Habermas calls this situation the ideal speech situation, where all the participating
agents have an equal opportunity to participate in a fair dialogue, assert, defend or
question all and any of their speech acts’ claim to validity, and where interaction is not
constrained by social hierarchies and unilaterally binding norms. By bringing critical
philosophy underground, the ideal speech situation is impossibly lost. Third, the
underground movement due to its limited size and precarious situation cannot afford to
nurture the bold adventurism and spirit of critical philosophy. Critical philosophy, David
emphasized, “is not bound by any dogma or ideology. It criticizes its own premises and
its own assumptions. . . . The spirit of critique is auto-criticism.” 14 Instead of promoting
intellectual activity, the underground movement represses such activity. David pointed
out:
The underground movement was shown as anti-intellectuals on certain point, because
they precisely were promoting that student activist should go to the masses and not to
books. Anti-intellectualism was so much alive in the underground movement. That is
why they discourage people to pursue their career because the real battleground was
outside the university.15
The strongest proof that the underground movement could not contain the spirit of
critical philosophy is the grim internal purge that happened down under. David
specified: “The campaign against the deep-penetration agent that led to the death of
over thousands of the members of the underground movement attests to the intolerance
of debate and criticism and discussion within the underground movement.” 16 Fourth,
even if critical philosophy indeed flourished in the underground, it still failed to fertilize
the overall discourse of Filipino philosophy. Thus, whether we talk about events above
or under the ground it becomes more convincing that the Presidential Decree Number
1081 had indeed stunted the surge of the critical Filipino philosophy in the early 70s.
A TRAUMATIZED PHILOSOPHY
14
Interview with Randolf David by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 15 February 2002.
15
Interview with Randolf David by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 15 February 2002.
16
Interview with Randolf David by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 15 February 2002.
31
If we look at Filipino philosophy today, what we can notice easily is its
characteristic shirking away from the political, the social, the historical, and the
economic. It has become a philosophy that is dispassionate, cold, and devoid of libido;
a philosophy that is lulled by some plenitude of innocuous things, such as the lofty
tenets of scholasticism and humanism, the endless mazes of language and logical
reasoning, and the exoticism of oriental thought. Looking back, Filipino philosophy only
started to venture into the realm of politics, society, history, economics, and praxiology
in general, during the emergence of its critical mode. When this youthful
experimentation was cruelly repressed, the trauma delivered affected the overall
characteristic of Filipino philosophy and inaugurated its present day characteristic
disengagement with the Philippine reality. But trauma of this kind is not anything unique
in the history of Filipino philosophy. It is more like the rule, rather than the exception.
Looking back again, the first colonial phase started with the trauma of the Spanish
colonization, just as the second colonial phase started with the more subtle trauma of
the American colonization. Graphically, we may represent these with the following
chart:
Spanish Colonization
American Colonization
With an emergent critical Filipino philosophy in the 70s, the Filipino philosophers
indeed wielded enough power and opportunity to chart a more progressive pathway for
Filipino philosophy. But Filipino philosophy allowed this shining moment to just slip
The table Percentages of the Different Trends of Filipino Philosophy from 1965 to 1992 presented
17
above clearly shows the remarkable proliferation of works dealing with the Filipino worldview.
Beginning from the period 1977-1984 it has become the leading trend of doing Filipino philosophyf with
an average share of 27.5% of al the publications for every period.
33
away from its clutches. Of all the stages mentioned by Nakpil-Zialcita and Abulad, and
of all the localized trends centered on the leading institutions of philosophy, it is critical
philosophy that promised a lot.
is subsumed under the agenda of catholic theology, which in return is subsumed under
the agenda of Catholic dogmatism, Thomistic philosophy is not a free philosophy, but a
philosophy in bondage. A human person, whose freedom is taken away and who is
chained into servitude, cannot be creative nor capable of developing himself anymore. A
philosophy that is without its own agenda shares a similar fate with a person in
bondage.”18
On the contrary, critical philosophy comes with a definite agendum, which is to critique
the Philippine cultural, social, economic and political structures. Such agenda is
immediately relevant to a society that is as pathological as its philosophy. A society and
culture that is riddled with contradictions and structural deformations is in immediate
need of critical analysis. Hence, the urgency of a critical Filipino philosophy to finally
emerge from its pathological state is not a mere academic desire of some armchair
intellectuals, but is something that is actually premised on a social, cultural, and national
interest. Beside, Philippine Thomism has already become a philosophy that is bored
with itself. Our bibliographic analysis based on Gripaldo’s work reveals the following
downward trend.
Lastly, this way of doing philosophy has been around for centuries, and if it failed to
catalyze the development of Filipipino philosophy before, it would be futile to expect that
maybe it still could in the near future.
18
F.P.A. Demeterio, “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of
Filipino Philosophy,” Online Article from http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
34
The Inadequacy of the Second Colonial Phase
P
A
R
A
Reality D Question Search Answer
I
G
M
Theories
TRADITION
Philosophy is ought to be “a paradigmatic (in the Thomas Kuhnian sense of the word)
reflection on reality that generates questions which calls for a search in order to come
up with an answer, and whose answer can be deposited back to tradition to be used in
providing further paradigms and research methodologies.” 20 It is not the paradigm
alone, nor the question alone, nor the search alone, nor the answer alone, nor the
theories from tradition alone, that will constitute philosophy. Rather, it is “the circuit from
tradition, to paradigm, to question, to search, to answer, and then back to tradition
constitutes the lifeblood of philosophy.” 21 The influx of western theories during the
second colonial phase deviated from this functional structure. In their fascination for
their novelty and foreignness, the Filipino philosophy professors seemed to over-stress
19
Demeterio, “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of
Filipino Philosophy.”
20
Demeterio, “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of
Filipino Philosophy.”
21
Demeterio, “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of
Filipino Philosophy.”
35
the answer component of philosophy, at the expense of the other structural
components.
If out of six structural components in our diagram, we had been concerned only with just
one component, we cannot expect Filipino philosophy to ever live and much less
develop on our soil. Furthermore, this way of doing philosophy is not simply alien to
Philippine reality, it is indeed alien on five counts: namely alien to our tradition, alien to
our paradigms, alien to our questions, alien to our search, and alien to our answers.22
Many of our Filipino philosophy professors slid down into the most miserable situation of
thinking that the object to be studied in philosophy is other philosophies, and that
philosophy is too lofty to condescend with lowly realities. Though critical philosophy is
similarly alien in origin, through its being an immanent reflection on the real world and
through its simple engagement with Philippine reality, it can easily be appropriated by
our Filipino philosophers, and professors and students of philosophy. Through cycles
of critique and auto-critique, it would not take very long before a truly critical Filipino
philosophy can finally emerge. Furthermore, critical philosophy can be the easy
gateway for Filipino philosophy towards postmodernism and postcolonialism. Though
the influx of western theories can endlessly talk about philosophical currents, the actual
and real postmodern and postcolonial philosophies happen during the moment of
critique of the modern, postmodern, colonial and neocolonial worlds.
22
Demeterio, “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of
Filipino Philosophy.”
36
We can see that this way of doing Filipino philosophy has surged so dramatically to
become the dominant mode starting in the period 1977-1980, and rising to more than
25% in the suceeding periods. But beneath this phenomenal growth, there are
symptoms that this mode of doing Filipino philosophy has become over-saturated with
its own works. What Abulad suggested with the idea of distantiation by the other
academicians from the agenda of the early indigenization is in fact validated by the
same table above. There had been a 7% drop of publications of this kind in the period
1985-1988, followed by a further drop of 3% in the period 1989-1992.
The main problem with this way of doing Filipino philosophy has been revealed
already by Nakpil-Zialcita when he questioned the philosophic nature of the concern of
this way of philosophizing. Having doubted its philosophic nature, Nakpil-Zialcita placed
its being philosophic on its purpose which is to theorize further on the impact of the
Filipino world-view on the present and future of the Filipino. Instead of doing the post-
sociological and post anthropological speculations, many of our philosophy professors
and students had been mired behind the trail of the social scientists and other cultural
experts whose tasks they poorly attempted to duplicate.
There is another very subtle problem with this way of of doing Filipino philosophy
that emerges only after genealogical and symptomatic reading. We have already
mentioned in passing that in the early 70s there had been a sudden decline of critical
Filipino philosophy that coincided with an equally sudden boom of works dealing with
the Filipino worldview. The following bar graph shows the comparative behavior of
these two modes of doing Filipino philosophy:
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
37
5%
Whereas the Presidential Decree Number 1081 appeared to have stunted the surge of
the critical Filipino philosophy in the early 70s, it equally appeared to have favored the
growth of Filipino philosophy as interpretation of Filipino worldview in the same period.
This phenomenal growth is simply innocuous when contextualized in the thought that
this mode of doing Filipino philosophy grew because it was considered politically tame
by the dictatorial regime. But a more radical reading of the same thing can reveal a
more sinister situation. The fascist regime of Marcos sought a regulation of national
and individual existence in accordance with a mythic nationalism that he intended to
construct. Thus, the slogan Isang lahi, isang bansa, isang tadhana. It is not a secret
that the dictator pooled together gifted intellectuals to construct for him a myth of a
nation to consolidate his fascist project. Certainly, the sociological, anthropological and
cultural discourses about the identity of the Filipino and the description of his worldview
are significant elements of this mythical construction. It is beyond argument that many
intellectuals in the fields of social sciences and cultural studies had been collaborating
with the dictatorial regime in the process of making this same mythical construction a
dominant concern of Filipino scholars and intellectuals since the 70s. The Filipino
professors of philosophy during this period may not been part of the dictator’s
intellectual machinery, buy many of them joined the epistemic bandwagon that is partial
towards the churning out of nationalist discourses that would ultimately serve the
dictator’s fascist regime.
Many Filipino professors of philosophy therefore did not only shirk from their
critical task, but also collaborated—consciously or unconsciously—with their almost
mechanical participation in the dictator’s mythic factory.
38
second colonial phase, where they took the easy way again of preoccupying
themselves with the purposeless expounding of one foreign philosophy after another.
The greatest problem with this phase of Filipino philosophy, therefore, is the absence of
a collective agenda, which will not only stall the development of Filipino philosophy, but
will literally catalyze the latter’s devolution, for in this critical moment there is no such
thing as status quo. It is either Filipino philosophy evolves otherwise it devolves.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
F. Sionil Jose’s novel Ben Singkol, mentions a moment when a war veteran,
Benjamin Singkol, ponders with his adolescent daughter about the turbulence brought
by the dictatorial regime.
“I suppose each generation faces some kind of test. Whether that generation is strong
or not, not the entire generation itself, but its members, individuals like you. Like me.
My grandfather’s generation,” I said thinking of Apo Iro, “it was the Spaniards who tested
them, and the Americans, too, whom they fought courageously.” I was thinking of the
Battle Tirad Pass. “and my generation, it was the Japanese who tested us.”
She leaned back and looked very thoughtful. “and perhaps, mine—it is being tested
now by Marcos.”23
Similarly, like Benjamin’s grandfather, himself and his daughter, Filipino philosophy had
also been tested, by the Spaniards, Americans, and by Marcos’ dictatorial regime.
Benjamin’s grandfather, Apo Iro, failed the test, because he betrayed his fellow
revolutionaries to the Spanish authorities. Benjamin likewise failed because though he
did not collaborate with the Japanese, he collaborated with the Americans. Only his
daughter, Josie, past the test by going underground. But Apo Iro and Benjamin lived to
ripe old age, while Josie was captured by the military.
Filipino philosophy failed the test of the first and the second colonial phases, and
it likewise failed the test of Marcos’ fascism. In the same open forum of the symposium
at the University of Santo Tomas on 8 February 2002, when Quito declared “I confess, I
am guilty of what happened,” she also made a side comment on my persistent
questions, “does that make you feel better?” The audience applauded her candidness,
but it made me ponder deeper. We, the younger Filipino professors of philosophy, we
might be lucky for being spared from the grim and certainly compromising era of the
Martial Law, but for sure we also will be tested in our own time, and only God knows
how many of us will pass whatever this test would turn out to be.
For us, the younger Filipino professors of philosophy, the last thing that we
should do is to cast accusing fingers on our predecessors, for what we need is a
deconcealment and narrativization of the knowledges and interests of our immediate
past. Instead of demanding for a Nuremberg trial for those who failed the previous
tests, we can benefit more if we place our history on a Freudian couch. Only a
23
F. Sionil Jose, Ben Singko (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001) p. 184.
39
psychoanalytic purgation of our collective psyche can heal the multiple traumas suffered
by Filipino philosophy. We have derailed a very promising philosophy and we should
not remain silent, but learn again the pathway of critique. The salvation for Filipino
philosophy may come from retrieving and reliving the forgotten movement of the early
indigenous phase of critical Filipino philosophy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
40
Williams, Raymond. The Sociology of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
ON THE STATUS AND DIRECTIONS
OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHIES AS IMPLIED
IN THE TAXONOMIES AND PERIODIZATIONS
OF ZIALCITA, QUITO, ABULAD, GRIPALDO,
CO AND MABAQUIAO
41
F.P.A. Demeterio III
INTRODUCTION
The question “is there a Filipino philosophy,” is not only something that is borne
out sheer ignorance of what is going on in our intellectual landscape, specifically during
the past three or four decades, it is more so an insult to the toils of the Filipino thinkers
who have trodden the path of philosophizing ahead of us. The fact is there are a
number of Filipino philosophies, each containing its own idiosyncratic problems,
baggage, and challenges, as well as promising potentials. Instead of bothering
ourselves with the useless question that would lead us nowhere, we can more profitably
invest our time and energy exploring these Filipino philosophies and plumbing their
respective weaknesses and strengths, so as to glean some insights on which of them
need to be set aside due to their lack of developmental potentials, and which of them
need to be pursued more seriously due to their brighter developmental future. In this
way we can shift the philosophical discourse away from the useless, ignorant and
insulting question “is there a Filipino philosophy,” and towards the more noble and
relevant inquiry “how may we be able to contribute to the further development of Filipino
philosophies.”
This paper will look into the taxonomies and periodizations of Filipino
philosophies as laid out by the reflective, incisive and thorough researches undertaken
by the following Filipino scholars:
42
Fernando Zialcita, an anthropologist, cultural critic and cultural historian
at the Ateneo De Manila University;
The earliest Filipino scholar who problematized the existence and mode of
existence of Filipino philosophy seems to be Zialcita, who in 1971 wrote the essay
entitled “Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino.” This essay was translated into Filipino by
the literary and cultural critic Nicanor Tiongson and was published in the anthology of
the psychological theorist Virgilio Enriquez, entitled Mga Babasahin sa Pilosopiya:
Epistemolohiya, Lohika, Wika at Pilosopiya ng Pilipino. Unable to retrieve the original
English essay, this paper relied on Tiongson’s Filipino translation. Zialcita’s synchronic
taxonomy covered what appeared to him in the late 1960s and early 1970s as
contemporary philosophical activities. His research was exclusivist, in the sense that he
43
did not bother about a number of local discourses that for him should not be part of
“Filipino philosophy.” The implied structure of his taxonomy is as follows:
Filipino
Philosophy (2) Critique of Political &
Economic Structures
(a) Content
(3) Interpretation of
Filipino Worldview
44
of Filipino Philosophy
45
pathway carved earlier by the Filipino social scientists and scholars in
humanities who were energized by the nationalism of Claro M. Recto
and who discovered the in-congruencies between western theories and
local realities. Zialcita explained that this kind of Filipino philosophy is
geared towards constructing a discourse that would give the Filipinos
self respect and confidence, shield against the imperialistic cultures, and
basis for expressing themselves as a people. However, due to the
anthropological and sociological appearance of its primordial problems,
many doubted its philosophic nature. Zialcita was in fact dissatisfied
with how this kind of Filipino was done in his time. He suggested: “Sinuri
rin niya ang pananaw-sa-mundo ng Pilipino upang malaman kung paano
ito magamit ng Pilipino upang lalo niyang maipahayag ang kanyang sarili
at umunlad sa isang mundong umuunlad” (Zialcita, 324).
Zialcita tended to see all of the three types of Filipino philosophy as all promising
pathways in developing Filipino philosophy. Since his taxonomy is exclusivist, it is most
probable that he had already relegated the otherwise developmentally problematic
discourses to silence.
The next Filipino scholar who problematized the existence and mode of
existence of Filipino philosophy seems to be Quito, who in 1983 published the
monograph entitled The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Her synchronic
taxonomy covered what appeared to her in the 1980s as contemporary philosophical
activities. Her research was inclusivist, in the sense that it encompassed all
philosophical discourses in the country. The implied structure of her taxonomy, the
most complex and detailed among the six taxonomies/periodizations studied in this
paper, is as follows:
(2) Scholasticism/
Thomism
(6) Application
(b) Grassroots/
Popular (8) Description of Folk
46 Spirit
(d) Articulated
(9) Appropriation of Folk
Spirit
Figure 2: Quito’s Taxonomy
of Filipino Philosophy
Third Level Taxonomizers: For her third taxonomic level, Quito did not
break further her strict academic philosophy, as well as her unarticulated
folk spirit. But she divided further her loose academic philosophy using
as her taxonomizer the binary exposition/application (see letter e and
number 6 in figure 2) into expository philosophy and applied philosophy.
She also divided further her articulated discourses on folk spirit using as
her taxonomizer the main ways of articulately dealing with the folk spirit.
Fourth Level Taxonomizer: For her fourth taxonomic level, she did not
break further applied philosophy, description of the folk spirit and
appropriation of the folk spirit. But she divided further her expository
philosophy using as her taxonomizer the phenomena that appeared to
her in the 1980s as the main concerns of this type of Filipino philosophy.
Filipino Philosophy in the Strict Sense (see number 1 in figure 2): this
is something that is yet non-existent but Quito hoped to emerge in the
near future (Quito, 9-10). The quality and standard of such a body of
47
works would be comparable to how philosophy is usually done and
practiced in Western universities.
48
there is always a philosophical idea to give it impetus and meaning”
(Quito, 39). This broad discourse includes Zialcita’s Filipino philosophy
as critique of political and economic structures (see number 2 in figure
1).
THE PERIODIZATION
AND TAXONOMY OF ABULAD
Five years after the publication of Quito’s The State of Philosophy in the
Philippines, Abulad published an essay entitled “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy.”
This makes him probably the next Filipino scholar who problematized the existence and
mode of existence of Filipino philosophy. Abulad’s diachronic periodization, that
simultaneously nestled a taxonomy, covered the academic manifestations of
philosophical discourses from the Spanish period to what appeared to him in the middle
of 1980s as contemporary. His research may be considered inclusivist, although it is
49
not as inclusive as that of Quito. The implied structure of his periodization/taxonomy is
as follows:
(2) Phenomenology /
Existentialism
(5) Anthropological
Philosophy
(b) Early Indigenous
Phase
(6) Application of
Philosophical Methods
Second Level Taxonomizers: He did not break further his first colonial
phase as well as his late indigenous phase. But he divided further his
second colonial phase using as his taxonomizer the most salient
philosophical trends that he observed from the 1960s to the 1980s. He
also divided his late indigenous phase using as his taxonomizer the
dominant ways of doing such a philosophical discourse.
50
In effect he talked about seven types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
51
phase in the indigenization process of philosophy. Thinkers of this
country will just have to keep on doing the thing which they have been
called to do, without hardly the need to worry about whether the ideas
they are giving birth to are foreign or Filipino. It is left to the future
generation to determine whether we actually have produced a
meaningful legacy, that is, one which no other nation can claim to be
their own” (Abulad, 60).
(a) Cultural
Sense
(3) Description of Folk
Filipino
Philosophy
Philosophy
52
First Level Taxonomizer: Gripaldo’s first level taxonomizer is the
different senses of the term “Filipino philosophy” (see letters a & b, and
number 1 in figure 4) that divided the same concept into its traditional
sense, cultural sense and geographical sense (Gripaldo, 2005, 227). It
must be made clear, however, that Gripaldo did not use the word
“geographical” but instead used the word “national.” This paper opted
to substitute “national” with “geographical” in order to proffer a stronger
contrast with his two other categories, “traditional” and “cultural” which
are also highly national and nationalistic discourses.
53
folk philosophy (see number 8 in figure 2) as well as with Abulad’s
anthropological philosophy (see number 5 in figure 3). In his essay “The
Making of a Filipino Philosopher,” Gripaldo expressed his wish that this
kind of Filipino philosophy move towards “a holistic philosophy of culture
similar to the one done by Jean Ladriere (1994), a French philosopher,
and Richard Taylor (2000), a Canadian philosopher. Ladriere discusses
the symbiotic relationship between culture and philosophy while Taylor
holds that culture is the ground of human existence” (Gripaldo, 2009,
71).
54
philosophy as application of other philosophies (see number 6 in figure
2), as well as with Abulad’s Filipino philosophy as application of foreign
theories (see number 6 in figure 3). Gripaldo explained: “Oriental and
Western philosophical ideas can be appropriated and modified
accordingly to suit the terrain, so to speak, of the local situation. A part
of its manifestation is reflected in Filipino East-West comparative
philosophical writings aimed at offering a solution to a local/national
Filipino philosophical dilemma or problem” Gripaldo, 228).
THE PERIODIZATION
AND TAXONOMY OF CO
Co published his essay entitled “Doing Philosophy in the Philippines: Fifty Years
ago, and Fifty Years from Now,” in 2004. Like Abulad’s schema, Co’s also presented a
hybrid diachronic periodization and taxonomy that covered all the academic
manifestations of philosophy in the country from the Spanish period to what appeared to
him in the middle of the 2000s as contemporary. His research is also as inclusivist as
that of Abulad. The implied structure of his periodization/taxonomy is as follows:
(a) Untextualized
Filipino
Philosophy (3) Early Filipino
Scholars
55
First Level Taxonomizer: Co’s first level taxonomizer is the binary
“textualized/untextualized” (see letters a & b in figure 5), that divided
Filipino philosophy into textualized and untextualized discourses.
56
diligently wrote and animated the philosophical publication in the
country” (Co, 55).
57
synchronic taxonomy covered all the manifestations of philosophical discourses that
were covered by Quito, his research was inclusivist due to his agenda of eliminating the
inappropriate referents of the term “Filipino philosophy.” It is worth noting that among
the six scholars that this paper studied, it is only Mabaquiao who wrote his analysis in
the Filipino language. The implied structure of his taxonomy is as follows:
(c) Untextualized
(2) Philosophical
(a) Loose Lectures
58
reconstruction did not divide strict philosophy into untextualized and
textualized strictly philosophical discourses. Instead, our reconstruction
presented strict textualized philosophy as something divided by a
taxonomizer consisting of the phenomena that appeared to him in 2010s
as the main concerns of the legitimate manifestation of Filipino
philosophy.
59
bagay na may kinalaman sa bansang Pilipinas (halimbawa, mga
paksang may kinalaman sa pulitika at kultura ng bansang Pilipinas)”
(Mabaquiao, 13).
CONCLUSION
As mentioned at the introductory part of this paper, this study would conclude
with a grand synthesis of the taxonomies and periodizations proffered by the six Filipino
scholars of philosophy and would comment on each of the grand synthesis’ forms with
respect to their strengths, weaknesses and overall assessment.
Zialcita, Quito, Abulad, Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao utilized the following key
taxonomizers/periodizers: 1) method/content, 2) academic/grassroots, 3) loose/strict, 4)
exposition/application, 5) articulated/unarticulated, and 6) textualized/untextualized.
This paper’s grand synthesis prioritized Co and Mabaquiao’s textualized/untextualized
binary, Quito’s academic/grassroots binary, and Zialcita’s content/method binary.
The six scholars mentioned a total of thirty-five forms: three by Zialcita, nine by
Quito, seven by Abulad, six by Gripaldo, five by Co, and five by Mabaquiao. But due to
the similarities of some of these forms, their number can be reduced to seventeen,
namely: 1) critical philosophy, 2) interpretation of the Filipino worldview, 3) Filipino
method, 4) Scholasticism, 5) Phenomenology/Existentialism, 6) logical analysis, 7)
oriental philosophies, 8) application of foreign theories, 9) folk spirit, 10) Philosophy in
the strict sense, 11) appropriation of the folk spirit, 12) late indigenous phase, 13)
breakthrough writing, 14) second wave of Filipino Scholars, 15) pseudo philosophies,
16) discourse on local themes, and 17) discourse on universal and foreign themes.
These seventeen forms of Filipino philosophy can still be reduced by eliminating those
60
forms with unclear referents, those forms whose referents are a combination of some
other forms, and those forms that clearly do not belong to the collection. Following such
streamlining principles, we have to give up the Filipino method of Zialcita, the
philosophy in the strict sense of Quito, the late indigenous phase of Abulad, the second
wave of Filipino Scholars of Co, and the pseudo philosophies of Mabaquiao.
Consequently, we are left with twelve forms that we can use in building our grand
synthesis as represented in the following schema:
(1) Grassroots/Folk
Philosophy
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/
Thomism (Lecture)
Academic
(3) Other Foreign
Systems (Lecture)
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Method (7) Critical Philosophy
(8) Appropriation of
Foreign Theories
(11) Breakthrough
61 Writing
The resulting schema contains fourteen forms, instead of just twelve, for the
reasons that critical philosophy (see numbers 4 & 7 in figure 7) and exposition of foreign
systems (see numbers 3 & 10 in figure 7) appear twice. The original form of
Phenomenology/Existentialism was replaced with Phenomenology/Hermeneutics in
order to put an emphasis on the methodic function of this particular philosophical form.
62
and bureaucrat-
mainstream this discourse.
capitalist state.
This form of Filipino philosophy
A powerful method in Its positivist leaning has a high developmental
philosophizing. Based may stifle other usefulness. This should not
Logical Analysis (Abulad)
on mostly English philosophical remain confined at its
original texts. discourses. geographic center, the
University of the Philippines.
Powerful methods in
philosophizing. Their This form of Filipino philosophy
Based on mostly
openness for has a high developmental
French and German
Phenomenology/ subjective usefulness. This should not
original texts that are
Hermeneutics (Abulad) interpretations could remain confined at its
not accessible to most
allow many geographic center, the Ateneo
Filipino scholars.
philosophical de Manila University.
discourses to flourish.
A useful and relevant
discourse in the
context of a semi-
This form of Filipino philosophy
feudal, neo-colonial
has a high developmental
and bureaucrat- The declaration of the
usefulness. Filipino
capitalist state. Martial Law drastically
Critical Philosophy as an academicians should try to use
Powerful method in decreased the number
Academic Method this philosophical method. This
philosophizing. Its of researches that
(Zialcita) can be enriched further by the
openness for utilized critical
discourses of the Frankfurt
subjective philosophy.
School and the postmodern
interpretations could
thinkers.
allow many
philosophical
discourses to flourish.
A useful and relevant
discourse. It creates This form of Filipino philosophy
Very few Filipino
an occasion for an has a high developmental
Appropriation of Foreign scholars ventured into
intellectual dialogue usefulness. More Filipino
Theories (Quito & this kind of
between foreign academicians should engage
Gripaldo) philosophical
philosophical theories themselves with this mode of
discourse.
and local realities and philosophizing.
situations.
This venture is tied to
the unresolved issue of
This form of Filipino philosophy
A useful and relevant Filipino national
has a high developmental
discourse in the sense language. There are
Appropriation of Folk usefulness. More Filipino
that it would enrich still a number of
Philosophy (Quito) academicians should engage
philosophy with local Filipino scholars who
themselves with this mode of
concepts and theories. are not comfortable in
philosophizing.
using the Filipino
language.
Its expository nature is
not very
A good starting point
developmentally
for the appropriation of
promising. Most
Textual Exposition of foreign theories and for This form of Filipino philosophy
Filipino scholars have
Foreign Systems breakthrough writing. has a moderate developmental
access only to English
(Gripaldo & Co) An opportunity for usefulness.
original texts and have
contextually discussing
no access to the
these foreign systems.
archives of particular
philosophers.
Breakthrough Writing This discourse could Very few Filipino This form of Filipino philosophy
(Gripaldo) lead to the scholars ventured into has a high developmental
establishment of this kind of usefulness.
certain philosophies philosophical research.
that can easily be Most Filipino scholars
63
have access only to
recognized and
English original texts
discussed by the
and have no access to
international
the archives of
community.
particular philosophers.
This form of Filipino philosophy
The bulk of Filipino
has a high developmental
philosophical Many failed to
Interpretation of Filipino usefulness. Filipino
publications belong to understand the sense
Worldview (Zialcita, academicians should be guided
this form of philosophy. and direction of this
Quito, Abulad, Gripaldo, by Zialcita and Quito’s thoughts
There are many gurus mode of
Co & Mabaquiao) concerning the sense and
in this philosophical philosophizing.
directions of this mode of
discourse.
philosophizing.
This will make
philosophy more
relevant. This will Very few Filipino
This form of Filipino philosophy
Discourse on Local enrich the intellectual scholars ventured into
has a high developmental
Themes (Mabaquiao) level of the current this kind of
usefulness.
discussions and philosophical research.
researches on local
themes.
This discourse could
lead to the
establishment of
Very few Filipino
Discourse on Universal certain philosophies This form of Filipino philosophy
scholars ventured into
and Foreign Themes that can easily be has a high developmental
this kind of
(Mabaquiao) recognized and usefulness.
philosophical research.
discussed by the
international
community.
To conclude, this paper has established that out of the fourteen forms of Filipino
philosophy:
64
Hence, instead of raising again the useless question “is there Filipino philosophy,”
Filipino students and younger scholars of philosophy should select which among the ten
highly developmentally useful forms of Filipino philosophy they would want to work on.
By doing so, their consequent philosophical researches would hopefully contribute to
the further enrichment of Filipino philosophy until the day would come when the useless
question would be totally forgotten.
SOURCES
Abulad, Romualdo. “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy.” Karunungan/Sophia, Vol. 5, 1988.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of Filipino
Philosophy.” In F.P.A. Demeterio’s Philosophy and Cultural Theory Page. At:
http://sites.google.com/site/feorillodemeterio/re-readingemeritaquito. Date Published: October
1998. Date Accessed: 01 February 2011.
Demeterio, F.P.A. “Thought and Socio-Politics: an Account of the Late Twentieth Century Filipino
Philosophy.” In F.P.A. Demeterio’s Philosophy and Cultural Theory Page. At:
http://sites.google.com/site/feorillodemeterio/thoughtandsocio-politics. Date Published: April 2002.
Date Accessed: 01 February 2011.
Zialcita, Fernando. “Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino.” Trans. Nicanor Tiongson. In Virgilio Enriquez,
Mga Babasahin sa Pilosopiya: Epistemolohiya, Lohika, Wika at Pilosopiyang Pilipino. Manila:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House, 1983. Pp. 318-336.
Co, Alfredo. “Doing Philosophy in the Philippines: Fifty Years ago, and Fifty Years from Now.” In Across
the Philosophical Silk Road: a Festschrift in Honor of Alfredo Co. Volume 6. Manila: University of
Santo Tomas Publishing House, 2009. Pp. 49-62.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?” In Rolando Gripaldo, Ed. The Philosophical
Landscape: a Panoramic Perspective on Philosophy. Manila: Philippine National Philosophical
Research Society, 2005. Second Edition. Pp. 227-231.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher.” In Rolando Gripaldo, Ed. The Making of a
Filipino Philosopher and Other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 2009. Pp. 62-
81.
Quito, Emerita. The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1983.
Mabaquiao, Napoleon. “Isang Paglilinaw sa Kahulugan at Kairalan ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Submitted
for Review to Malay Journal.
65
ASSESSING THE DEVELOPMENTAL
POTENTIALS OF SOME TWELVE DISCOURSES
OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
66
the greatest developmental potentials. This paper concludes by
enjoining the Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy to
invest their limited resources, time, energy and other capitals to the
discourses with the greatest developmental potentials.
INTRODUCTION
In her book The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, Emerita Quito pinpointed
at least ten reasons for the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy, namely: 1) our
colonization and our experience of authoritarianism during the Martial Law that curtailed
our freedom of thought; 2) the pejorative connotation of philosophy in our culture; 3) our
monetarily un-alluring academic career; 4) our philosophy professors’ heavy teaching
loads; 5) the lack of research infrastructure in our academe; 6) our lack of professional
pressure and incentive system for research; 7) the high cost of pursuing graduate
studies abroad; 8) the inbreeding in our local centers for graduate studies in philosophy;
9) our shortcoming in terms of international languages; and 10) our shortcoming in
terms of our national language (Quito 9-55) . Thirty years after the publication of this
incisive work, some things have definitely changed on the terrains of the Philippine
academe, and a number of philosophical discourses have either continued or started to
germinate. Since to a large extent Filipino philosophy remains underdeveloped, it would
be very tempting to revisit the reasons mentioned by Quito and ascertain their
persistence, aggravation, alleviation, or total disappearance. But owing to the greater
chances that most of these reasons have indeed substantially persisted, such an
intended revisit would most probably only lead us to a dead alley where Filipino
professors of philosophy are brought to a paralyzing realization that they are actually
trapped in an unfavorable context which is beyond their capacities to rectify.
67
In my paper entitled “Status and Directions for ‘Filipino Philosophy’ in Zialcita,
Timbreza, Quito, Abulad, Mabaquiao, Gripaldo and Co” I catalogued sixteen different
discourses of Filipino philosophy based on the reflections of the Filipino philosophical
luminaries Fernando Zialcita, Florentino Timbreza, Emerita Quito, Romualdo Abulad,
Napoleon Mabaquiao, and Alfredo Co (Demeterio 2013, 206). These sixteen discourses
are shown in the following diagram:
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/Thomism (Lecture)
Academic
(3) Other Foreign Systems (Lecture)
(6) Phenomenology/Existentialism/
(Hermeneutics)
Out of these sixteen discourses of Filipino philosophy, the following can be eliminated
outright for some specific reasons: 1) Filipino philosophy as grassroots or folk
philosophy, as this is not philosophy as such but the collective mentality of the Filipino
people; 2) Filipino philosophy as the oral exposition of Scholasticism and Thomism, as
the non-textual nature of this discourse would not contribute much to the textual
production of Filipino philosophy; 3) Filipino philosophy as the oral exposition of other
foreign philosophical systems, for the same reason cited for the preceding discourse;
and 4) Filipino philosophy as non-academic critical analysis, as this discourse is totally
beyond the control of the members of the academe. Hence, we are left with twelve
discourses of Filipino philosophy to examined for their developmental potentials, namely
and in a more logical order: 1) Filipino philosophy as the exposition of foreign systems;
2) Filipino philosophy as the application of logical analysis; 3) Filipino philosophy as the
application of phenomenology and hermeneutics; 4) Filipino philosophy as the
appropriation of foreign theories; 5) Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing; 6) Filipino
philosophy as academic critical analysis; 7) Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of
the Filipino worldview; 8) Filipino philosophy as research on Filipino ethics and values;
9) Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of folk spirit; 10) Filipino philosophy as the
study on the presuppositions and implications of the Filipino worldview; 11) Filipino
philosophy as the study of the Filipino philosophical luminaries; and 12) Filipino
philosophy in the Filipino language.
69
In order for us to come up with our own list of the leading Filipino philosophers
and writers/scholars of philosophy I started culling names from Co’s essays “In the
Beginning…a Personal Petit Historical Narrative of the History of Philosophy in the
Philippines,” and “Doing Philosophy in the Philippines: Fifty Years Ago, Fifty Years from
Now.” To my initial list, I added some more names that I gathered from my email
exchanges with Mabaquiao, the Chair of the Philosophy Department of De La Salle
University (DLSU), Jeffry Ocay, the Chair of the Philosophy Department and Associate
Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences of Silliman University (SU), and Raymundo
Pavo of the University of the Philippines-Mindanao (UP-M). I then counter-checked my
list against some of the recurrent names in Gripaldo’s two bibliographies. I ended up
with a rather long list of names without any data yet on their corresponding
representative texts.
Finally, I utilized the Google Scholar in order for me to retrieve the representative
texts of these leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy. For each
name I only looked at the first 30 hits in the Google Scholar. I used the Google Scholar
also to trim down my list by deciding to exclude the names with less than five recorded
titles, as well as the names with less than five recorded citations, as of 13 March 2013.
Although Google Scholar certainly has its limitations and shortcomings, this search
engine was selected among other academic search engines for the main reason that its
listing is inclusive and lenient enough in as far as the still struggling discourses of
Filipino philosophy are concerned. Other more exclusive and stricter academic search
engines might assure us the quality of works that are mentioned, but their resultant
number of persons and works might turn out to be very few for the macro nature of this
study. Following my strategies, the table below lists down the leading Filipino
philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy in as far as this paper is concerned:
Number of
Filipino Philosopher and
Institutional Works Recorded Total Citations in
Writer/Scholar of
Affiliation in Google Google Scholar
Philosophy
Scholar
Abulad, Romualdo DLSU/USC 13 13
Babor, Eduardo HNU (Tagbilaran) 5 13
Bonifacio, Armando UP-Diliman 7 8
Bulatao, Jaime ADMU 17 231
Canilao, Narcisa UP-Baguio 5 7
De Castro, Leonardo UP-Diliman 19 49
Demetrio, Francisco XU 20 91
Dy, Manuel ADMU 20 15
Ferriols, Roque ADMU 11 8
Gorospe, Vitaliano ADMU 24 115
Gripaldo, Rolando DLSU 27 43
Hornedo, Florentino ADMU/UST 23 52
Ibana, Rainier ADMU 13 7
Lee, Zosimo UP-Diliman 13 12
Mananzan, Mary John SSC 15 119
Mercado, Leonardo (SVD) 17 160
Miranda, Dionisio (SVD)/USC 5 14
Ocay, Jeffry SU 7 6
Palma-Angeles, Antonnette ADMU 5 12
70
Pascual, Ricardo UP-Diliman 6 15
Pilario, Daniel Franklin AU 8 14
Quito, Emerita DLSU 24 38
Reyes, Benito FEU 11 13
Reyes, Ramon ADMU 10 6
Rodriguez, Agustin Martin ADMU 18 17
Timbreza, Florentino DLSU 17 18
The titles of the works of these leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of
philosophy that were gleaned from the first thirty hits in the Google Scholar engine are
found in Appendix A. With the problems on who are the main proponents of the
different manifestations of Filipino philosophy and what are their representative texts
settled, we may now briefly describe each of the twelve discourses of Filipino
philosophy in the following paragraphs.
71
Filipino Philosophy as the Application of Phenomenology and
Hermeneutics (Cf. number 6 of figure 1): This came out in the studies of Quito &
Abulad. If Filipino philosophy as the application of logical analysis is the use of the
dominant Anglo-Saxon way of doing philosophy, Filipino philosophy as the application
of phenomenology and hermeneutics is the use of the dominant continental-European
ways of doing philosophy that were initiated by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) and
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). In as far as our leading Filipino philosophers and
writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, only Mary John Mananzan of Saint
Scholastica College (SSC), Florentino Hornedo of ADMU and University of Santo
Tomas (UST), and Rainer Ibana of ADMU are recorded to have practiced this kind of
doing philosophy, and they represent only 12% of our delineated population. Although
the affiliations of these three practitioners of this manifestation of Filipino philosophy do
not conclusively point to a definite geographic center, by reputation ADMU is thought to
be the institution where continental-European philosophies are tackled.
72
delineated population could not give us any hint on where the geographic center of this
kind of doing philosophy is located.
73
Filipino Philosophy as the Appropriation of Folk Spirit (Cf. number 9 of figure
1): This came out in the studies of Timbreza, Quito, Mabaquiao and Gripaldo. In
anticipation of the objections concerning the purpose and philosophical nature of
Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview, Quito emphasized the
epistemological significance of such an endeavor in the sense that a thorough research
on the Filipino worldview would give the Filipino researchers folk concepts, categories
and theories and methods that they may appropriate and use in formally and
academically constructing a distinct discourse of Filipino philosophy. Quito said, “the
folk spirit of the Filipino. . . should eventually emerge as the formalized philosophy on
the academic level” (Quito 10). In as far as our leading Filipino philosophers and
writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, only Dionisio Miranda of Society of the
Divine Word (SVD) and currently assigned in the University of San Carlos (USC) is
recorded to have practiced this kind of doing philosophy, and he represents only 4% of
our delineated population. With one practitioner recorded, it would not make any
statistical sense in naming his current address as the geographic center of this
manifestation of Filipino philosophy.
74
and Pascual. The affiliations of the practitioners of this manifestation of Filipino
philosophy do not conclusively point to its definite geographic center.
RUBRICS OF ASSESSMENT
Question/
Problem Cognitive Process
Textual Output
Theory & Concepts (Method) (Discourse)
Textual Input Agent
(Data)
75
A discourse can therefore be Filipino or foreign in terms of its underlying question or
problem (final cause); its textual input (material cause); and of its cognitive process,
which consists of its theories and concepts (formal cause) and its agent (efficient
cause). Components that are Filipino shall be rated “high” (with numeric equivalent of
3.00), while those that are foreign shall be rated “low” (with numeric equivalent of 1.00),
while those that are of various degrees of admixtures shall be rated as “medium” (with
numeric equivalent of 2.00).
76
sake of the academic exercise of writing is hardly a motivating situation when compared
to the frenetic speculations and soul-searching that accompany topics with pressing
existential, moral, social or political relevance. In relation with the first rubric, the energy
derived from the relevance of the discourse has something to do with the disposition of
the agent and therefore is related with the Aristotelian efficient cause. In this sense,
purely academically motivated discourses shall be rated “low” (with numeric equivalent
of 1.00), while those that are existentially, morally, socially and politically motivated shall
be rated “high” (with numeric equivalent of 3.00), and those that are in the intermediary
situations shall be rated “medium” (with numeric equivalent of 2.00).
Another powerful motivation that will also drive potential minds to philosophize is
the presence of a community of writers and scholars whose intellectual activities are
expected to coalesce and collide, generating in the process sparks of vital emotional
energies. I am coming here from the context of two great books: Emile Durkheim’s
(1858-1917) Elementary Forms of Religious Life: a Study in Religious Sociology of
1912, and Randall Collins’ The Sociology of Philosophies: a Global Theory of
Intellectual Change of 1998. Just as Durkheim fused religion and society, I propose that
we also fuse philosophy and its community of practitioners; and just as Durkheim
argued that it is only within a religious community where the revitalizing and euphoric
power of religion can be experienced, I propose that it is also only within a philosophical
community where the revitalizing and euphoric power of intellectual creativity can be
experienced (Cf. Coser). In this Durkheimian sense, it would be difficult to imagine a
philosopher that is isolated from his community of practitioners. Collins supported the
significance of the philosophical community in the task of philosophizing. In fact, he
explained that the most successful philosopher is usually the one who has the most
number of relational bonds with his contemporaries and predecessors (Cf. Collins 379-
380). For him, a relational bond could be a vertical one, as found between a master and
student; or a horizontal one, as found among cohorts (Cf. Collins 379-380). Collins
made a further distinction between a collegial horizontal bond and a rivalrous horizontal
bond (Cf. Collins 71). He believed that a vertical bond is a very effective conduit for
theoretical focus and emotional energy to pass from the master to the student (Cf.
Collins 71); that a collegial horizontal bond is equally effective for the sustaining
exchanges of theoretical focus and emotional energy (Cf. Collins 73); and that rivalrous
horizontal bond is even more effective for the dialectical exchanges of theoretical focus
and the adrenalin-fired exchanges of critiques and counter-critiques as well as of
proposals and counter-proposals (Cf. Collins 71). Based on Durkheim and Collins, this
paper will explored the presence or absence of communities of practitioners behind
each philosophical discourse by exploring the presence or absence of master-student
bonds, collegial horizontal bonds, and rivalrous horizontal bonds. Such an exploration is
primarily based on the following table:
77
Percentage of
Practitioners
Geographic
ous Bond
(Percentage)
Center
Filipino Philosophy as the Abulad, Babor, De
Quito-Abulad, Quito-
Exposition of Foreign Castro, Dy, Ferriols,
Timbreza, Babor-Ocay,
Systems Gripaldo, Ibana, Lee, None
Ferriols-Dy, Ferriols- 46% (0)
None (0)
Ocay, Palma-Angeles,
Ibana, & Ferriols-Palma-
Quito & Timbreza (12)
Angeles (6)
(46%)
Filipino Philosophy as the
Bonifacio & Lee (2) UP-D
Application of Logical (8%)
Bonifacio-Lee (1) 8% (1)
None (0)
Analysis
Filipino Philosophy as the
Hornedo, Ibana &
Application of None
Mananzan (3) (12%) None (0) 12% (0)
None (0)
Phenomenology and
Hermeneutics
Filipino Philosophy as the Quito-Abulad, Babor-
Appropriation of Foreign Ocay, Bonifacio-Lee,
Theories Bonifacio-De Castro,
Abulad, Babor,
Quito-Hornedo, Pascual-
Bonifacio, Canilao, De
Bonifacio, Mercado-
Castro, Dy, Gripaldo,
Miranda, Quito-
Hornedo, Ibana, Lee,
Timbreza, Benito Reyes- DLSU
Mananzan, Mercado,
Timbreza, Ramon &
Miranda, Ocay, Palma- 85% ADMU
None (0)
Reyes-Ibana, Ramon
Angeles, Pascual, (2)
Reyes-Palma-Angeles,
Pilario, Quito, Benito
Ramon Reyes-
Reyes, Ramon Reyes,
Rodriguez, Ramon
Rodriguez & Timbreza
Reyes-Dy, Dy-
(22) (85%)
Rodriguez, Ibana-
Rodriguez, & Palma-
Angeles-Rodriguez (16)
Filipino Philosophy as None
None (0) (0%) None (0) 0% (0)
None (0)
Revisionist Writing
Filipino Philosophy as Quito-Abulad, Bonifacio-
Abulad, Bonifacio,
Academic Critical Analysis Lee, Bonifacio-De
Bulatao, Canilao, De
Castro, Pascual-
Castro, Demetrio, Dy,
Bonifacio, Ferriols-Dy,
Ferriols, Gorospe, ADMU
Ferriols-Ibana, Ferriols-
Gripaldo, Hornedo, &
Rodriguez, Ramon 85% UP-D
None (0)
Ibana, Lee, Mananzan,
Reyes-Dy, Ramon (2)
Mercado, Miranda,
Reyes-Rodriguez, Dy-
Ocay, Pascual, Pilario,
Rodriguez, Ibana-
Quito, Ramon Reyes &
Rodriguez, &
Rodriguez (22) (85%)
Mercado-Miranda (12)
Filipino Philosophy as the Bulatao, Demetrio,
Quito-
Interpretation of the Gorospe, Hornedo, Quito-Timbreza, & Quito- None
27% (0)
Mercado
Filipino Worldview Mercado, Quito & Hornedo (2)
(1)
Timbreza (7) (27%)
Filipino Philosophy as Bulatao, De Castro,
Research on Filipino Demetrio, Dy, Gorospe, Quito-Timbreza, Quito-
Ethics and Values Hornedo, Mananzan, Hornedo, Ramon Reyes- ADMU
42% (1)
None (0)
Palma-Angeles, Quito, Dy, & Ramon Reyes-
Ramon Reyes & Palma-Angeles (4)
Timbreza (11) (42%)
Filipino Philosophy as the Miranda (1) (4%) None (0) 4% None None (0)
78
Appropriation of Folk (0)
Spirit
Filipino Philosophy as the
Study on the
None
Presuppositions and None (0) (0%) None (0) 0% (0)
None (0)
Implications of the Filipino
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as the Ferriols, Gorospe,
Study of the Filipino Gripaldo, Pascual, None
Ferriols-Rodriguez (1) 23% (0)
None (0)
Philosophical Luminaries Rodriguez & Timbreza
(6) (23%)
Filipino Philosophy in the
Filipino Language Bonifacio, Ferriols,
None
Ibana & Timbreza (4) Ferriols-Ibana (1) 15% (0)
None (0)
(15%)
79
reaching more readers. The second number that is monitored is the total number of
citations of a given discourse, as this would reveal the number of readers that have read
and mentioned the works in their own writings. The process of counting citations as an
indicator of impact was pioneered by the American structural linguist Eugene Garfield
when he founded the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 1960. The third number
that is monitored facilitates the comparison of several discourses, or of several
individuals, or of several institutions. Google Scholar has two options for this number:
the h-index and the i10-index. The h-index was established by the American physicist
Jorge Hirsch in 2005 in order to measure the proportion of the number of citations per
author in relation with the number of his/her works with citations. Hence, if an author
has 20 cited works, we have to count how many of these 20 works have at least 20
citations each. The i10-index is one of the modifications of the h-index, and Google
Scholar defines this as “the number of publications with at least 10 citations.” However,
there are some problems in using the h-index, or the i10-index, in this paper, in the
sense that the citations of our discourses as well as of our identified leading Filipino
philosophers and writers/scholars are much lower compared to the Anglophone natural
scientists for which these metrics were originally intended. Because of this
consideration, instead of monitoring the h-index or the i10-index we are compelled to
monitor the more simple average number of citations per work in a given discourse. The
monitoring of these three numbers, therefore, will be primarily based on the following
table:
Average
Total
Discourse of Filipino Number of Number of
Number of
Philosophy Works Citations
Citations
per Work
Filipino Philosophy as the
52 58 1.12
Exposition of Foreign Systems
Filipino Philosophy as the
4 4 1.00
Application of Logical Analysis
Filipino Philosophy as the
Application of Phenomenology and 3 14 4.67
Hermeneutics
Filipino Philosophy as the
86 113 1.31
Appropriation of Foreign Theories
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist
0 0 0.00
Writing
Filipino Philosophy as Academic
96 228 2.38
Critical Analysis
Filipino Philosophy as the
Interpretation of the Filipino 43 273 6.35
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research
37 317 8.57
on Filipino Ethics and Values
Filipino Philosophy as the
2 6 3.00
Appropriation of Folk Spirit
Filipino Philosophy as the Study 0 0 0.00
80
on the Presuppositions and
Implications of the Filipino
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as the Study of
the Filipino Philosophical 22 41 1.86
Luminaries
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino
8 13 1.63
Language
Unclassified 13 29 2.23
Total 366 1,096 2.99
As implied in the preceding section, the specific aspects of the twelve discourses
of Filipino philosophy to be analyzed in this paper are the following:
81
Presence of a Community of Philosophers/Writers/Scholars
o Master-Student Vertical Bond
o Collegial Horizontal Bond
o Rivalrous Horizontal Bond
Impact of the Discourse
Number of Works Recorded in Google Scholar
Total Number of Citations
Average Number of Citations per Work
Sustainability of the Discourse
Assessment on
“Filipinoness”*
Textual Input
Theories and
Discourse of Filipino
Question/
Concepts
Philosophy
Problem
Overall
Agent
82
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research High High Medium High High
on Filipino Ethics and Values (3) (3) (2) (3) (2.75)
Filipino Philosophy as the High High High High High
Appropriation of Folk Spirit (3) (3) (3) (3) (3.00)
Filipino Philosophy as the Study
on the Presuppositions and High High High High High
Implications of the Filipino (3) (3) (3) (3) (3.00)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as the Study of
High High Medium High High
the Filipino Philosophical (3) (3) (2) (3) (2.75)
Luminaries
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Undeter- Undeter- Undeter- High Undeter-
Language minable minable minable (3) minable
*1.00 to 1.67=low; 1.68 to 2.35=medium; 2.36 to 3.00=high.
For the column on the “Filipinoness” of the philosophical question or problem, all
discourses have either sufficiently contextualized or locally rooted questions or
problems, hence rated “high,” except: Filipino philosophy as exposition of foreign
systems (rated “low”), as this merely builds on the same questions or problems that
undergird its selected foreign theories; Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing (rated
“medium”), as this works on the same questions and problems that undergird its
selected foreign theories; and Filipino philosophy in the Filipino language (rated
“undeterminable”), as this turned out to be composed of a motley of discourses that
happened to be expressed in the Filipino language.
For the column on the “Filipinoness” of the textual input, all discourses are
working with local phenomena, hence rated “high,” except: Filipino philosophy as
exposition of foreign systems (rated “low”), as this feeds on foreign texts; Filipino
philosophy as revisionist writing (rated “medium”), as this mixes foreign texts with local
phenomena; and Filipino philosophy in the Filipino language (rated “undeterminable”),
as this again has no consistent pattern of textual input.
For the column on the “Filipinoness” of the theories and concepts, all discourses
are running on foreign mindset, hence rated “low,” except: Filipino philosophy as the
interpretation of the Filipino worldview (rated “medium”), Filipino philosophy as research
on Filipino ethics and values (rated “medium”), and Filipino philosophy as the study of
the Filipino philosophical luminaries (rated “medium”) as these utilize amalgams of
foreign and local frameworks; Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of folk spirit (rated
“high”), and Filipino philosophy as the study on the presuppositions and implications of
the Filipino worldview (rated “high”), as these are attempts to operationalize local
concepts and systems of thinking; and Filipino philosophy in the Filipino language (rated
“underterminable”), as this again has no consistent pattern on its theories and concepts.
83
For the column on the “Filipinoness” of the agents, all of the twelve discourses
are assumed to have been created by Filipinos without any exceptions, hence rated
“high.” By averaging the four aforementioned columns, we derive the column on our
overall assessment on the “Filipinoness” of the twelve discourses. This last column
reveals that the top five discourses in terms of “Filipinoness” are: Filipino philosophy as
the appropriation of folk spirit (3.00, high); Filipino philosophy as the study on the
presuppositions and implications of the Filipino worldview (3.00, high); Filipino
philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview (2.75, high); Filipino philosophy
as research on Filipino ethics and values (2.75, high); and Filipino philosophy as the
study of the Filipino philosophical luminaries (2.75, high).
As already mentioned, the aspect of the cognitive level of a given discourse shall
be examined using the second to the sixth categories of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
The following table details the results of our examinations of the cognitive levels of the
aforementioned twelve discourses:
Assessment
of Cognitive
Main Cognitive Process
Discourse of Filipino Philosophy based on the Revised
Level*
Bloom’s Taxonomy
84
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Undeter-
Undeterminable minable
Language
*1.00 to 1.67=low; 1.68 to 2.35=medium; 2.36 to 3.00=high.
The discourses are ranging through the levels of applying, analyzing and
evaluating, hence rated “medium,” except: Filipino philosophy as the exposition of
foreign systems (rated “low”), and Filipino philosophy as the study of the Filipino
philosophical (rated “low”), as this discourses merely require the good grasp of the
philosophies of their chosen individual philosophers and the skill to textually recount
these philosophies; Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing (rated “high”), Filipino
philosophy as the appropriation of folk spirit (rated “high”), and Filipino philosophy as
the study on the presuppositions and implications of the Filipino worldview (rated
“high”), as these discourses require a lot of imagination either to alter foreign systems or
to pull Filipino philosophy as interpretation of the Filipino worldview and Filipino
philosophy as research on ethics and values to higher levels of philosophizing; and
Filipino philosophy in the Filipino language (rated “undeterminable”), as this again has
no consistent pattern on its cognitive process.
These analyses reveal that that the top five discourses in terms of cognitive level
are: Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing (3.00, high); Filipino philosophy as the
appropriation of folk spirit (3.00, high); Filipino philosophy as the study on the
presuppositions and implications of the Filipino worldview (3.00, high); Filipino
philosophy as the appropriation of foreign theories (2.50, high); and Filipino philosophy
as academic critical analysis (2.50, high).
Assessm
Clarity of
Overall
ent on
Presence of
ence
ence
Pres
Pres
Collegial
the
Horizontal Bonds
85
Student Bonds
Percentage of
Practitioners
of Rivalrous
Geographic
Horizontal
of Master-
Center
Bonds
Filipino Philosophy as the Low Low 6 46% 0 0 Low
Exposition of Foreign Systems (1.00) (1.00) (1.75) (2.08) (1.00) (1.00) (1.14)
Filipino Philosophy as the High High 1 8% 1 0 High
Application of Logical Analysis (3.00) (3.00) (1.13) (1.19) (2.00) (1.00) (2.41)
Filipino Philosophy as the
High High 0 12% 0 0 Medium
Application of Phenomenology (3.00) (3.00) (1.00) (1.28) (1.00) (1.00) (2.35)
and Hermeneutics
Filipino Philosophy as the High High 16 85% 2 0 High
Appropriation of Foreign Theories (3.00) (3.00) (3.00) (3.00) (3.00) (1.00) (2.78)
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist High Medium 0 0% 0 0 Medium
Writing (3.00) (2.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (2.00)
Filipino Philosophy as Academic High High 12 85% 2 0 High
Critical Analysis (3.00) (3.00) (2.50) (3.00) (3.00) (1.00) (2.72)
Filipino Philosophy as the
High High 2 27% 0 1 High
Interpretation of the Filipino (3.00) (3.00) (1.25) (1.64) (1.00) (3.00) (2.62)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research High High 4 42% 1 0 High
on Filipino Ethics and Values (3.00) (3.00) (1.50) (1.99) (2.00) (1.00) (2.50)
Filipino Philosophy as the High High 0 4% 0 0 Medium
Appropriation of Folk Spirit (3.00) (3.00) (1.00) (1.09) (1.00) (1.00) (2.34)
Filipino Philosophy as the Study
on the Presuppositions and Medium High 0 0% 0 0 Medium
Implications of the Filipino (2.00) (3.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (2.00)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as the Study of
Medium High 1 23% 0 0 Medium
the Filipino Philosophical (2.00) (3.00) (1.13) (1.54) (1.00) (1.00) (2.04)
Luminaries
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Undeter- Undeter- 1 15% 0 0 Undeter-
Language minable minable (1.13) (1.35) (1.00) (1.00) minable
*1.00 to 1.67=low; 1.68 to 2.35=medium; 2.36 to 3.00=high.
For the column on the clarity of the problem, all discourses have clear and crisp
problems, hence rated “high,” except: Filipino philosophy as the exposition of foreign
systems (rated “low”), as this is just usually premised on the sheer intention of
recounting the highlights of the thoughts of selected thinkers; Filipino philosophy as the
study on the presuppositions and implications of the Filipino worldview (rated
“medium”), owing to the fact that as a largely unexplored discourse we do not have
clear benchmarks yet on how to problematize researches within its parameters; Filipino
philosophy as the study of the Filipino philosophical luminaries (rated “medium”), as
this would also be premised on the sheer intention of recounting the highlights of the
thoughts of selected local thinkers; and Filipino philosophy in the Filipino language
86
(rated undeterminable), as this again has no consistent pattern on the clarity of its
problems.
For the column on the relevance of the discourse, all discourses are quite
existentially, morally, socially and politically relevant, hence rated “high,” except: Filipino
philosophy as the exposition of foreign systems (rated “low”), as this is just often
standing on purely academic reasons; Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing (rated
“medium”), as this is partially based on academic reasons; and Filipino philosophy in the
Filipino language (rated “undeterminable”), as this again has no consistent pattern on its
relevance.
These analyses reveal that that the top five discourses in terms of inherent
emotional energy are: Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of foreign theories (2.78,
high); Filipino philosophy as academic critical analysis (2.72, high); Filipino philosophy
as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview (2.62, high); Filipino philosophy as
research on Filipino ethics and values (2.50, high); and Filipino philosophy as the
application of logical analysis (2.41, high).
Average Citations
Number of Works
Number of Works
Assessment on
Assessment on
Assessment on
Assessment on
Number of
Number of
per Work
Citations
Citations
Impact*
Overall
87
Filipino Philosophy as the Mediu
Low Low Low
Application of Phenomenology and 3 14 4.67 (1.06) (1.09)
m
(1.41)
Hermeneutics (2.09)
Filipino Philosophy as the High Medium Low Medium
86 113 1.31 (2.79) (1.71) (1.31) (1.94)
Appropriation of Foreign Theories
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist Low Low Low Low
0 0 0.00 (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)
Writing
Filipino Philosophy as Academic High High Low Medium
96 228 2.38 (3.00) (2.44) (1.56) (2.33)
Critical Analysis
Filipino Philosophy as the Mediu
High High High
Interpretation of the Filipino 43 273 6.35 m
(2.72) (2.48) (2.37)
Worldview (1.90)
Filipino Philosophy as Research on Mediu
High High High
Filipino Ethics and Values 37 317 8.57 m
(3.00) (3.00) (2.59)
(1.77)
Filipino Philosophy as the Mediu
Low Low Low
Appropriation of Folk Spirit 2 6 3.00 (1.04) (1.04)
m
(1.26)
(1.70)
Filipino Philosophy as the Study on
the Presuppositions and Low Low Low Low
0 0 0.00 (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)
Implications of the Filipino
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as the Study of
Low Low Low Low
the Filipino Philosophical 22 41 1.86 (1.46) (1.26) (1.43) (1.38)
Luminaries
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Low Low Low Low
8 13 1.63 (1.17) (1.08) (1.38) (1.21)
Language
*1.00 to 1.67=low; 1.68 to 2.35=medium; 2.36 to 3.00=high.
Table 7 reveals that the discourses of Filipino philosophy have low impact
except: Filipino philosophy as research on Filipino ethics and values (3.00, high);
Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview (2.48, high); Filipino
philosophy as academic critical analysis (2.33, medium); and Filipino philosophy as the
appropriation of foreign theories (1.94, medium). These exceptional discourses also are
the top four discourses in terms of impact.
The last aspect of the twelve discourses that we shall examine pertains to their
sustainability, or their ability to continue with their current modes of textual production
without showing signs of stress and fatigue brought about by overproduction. This we
shall do discourse by discourse in the succeeding paragraphs.
89
phenomenology and hermeneutics. There are even more specialists in cultural studies,
humanities, and even qualitative social sciences who are at home with the use of critical
analysis, and it can dovetail even more easily with the current methodologies brought
about by postmodernism and post-structuralism. In the context of our tottering economic
structures, deformed democracy, ailing bureaucracy, and colonial culture, Filipino
philosophy as academic critical analysis is much welcome discourse. For these
reasons, this manifestation of Filipino philosophy has high sustainability.
90
propagation and popularization of Filipino philosophy as well as the intensification of our
communities of philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy. Third, it would be very
easy for this discourse to transition from producing generalist expositions to doing more
specialized exegetical and hermeneutical studies as we have easy access to the
libraries and archives of our own philosophical luminaries and would not need to master
foreign languages. For these considerations, this discourse has high sustainability.
CONCLUSION
To sum up this rather long paper, the following table shows our overall
assessments concerning the developmental potentials of the twelve discourses of
Filipino philosophy:
Inherent Emotional
Cognitive Level of
“Filipinoness” of
Sustainability of
the Discourse
the Discourse
the Discourse
Energy of the
Impact of the
Discourse
Philosophy Assessment*
91
Critical Analysis (2.50) (2.50) (2.72) (2.33) (3.00) (2.61)
Filipino Philosophy as the
High Medium High High Low Medium
Interpretation of the Filipino (2.75) (2.00) (2.62) (2.37) (1.00) (2.15)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research High Medium High High Medium High
on Filipino Ethics and Values (2.75) (2.00) (2.50) (2.59) (2.00) (2.37)
Filipino Philosophy as the High High Medium Low High High
Appropriation of Folk Spirit (3.00) (3.00) (2.34) (1.26) (3.00) (2.52)
Filipino Philosophy as the Study
on the Presuppositions and High High Medium Low High High
Implications of the Filipino (3.00) (3.00) (2.00) (1.00) (3.00) (2.40)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as the Study
High Low Medium Low High Medium
of the Filipino Philosophical (2.75) (1.00) (2.04) (1.38) (3.00) (2.03)
Luminaries
Filipino Philosophy in the Undeter- Undeter- Undeter- Low High
Undeterminable
Filipino Language minable minable minable (1.21) (3.00)
*1.00 to 1.67=low; 1.68 to 2.35=medium; 2.36 to 3.00=high.
The values from this table are visually and comparatively shown in the following figure:
Figure 3:
Philosophy in the Overall
Filipino Language
Assessm
ents on
the
Study on the Filipino
Philosophical Develop
Luminaries mental
Potential
Study on the s of the
Presuppositions and Twelve
Implications of the Legend: Discours
Filipino Worldview “Filipinoness”
of the es
Discourse of Filipino
Impact of the
Appropriation of Folk Discourse Philosop
Spirit hy
Cognitive
Research on Filipino Level of the
Ethics and Values Discourse
Sustainability
of the
Discourse
Interpretation of the
Filipino Worldview
92 Inherent
Emotional
Energy of the
Discourse
Academic Critical Overall
Analysis Average
Table 8 and figure 3 reveal that the top five discourses of Filipino philosophy in
accordance to their overall developmental potentials are: Filipino philosophy as
academic critical analysis (2.61, high); Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of foreign
theories (2.54, high); Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of folk spirit (2.52, high);
Filipino philosophy as the study on the presuppositions and implications of the Filipino
worldview (2.40, high); and Filipino philosophy as research on Filipino ethics and values
(2.37, high). It is on these discourses that Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of
philosophy can have some more specific parameters where they can invest their limited
time, resources and other capitals, if they are convinced that Filipino philosophy should
develop further despite its unfavorable circumscribing context that was mentioned by
Quito. These findings do not of course preclude the possibility that other Filipino
philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy may “squander” their time, resources
and other capitals on the other discourses that have lower developmental potentials.
Who knows that in the process of “squandering” they might infuse new vitalities on
these lethargic discourses. These findings do not also preclude the possibility that other
Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy may be out to start totally new
discourses and attract good number of followers in the future. What these findings are
merely saying is that there are at least five tested and promising pathways that may
93
bring willing travelers towards our collective vision of further developing Filipino
philosophy.
SOURCES
Abulad, Romualdo. “Options for a Filipino Philosophy.” Emerita Quito, Ed. Karungan/Sophia. Manila: De
La Salle Press, 1984. Pp. 17-30.
Abulad, Romualdo. “Pilosopiyang Pinoy, Uso pa ba?” Unpublished Manuscript Delivered during the 10th
Philosophical Conference, Sancta Maria Mater et Regina Seminarium, Archdiocese of Capiz,
Roxas City, 18-20 November 2010.
Abulad, Romualdo. “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy.” Karunungan/Sophia, Volume 5, 1988.
Co, Alfredo. “Doing Philosophy in the Philippines: Fifty Years ago, and Fifty Years from Now.” In Across
the Philosophical Silk Road: a Festschrift in Honor of Alfredo Co. Volume 6. Manila: University of
Santo Tomas Publishing House, 2009. Pp. 49-62.
Co, Alfredo. “In the Beginning. . . a Petit Personal Historical Narrative of the Beginning of Philosophy in
the Philippines.” In Across the Philosophical Silk Road: a Festschrift in Honor of Alfredo Co.
Volume 6. Manila: University of Santo Tomas Publishing House, 2009. Pp. 28-46.
Collins, Randall. The Sociology of Philosophies: a Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Boston: Harvard
University Press, 2000.
Coser, Lewis. “Emile Durkheim: The Sociology of Religion.” In Cardiff University-School of Social
Sciences. At: http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/durkheim6.html. Date Published:
1977. Date Accessed: 20 March 2013.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of Filipino
Philosophy.” In F.P.A. Demeterio’s Philosophy and Cultural Theory Page. At:
http://sites.google.com/site/feorillodemeterio/re-readingemeritaquito. Date Published: October
1998. Date Accessed: 01 February 2011.
Demeterio, F.P.A. “Status of and Directions for ‘Filipino Philosophy’ in Zialcita, Timbreza, Quito, Abulad,
Mabaquiao, Gripaldo and Co.” In Philosophia: International Journal of Philosophy. Volume 14,
Number 2 (May 2013). Pp. 185-214)
Demeterio, F.P.A. “Thought and Socio-Politics: an Account of the Late Twentieth Century Filipino
Philosophy.” In F.P.A. Demeterio’s Philosophy and Cultural Theory Page. At:
http://sites.google.com/site/feorillodemeterio/thoughtandsocio-politics. Date Published: April 2002.
Date Accessed: 01 February 2011.
Gripaldo, Rolando. Filipino Philosophy: a Critical Bibliography, 1998-2002. Manila: De La Salle
University, 2004.
Gripaldo, Rolando. Filipino Philosophy: a Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997. Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 2000.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Filipino Philosophy: a Western Tradition in an Eastern Setting.” In Rolando Gripaldo,
Ed. The Making of a Filipino Philosopher and Other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Book
Store, 2009. Pp. 10-40.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?” In Rolando Gripaldo, Ed. The Making of a Filipino
Philosopher and Other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 2009. Pp. 1-9.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher.” In Rolando Gripaldo, Ed. The Making of a
Filipino Philosopher and Other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 2009. Pp. 62-
81.
Mabaquiao, Napoleon. “Isang Paglilinaw sa Kahulugan at Kairalan ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Malay
Journal, Volume 24, Number 2 (2012). Pp. 39-56.
Mabaquiao, Napoleon. “Pilosopiyang Pilipino: isang Pagsusuri.” Philippine Social Sciences Review,
Volume 55, Numbers 1-4 (1998). Pp. 203-215.
Quito, Emerita. The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1983.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at
Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 22-37.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 1-21.
94
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling Wika: mga Problema at Solusyon.” Sariling Wika at
Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 38-58.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya bilang Tagasuri ng Kulturang Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 100-117.
Zialcita, Fernando. “Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino.” Trans. Nicanor Tiongson. In Virgilio Enriquez,
Mga Babasahin sa Pilosopiya: Epistemolohiya, Lohika, Wika at Pilosopiyang Pilipino. Manila:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House, 1983. Pp. 318-336.
He (Thomas Aquinas) was the world’s flower and glory, and has rendered superfluous
the writings of Doctors who shall come after him.
95
shoulders of those giants, and small though we are, we sometimes
manage to see farther on the horizon than they.”
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Western scholars have isolated at least five basic causes of the deterioration of
western, or European, Thomism, namely: 1) the 15 th century Renaissance’s penchant
for literary forms of the classics instead of the subdued style of the medieval
scholastics, 2) the 16th century Protestant Reformation’s distaste for dogmatic
speculations, 3) the 16th century scientific revolution’s bias against religious philosophy,
4) the 18th century French revolution’s disruptive force that dismantled the remnants of
ecclesiastical power, and 5) the 20 th century post-modernism’s dislike for grand
narratives. Filipino Thomism, however, has been insulated against the first four basic
causes. The tight grip of the Spanish friars on the intellectual sphere of the colonial
Philippines had effectively warded the effects of the Renaissance, the Protestant
Reformation, and the scientific revolution, and our own version of political revolution did
not dismantle the ecclesiastical power. On the contrary, the American colonization
seems to consolidate the church’s power and hegemony. From these considerations, it
would appear that Pope Leo XIII’s (Gioacchino Pecci, 1810-1903) call for revival did not
make so much sense for Filipino Thomism, for in its first three hundred years practically
nothing threatened its existence.
Filipino Thomism
The major causes that disrupted the existence of Filipino Thomism are: 1) the influx of
western philosophical theories, which happened during the later part of the American
colonial period and which eventually became another variant of Filipino philosophy, and
96
2) the advent of post-modernism. Yet a closer examination on these two major causes
would reveal that neither the influx of western philosophical theories nor the advent of
post-modernism delivered polemic attacks on Filipino Thomism. Rather, their effect on
Filipino Thomism may be pictured more accurately as the provision of philosophical
alternatives to the students and professors who were already saturated with the more
than three hundred years of intellectual monopoly of Filipino Thomism. These
considerations suggest that Filipino Thomism has to be assessed and profiled apart
from western, or European, Thomism, and that such assessment and profiling have to
be more sensitive to the internal dynamics of Filipino Thomism, instead of the external
causes of its deterioration.
This paper, therefore, will gaze into the past and present of Filipino Thomism in
order to profile its current status and to visualize ways of making it a more vibrant and
appropriate philosophical movement for the 21st century Philippine setting. To
accomplish such ends, this paper will do four things. First, the paper will examine
Filipino Thomism through the critical lens of Jose Rizal’s (1861-1896) novels from the
late 19th century. The novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are strategically
selected as the point of departure of our critique for the reason that they offer one of the
earliest sustained assessments of Filipino Thomism from a vantage point of a variant of
Filipino philosophy other than Thomism. To date, there are basically five variants of
Filipino philosophy: 1) Filipino Thomism, 2) critical Filipino philosophy, 3) the exposition
of Western philosophical theories, 4) the interpretation of Filipino identity, and 5) the
interpretation of the philosophical contributions of Filipino intellectual. The following
chart graphically presents the chronological emergences of these five variants of
Filipino philosophy:
Early 17th Late 17th Early 18th Late 18th Early 19th Late 19th Early 20th Late 20th Early 21st
Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century
Filipino Thomism
1
Interpretation of Filipino
4 Identity
Interpretation of Filipino
5 Intellectuals
Exposition of Western
3 Philosophies
Critical Filipino
2 Philosophy
97
emanating from the other variants of Filipino philosophy, such as those of Emerita Quito
and Romualdo Abulad who are writing from the vantage points of Filipino philosophy as
interpretation of the Filipino identity, and Filipino philosophy as exposition of western
philosophical theories. The first and the second things that this paper will do, therefore,
will constitute a critique of Filipino Thomism from a multiple points of view. The third
thing that this paper will do is to compare the status of Filipino Thomism with the
originary philosophical ethos of Thomas Aquinas (1224-1272) so as to retrieve elements
from the past that might prove useful for the present and future. The fourth and final
thing that this paper will do is to visualize the mode of existence of Filipino Thomism in
the 21st century.
98
Nestled within the tragic saga of Crisostomo Ibarra is Rizal’s more famous
commentary on Filipino customs, hypocrisies and compromises, as well as his critique
of the Spanish governance. A considerable portion of these commentary and critique is
devoted to a less overt assessment of the Filipino Intellectual sphere. A considerable
portion of this assessment, in return, touches on the status of Filipino philosophy. Our
philosophical reading of Rizal’s novels, then, is like opening a number of Chinese
nestling boxes, or Russian matrushka dolls, for we need to dig through Rizal’s other
concerns and more overt discourses to reach his thoughts concerning Filipino
philosophy.
In the two novels, Rizal presents a number of images and figures of philosophers
and intellectuals, the most conspicuous of which are: 1) the Dominican Thomists, in the
persons of Padre Hernando de la Sibyla, and Padre Millon; 2) Crisostomo Ibarra; 3)
Don Anastacio, or Filosofo Tasio; 4) Elias; 5) Simoun; and 6) Padre Florentino. The first
interesting way to start our reading of Rizal’s critique of Philippine Thomism is to
analyze these images and figures.
Padre Sibyla, who appears in both novels, is a Spanish Dominican, the vice-
rector of the University of Santo Tomas, and holds the reputation of being a
“consummate dialectician,” skilled with making sharp, hair-splitting distinctions (Noli me
Tangere, p. 5). Padre Sibyla speculates within the highly theoretical master-narrative
of metaphysics and ethics using his trusted weapons of logic and rhetoric. His
philosophical agenda is to propagate his religious humanism. Padre Sibyla’s political
ideology is conservative in tenor. The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)
has made a classic distinction between traditional intellectuals and organic intellectuals.
In the words of the cultural theorist Edward Said, traditional intellectuals are “are
teachers, priests, and administrators, who continue to do the same thing from
generation to generation,” while organic intellectuals are those “whom Gramsci saw as
directly connected to classes or enterprises that used intellectuals to organize interests,
gain more power, get more control” (Said, p. 4). Organic intellectuals, then, may be
further classified as organic intellectuals serving the interests of the elites, and organic
intellectuals serving the interests of the lower classes. Being a priest and a teacher,
Padre Sibyla belongs to that group that Gramsci calls traditional intellectuals. In the
second novel, the philosophical perorations of Padre Sibyla ceases and are taken over
by another Spanish Dominican, Padre Millon, a professor of science and philosophy at
the same university, who holds the reputation of being a “great logician” and a “profound
philosopher” (El Filibusterismo, p. 92). Like the older Dominican, Padre Millon is also
immersed in the highly theoretical master-narrative of metaphysics and ethics, relying
on the same tools of logic and rhetoric. In his lecture in physics, for instance, the
younger Dominican mixes this experimental science with metaphysics and produces a
horrendous discursive mongrel. His philosophical agenda is likewise the propagation of
his religious humanism. Expectedly, his political ideology is conservative. From the
vantage point of Gramsci’s typology, Padre Millon belongs to the group of traditional
intellectuals.
99
Crisostomo Ibarra, the central character of the first novel, is a Spanish mestizo
who had breathed the air of liberal rationalism in continental Europe and has now
returned to the country with the expectation of seeing even the weakest ripples of the
intellectual waves that are rocking the continent. Unlike the Dominican Thomists,
Ibarra’s philosophizing is situated in a different master-narrative, the praxiology of
social, political and cultural criticism that uses the keen tool of analysis. Unlike the
ethereal motive of the Dominican Thomists, Ibarra’s philosophical agenda is the more
concrete and less grandiose attainment of good governance. His political ideology is
liberal, as shown by his act of restraining the initiative of some disgruntled folks to rise in
arms against the Spanish government, and offering them instead a promise of
education and intellectual enlightenment. From the perspective of Gramsci’s typology,
Ibarra is an organic intellectual to the elite class.
Elias, the mysterious Indio boatman who saved the life of Ibarra in the end of the
first novel, came from a comfortable maternal family and is educated. But the obscured
past of his paternal family that was ruined by Spanish abuses overtakes his otherwise
idyllic existence. As he was revealed to be a descendant of an arson, a prostitute and a
bandit, together with his real father and twin sister, Elias fled the town. At the death his
father and the suicide of his sister, he resolves to become a radical fighter. Like the
speculations of Ibarra, Elias’ ponderings are situated in the praxiological master-
narrative of social, political and cultural criticism, and likewise uses the philosophical
tool of analysis. But unlike Ibarra, Elias is steeped in radical political ideology. From
the point of view of Gramsci’s typology, he is an organic intellectual to the lower
classes.
100
As already mentioned, Ibarra, after enriching himself in the Spanish Americas
and in the Spanish capital, returns to the country disguised as the jeweler Simoun. In
terms of their philosophical master-narrative, philosophical approach, and Gramscian
typology, Ibarra and Simoun are still the same. They differ in two crucial things. First,
whereas Ibarra’s philosophical agenda is the attainment of good governance, Simoun’s
burning intention is to liberate the country from Spanish domination. Second, whereas
Ibarra has a liberal ideology, Simoun has a radical one.
Padre Florentino, who appears at the beginning and end of the second novel, is
an Indio priest who came from a wealthy family. Unwilling to risk possible implication
with the turbulence brought out by the Cavite mutiny, he decided to retire to his own
estate facing the Pacific coast, where he eventually takes into his abode the dying
Simoun. Padre Florentino’s philosophy manifests itself only during his brief
conversation with the dying Simoun at the end of the novel. Padre Florentino
speculates within the theoretical master-narrative of metaphysics and ethics, but in his
approach he touches on the problems of the Philippine society, politics and culture.
Like the Dominican Thomists, he is intent on propagating religious humanism. Padre
Florentino’s politican ideology is liberal. From the perspective of Gramsci’s typology, he
belongs to the group of traditional intellectuals.
The six images and figures of philosophers in the Noli me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo represents the first two variants of Filipino philosophy, namely: Filipino
Thomism and critical Filipino philosophy. Against the image and figure of the
Dominican Thomist, Rizal presented five images and figures of the critical Filipino
philosopher. The specific profiles of these six images and figures are summarized in the
following table:
101
Among these six images and figures of philosophers are intersecting lines of alliances
and oppositions. In between Ibarra and Elias, in between Ibarra and Simoun, and in
between Simoun and Padre Florentino, we can find oppositions in terms of political
ideology and philosophical agenda. In between Ibarra and Padre Florentino, and in
between Elias and Simoun, we can find alliances in terms of political ideology. The
profoundest line of opposition can be found in between the Dominican Thomists and
Filosofo Tasio. These intersecting lines of alliances and oppositions are graphically
represented in the following figure, where the double bar stands for an alliance and the
double-headed arrows stands for an opposition:
Dominican
Thomists
Crisostomo Elias
Ibarra
Padre Simoun
Florentino
Tasio
The alliances and oppositions portrayed in the two novels do not simultaneously involve
all of the six images and figures of philosophers. Instead, the intersecting lines of
alliances and oppositions separate two sets of philosophical debates within the two
novels, the first one of which involves the images and figures of Ibarra, Elias, Simoun
and Padre Florentino; while the second one of which involves the images and figures of
the Dominican Thomists and Filosofo Tasio.
Dominican
Thomists
Crisostomo Elias
Ibarra
First Set of
Philosophical
Debate
Padre Simoun
Florentino
Tasio
102
Second Set of
Philosophical
Debate
The first set of philosophical debate, the one between Ibarra, Elias, Simoun and
Padre Florentino, is focused on the urgent and concrete problems of the Philippine
society, politics and culture. The Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975)
talked about the existence of polyphonic novels, where a unified truth is no longer
controlled by authorial intention, but where truth is diffused through the diverse
consciousness of the fictive images and figures that are speaking in a multiplicity of
voices. Polyphonic novels, in Bakhtin’s thought, do not resolve which among the
multiplicity of truths has the primacy over the other truths. The debate between Ibarra,
Elias, Simoun and Padre Florentino, is an instance of a polyphonic engagement where
there is no resolution as to who among four of them triumphs in the end. Even though
the radical Elias and Simoun die at the end of each novel, their deaths are depicted
heroically. These four images and figures, at most, represent Rizal’s alternative
philosophies that are aimed at addressing the urgent and concrete problems of the
Philippine society, politics and culture.
The second set of philosophical debate, the one involving the profound
opposition between the Dominican Thomists and Filosofo Tasio, is focused on
imagining Filipino philosophy beyond the urgent and concrete problems of the Philippine
society, politics and culture. The images and figures of Ibarra, Elias, Simoun and Padre
Florentino are Rizal’s critique against Filipino Thomism’s wanton disregard for the
urgent and concrete problems of the present, but the image and figure of Filisofo Tasio
is Rizal’s ultimate critique of Filipino Thomism. The Dominican Thomists and Filosofo
Tasio are not only pitted against each other, but their specific profiles are contrary to
each other on every count.
103
Thomism as a dead philosophy, despite Pope Leo XIII’s efforts of reviving it. He
asserts: “no Pope can revive what common sense has sentenced to death and
executed” (Noli me Tangere, p. 397). With the crumbling of Filipino Thomism, Filosofo
Tasio rejoices at the dawning of a new philosophy:
Man has at last realized that he is a man; he does not care to analyze his God, to
penetrate into the impalpable, into what he has not seen, to give laws to the phantoms of
his brain. Man realizes that his legacy is the vast world, the dominion of which I within his
reach. Tired of a useless and presumptuous task, he lowers his head and examines his
surroundings (Noli me Tangere, p. 395).
On the other side, the established philosophy subjugates Filosofo Tasio and pushes him
towards the periphery of the intellectual sphere by branding him with the identities of a
charlatan, a mad man, and a heretic, and by threatening to send his writings to the fire.
Tasio conceals his thoughts through writing in ciphers and hieroglyphs. But at his
death, the followers of the sacred orders still manage to make a bonfire out of his books
and writings.
The two philosophical debates within the novels delineates Rizal’s periodization
of Filipino philosophy. The first philosophical debate, the one between Ibarra, Elias,
Simoun and Padre Florentino, marks the Filipino philosophy of the present that tackles
the urgent and concrete problems of the Philippine society, politics and culture. The
second philosophical debate, the one between the Dominican Thomists and Filosofo
Tasio, marks the Filipino philosophy of the past and the future.
Dominican Past
Thomists
(Theoretical)
Crisostomo Elias
Ibarra
Present
(Praxiological)
Padre Simoun
Florentino
Tasio Future
(Praxiological
& Theoretical)
The past belongs to Filipino Thomism, which according to Filosofo Tasio has already
been sentenced and executed by common sense. The future is the philosophy of
104
Filosofo Tasio that mixes theory and praxis and transcends class boundaries. But the
future Filipino philosophy cannot emerge unless the present Filipino philosophy can
successfully dismantle the intricate and well-ingrained power relations in between the
established philosophy of the past and the political institutions. Filosofo Tasio’s model
of the philosophy of the future can only emerge after the praxiological philosophy of the
present has successfully addressed the urgent and concrete problems of the Philippine
society, politics and culture. Rizal’s periodization of Filipino philosophy moves from the
theoretical, then to the praxiological, and finally to the combination of the praxiological
and theoretical.
Aside from the critiques that are packed into the images and figures of the
philosopher, the two novels contain other more explicit critiques on Filipino Thomism.
Rizal’s intention of dismantling the intricate and well-ingrained power relations in
between the established philosophy of the past and the political institutions is motivated
by at least four reasons, namely: 1) the failure of Filipino Thomism to engage with
relevant problems, 2) the arrogant closed mindedness of Filipino Thomism, 3) the over-
reliance of Filipino Thomism on hair-splitting rhetoric and its perverted use of language,
and 4) the implication of the Spanish dominated Filipino Thomism with the process of
colonization.
Rizal’s most conspicuous critique against Filipino Thomism is directed against its
failure to engage with the relevant problems that are maligning their world and time.
Instead of unfolding into the Philippine intellectual landscape, Filipino Thomism
retreated and buried itself cozily in its own metaphysical and theological cocoon. Rizal
make Filosofo Tasio describe the Thomists and their students as intellectuals who are
steeped in archeological education, who taxed their brains and died amidst their Sophism
in some provincial corner, without arriving at any conclusion upon the attributes of being,
without solving the question of essence and existence, very exalted concepts which
made us forget what was essential: our own existence and personality (Noli me Tangere,
p. 395).
Insulated from the challenges of real and relevant problems, Filipino Thomism lost its
sense of direction and latched on issues of little significance to the contemporary world.
In the death scene of Capitan Santiago de los Santos, or Capitan Tiago, the assumed
father of Maria Clara, Rizal lampoons the lay followers of Filipino Thomism. Upon
dying, some pious nuns claim that they saw the spirit of Capitan Tiago illumined by
heavenly splendor. As the rumor of the apparition spreads, Capitan Tiago’s spirit is
embellished with details such as the frock coat that he is wearing, the betel nut quid
bulging inside his cheeks, and the gamecock and opium pipe that he is holding. It is the
detail of the gamecock that becomes the subject of philosophical discussion during his
wake. As the debate progresses from the issues whether Capitan Tiago would invite
Saint Peter to a cockfight, to whether betting is allowed in heaven, and to whether the
heavenly gamecocks are also immortal, they reach upon the most contentious of all
105
questions: whether it is possible to loose or win in a heavenly gambling. At this point,
Don Primitivo, a lay Thomist, dominates the discussion.
“Because no one can lose,” he stated with great authority. “To lose would cause hard
feelings and in heaven there can’t be any hard feelings.” “But someone has to win,”
rejoined the gambler Aristorenas. “The fun lies in winning!” “Well, both win, that’s easy!”
This idea of both winning could not be admitted by Aristorenas, for he had passed his life
in the cockpit and had always seen one cock lose and other win—at best, there was a tie.
Vainly Don Primitivo argued in Latin. Aristorenas shook his head, and that too when Don
Primitivo’s latin was easy to understand, for he talked of an gallus talisainus, acuto tari
armatus, an gallus beati Petri bulikus sasabungus sit, (Whether there would be a talisain
cock, armed with a sharp gaff, whether the blessed Peter’s fighting cock would be a bulik.
. .). , and so on. . . (El Filibusterismo, p. 233).
Rizal’s second critique against Filipino Thomism is aimed at its arrogant closed
mindedness. Rizal derides the general impression projected by Filipino Thomism that
the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas is the summit of humanity’s intellectual quest and
that after him all other intellectual endeavors are of no significance. He verbalizes this
with his description of Capitan Basilio, an alumnus of San Juan de Letran College, as
an haughty person who “who contended that since the death of St. Thomas of Aquinas
the world had not taken one single step forward” (Noli me Tangere, p. 130). The
arrogant closed mindedness of Filipino Thomism is not only true with regards to the
other philosophical systems, but also with regards to the other fields of knowledge.
Filosofo Tasio, who was trained in Filipino Thomism in his youth, reminisces that in his
time the study of “history, mathematics, geography, literature, the physical sciences,
and languages” were considered heretical, although “the best of freethinkers” then
“declared them to be inferior to the categories of Aristotle and to those of syllogism”
(Noli me Tangere, p. 395). In the novel El Filibusterismo, Rizal repeatedly comments
against the Filipino Thomists’ distaste for the physical sciences. The lecture hall that
Padre Millon uses for his physics class is painstakingly described:
The walls, painted white and covered with glazed tiles to prevent scratches, were entirely
bare, having neither a drawing nor a picture, nor even an outline of any physical
apparatus. The students had no need of any, no one missed the practical instruction in
an extremely experimental science; for years and years it has been taught and the
country has not been upset, but continues just as ever. Now and then some little
instrument descended from heaven and was exhibited to the class from a distance, like
the monstrance to the prostrate worshipers—look, but touch not! (El Filibusterismo, p.
91).
The professor, Padre Millon, attains a sage-like reputation after proving the primacy of
Thomas Aquinas, for stating that water is a mixture, over the scientists “Berzelius, Gay-
Lussac, Bunsen, and other more or less presumptuous materialists” (El Filibusterismo,
p. 93). Padre Millon, then, proceeds with his project of mixing physics with metaphysics
into a bizarre intellectual discourse.
106
Rizal’s third critique against Filipino Thomism points to its over-reliance on hair-
splitting rhetoric and its perverted use of language. The Filipino Thomism’s over-
reliance on hair-splitting rhetoric pertains to its almost obsessive use of distinctions.
Filosofo Tasio points out, “the Royal and Pontifical University of Santo Tomas still exists
with its very scholarly faculty, and some intellects still indulge in formulating distinctions
and in analyzing the subtle points of Scholasticism” (Noli me Tangere, p. 395). In a
scene where Padre Damaso has a heated argument with a Spanish lieutenant over the
former’s contemptuous remarks against the office of the governor general, for instance,
the dialectician Padre Sibyla attempts to arbitrate in favor of the friar’s outburst.
Let us distinguish the words of Fray Damaso as a man and those which he uttered as a
priest. The latter, as such, per se, can never offend because they flow from absolute
truth. The former are to be subdivided: those which he utters ab irato, those which he
voices ex ore but not in corde. Only the last type may offend, but even this depends
whether in mente they already pre-existed for some reason, or they only come per
accidens in the heat of the argument, if there is. . .” (Noli me Tangere, p. 11).
The Filipino Thomism’s perverted use of language pertains firstly to its fetishism for
Latin. Rizal reproaches the Filipino Thomism’s tendency to regard Latin principles and
sayings as the ultimate criterion of truth. In a scene where Capitan Tinong and his wife,
Capitana Tinchang, are in panic with the thought that the former might be implicated in
the framed up charges of rebellion against Ibarra, Don Primitivo, the same lay Thomist
who would theorize later about heavenly cockfights at the wake of Capitan Tiago,
comes into the picture and voices out his arsenal of Latin phrases. Rizal writes:
It seemed as if the Latin phrases had a soothing effect: both spouses stopped crying and
approached him, awaiting wisdom from his lips, as the Greeks of old did when they heard
the oracle’s redeeming words which were going to save them from the invading Persians
(Noli me Tangere, p. 441).
But as Don Primitivo continues to inundate the helpless couple with his Latin axioms,
Capitan Tinong and Capitana Tinchang finally plead him to stop the barrage of the
philosopher’s incomprehensible words of wisdom. This flusters the lay Thomist, who
explains:
“it’s a pity you don’t understand Latin, cousin. Latin truths are Tagalog lies; for
example: contra principia negantem fustibus est arguendum (Canes should be used as
arguments against him who denies the first principles) in Latin is the truth like Noah’s Ark;
once I put it into practice in Tagalog, and I was the one beaten up. For this reason, it’s
too bad you two don’t know Latin; in Latin everything could be settled” (Emphases
Added) (Noli me Tangere, p. 441).
The Filipino Thomism’s perverted use of language secondly pertains to its malicious
strategy of using the Latin language to intimidate the opponent. Instead of serving as a
107
tool for consensus building and medium for the circulation of knowledge, the language
has become a hindrance and a stumbling block. In the scene of the philosophical
debate about heavenly gambling, Don Primitivo resorts to his whipped up Latin
quotation “an gallus talisainus, acuto tari armatus, an gallus beati Petri bulikus
sasabungus sit” (Whether there would be a talisain cock, armed with a sharp gaff,
whether the blessed Peter’s fighting cock would be a bulik. . .), in order to scare the
gambler Aristorenas who would not accept the premise that sadness is unthinkable in
heaven.
Rizal’s fourth critique against Filipino Thomism is its implication with the process
of colonization. The first three hundred years of Filipino Thomism is dominated by
Spanish friars who are torn between their ardent desire to impart knowledge to the
Filipino youth and their fear that the same knowledge might goad the latter to the path of
heresy and filibusterism. Rizal personifies this moral dilemma in the person of Padre
Fernandez in the novel El Filibusterismo, a kind-hearted Dominican friar who is sincere
about his task of educating the Filipino youth but who surrenders to the logic of the
colonial power to regulate the transfer of knowledge for the safety of the youth, the
government, the church, and the country as a whole. In a scene where this venerable
friar tries to appease the students’ fomenting uprising, Rizal make the youthful Isagani
confront the former with the cold rational words:
How do they fulfill their obligation, those who look after education in the towns! By
hindering it! And those who here monopolize education, those who try to mold the mind
of youth, to the exclusion of all others whomsoever, how do they carry out their mission?
By curtailing knowledge as much as possible, by extinguishing all ardor and
enthusiasm, by trampling on all dignity, the soul’s only refuge, by inculcating
worn-out ideas, rancid beliefs, false principles incompatible with a life of progress!
(Emphasis Added) (El Filibusterismo, p. 291).
The flow of liberal and rationalist knowledge from the Spanish peninsula is regulated by
the friar’s zealous control over the Spanish language. With their Latin and native
Filipino languages, the majority of the literate Filipinos could only read the dated Latin
texts and the intensively censored local publications. The same novel El Filibusterismo
devotes ample attention to the initiative of the Filipino students to establish a Castilian
academy that they hope would spearhead the extended learning and use of the Spanish
language. This initiative unfortunately is quashed by both the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities, despite a mandate from Spain to teach and use the Spanish language in all
colonies. Although Rizal does not elaborate on the more specific implication of Filipino
Thomism in the colonial process, we can easily surmise how the moral dilemma might
have pressured to the Spanish dominated Filipino Thomism to maneuver away from the
certainly compromising questions attendant to a colonial society, politics and culture.
This colonial implication adds more explanation why Filipino Thomism opted to retreat
to its metaphysical and theological cocoon instead of unfolding itself into the Philippine
intellectual landscape. Similarly, this colonial implication adds more explanation why
Filipino Thomism had a fetish for the Latin language.
108
FILIPINO THOMISM IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY
A century after the era of Rizal, the philosophical landscape of our country
remains dominated by Filipino Thomism. Up to this day, it continues to exist as the
most significant variant of Filipino philosophy in terms of the number of adherents.
A simple headcount of the seminarians and seminary professors as against a
headcount of lay philosophy students and professors would easily prove this matter.
Yet, ironically, this most significant variant of Filipino philosophy does not churn out the
most significant number of philosophical output. In my essay “Thought and Socio-
Politics: An Account of the Late Twentieth Century Filipino Philosophy,” I make a
comparison on the bulks of publication of some variants of Filipino philosophy from
1965 to 1992 using the bibliographic work of Rolando Gripaldo entitled Filipino
Philosophy: A Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997.24 Though my essay “Thought and
Socio-Politics” uses a different taxonomy of the variants of Filipino philosophy, the
following bar graph shows how scholasticism has been overshadowed by the other
variants of Filipino philosophy in the inclusive period of my study:
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
109
Although the grim prognosis of Filosofo Tasio for Filipino Thomism did not materialize,
the irony that this most significant variant of Filipino philosophy is not producing the
most significant number of intellectual output sends a clear signal of some internal
trouble.
There are at least two contemporary Filipino philosophers who ventured into
critiquing Filipino Thomism, Emerita Quito and Romualdo Abulad. Although their
critiques are definitely not as sustained as Rizal’s, these remain valuable insights in the
sense that they are signposts for any contemporary assessment of Filipino Thomism. In
her book The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, Quito writes:
The Thomist school, which is the most populous, stays close to the philosophy of
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and views all other philosophies in the light of
Aristotelico-Thomism. This school considers as gospel truth the writings of the
Catholic Saint. Hence, there is no originality in this school; no new ideas are
forged; Catholic ideas of the Medieval Ages are repeated with more or less depth.
The followers of this school still considers philosophy as ancilla theologiae
(handmaid of theology), and therefore, philosophy should subserve theology
(Emphases Added) (Quito, p. 38).
From this curt statement, Quito presents at least three critiques against Filipino
Thomism. First, Quito restates what Rizal has already pointed out concerning the
arrogant closed mindedness of Filipino Thomism. Second, she alludes to the Filipino
Thomism’s failure to process the negative impact of the greatness of Thomas Aquinas.
Quito’s second critique may be read side by side with the lines attributed to Thomas
Aquinas’ mentor, Albert of Cologne, at the time when the latter learned of his protégé’s
death. The French neo-Thomist, Jacques Maritain (1882-1973) recounts this in his
essay “Saint Thomas Aquinas”:
It is reported that at Ratisbon, where he was bishop, Master Albert knew of the death of
his great disciple through a revelation. He wept bitterly at the time. And each time
afterwards that he heard the name of Thomas mentioned he would weep again, saying:
"He was the flower and glory of the world." When the rumor spread that at Paris the
writings of Friar Thomas were being attacked, the old Master journeyed to defend them.
On his return he convoked a solemn assembly at which he declared that after the work
accomplished by Thomas others would thenceforth labor in vain (Emphasis Added)
(Maritain).
110
Thomism’s option to bask under his shadow has doomed it to repeat “with more or less
depth” the “Catholic ideas of the Medieval Ages” (Quito, p. 38). Filipino Thomism, in
fact, has no agenda as to what to do with the intellectual legacy they received from
Thomas Aquinas, and appears to be contented with being its safe keeper. Quito’s third
critique against Filipino Thomism is concerned with the latter’s subservience to catholic
theology. Though it is true that Filipino Thomism started as a preparatory course for
catholic theology, it should not remain in that status forever and call itself “philosophy.”
If Filipino Thomism is subsumed under the agenda of catholic theology, which in return
is subsumed under the agenda of catholic dogmatism, then Filipino Thomism is not a
free philosophy, but a philosophy in bondage. Just as a human person who is deprived
of his freedom and who is chained into servitude could no longer be creative nor
capable of developing himself, so is a philosophy in bondage.
In this penchant for scholastic hair-splitting the country’s Thomists had been known to
excel. Unfortunately, they became so engrossed by their own conceptual pre-
occupations that they failed to take note of the changing signs of the time. I was
there at the very threshold in our own history when an unmistakable shift in our student’s
philosophical interests took place. Always obedient and conservative, I performed
exactly according to what was expected of me. At the same time, however, I could not
help observing the growing discontent and ennui that my classmates were
consciously manifest as they challenged the dogmas of textbook Thomism
(Emphases Added) (Abulad, p. 3).
Thomism in this country became so indomitably stubborn that it started giving the
impression that no truth could possibly lie outside of its pre-established
framework. In my youth I saw very clearly how intellectual doggedness could prove fatal
to an aging philosophy. The harder it refused to budge from its preferred supremacy, the
more ludicrous the Thomism of the fifties and the sixties looked to us (Emphasis Added)
(Abulad, p. 3).
With these two statements, Abulad presents at least three critiques against Filipino
Thomism. The first and the second ones, however, respectively reiterate Rizal’s
critiques concerning the Filipino Thomism’s arrogant closed mindedness, and
concerning the Filipino Thomism’s failure to engage with relevant problems. Abulad’s
third critique against Filipino Thomism centers on its reliance on textbooks, manuals
and commentaries on Thomas Aquinas, instead of emphasizing the study of the latter’s
texts. This method pulled Filipino Thomism away from the spirit, thought and style of its
great master.
The internal conditions that explain the ironic situation that Filipino Thomism
retains the status of being the most significant variant of Filipino philosophy in terms of
the number of adherents without producing the most significant number of philosophical
output are summed up in the following Venn diagram.
RIZAL’S CRITIQUE
111
Filipino Thomism’s Over-Reliance on
Hair-Splitting Rhetoric and Perverted
Use of Language
112
Filipino Thomism, with its arrogant closed mindedness, has much to learn from
Thomas Aquinas, who is neither arrogant nor closed-minded. Thomas Aquinas’
philosophy has made a good use of the other philosophical systems that include the
ideas of the Greeks, such as Aristotle (384-322 BCE), of Christians, such as Augustine
of Hippo (354-430), of Arabics, such as Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126-1198) and Ibn
Sina (Avicenna) (980-1037), of Jews, such as Rabbi Moses ben Maimon
(Maimonides) (1135-1204) and Solomon ben Yehuda ibn Gabirol (Avicebron) (c.1021-
c.1058), and of many others. The Summa Theologiae alone contains citations from 46
philosophers and poets (Cf. Kennedy). The neo-Thomist Norris Clarke suggests four
models of engagement from which a neo-Thomist may chose in his dealings with the
myriad of modern and contemporary philosophical systems, these are: 1) peaceful but
competitive coexistence, 2) positive complementarity and collaboration, 3) border
disputes, and 4) total warfare (Cf. Rosario). Just as the great master uses all of these
models in his own time, Filipino Thomism can adopt these same models in dealing with
the other philosophical systems. More importantly, following the humility of the great
master, Filipino Thomism needs to discard its ethnocentric assumption that it has an a
priori monopoly to truth.
Filipino Thomism, with its characteristic distaste for engagement with relevant
problems, has to rediscover the fact that Thomas Aquinas has literally exhausted his
energy and life, tackling problems and issues that are both relevant and urgent in his
own time. His metaphysical and theological speculations are not directed against sheer
windmills, but against some pressing questions brought about by the rediscovery and
translation into Latin of Aristotle’s works. In Thomas Aquinas’ time, Aristotle had
already swept into its pagan metaphysics the religious philosophies of the leading
Islamic and Jewish thinkers, and has threatened to do the same thing on Christian
philosophy. The question of how to deal with Aristotle had become a wedge that was
about to split the religious thinkers of medieval Christendom. The medievalist Umberto
Eco hooks unto this controversy and makes it the centerpiece of his best selling novel
The Name of the Rose. In this novel, set just a few years after the canonization of
Thomas Aquinas, an ancient blind monk, Jorge de Burgos, machinates a series of
murders inside a Benedictine monastery in order to conceal forever a lost book of
Aristotle in the abbey’s maze-like library. As William of Baskerville, the Franciscan
philosopher who is asked by the Benedictines to study the murders, tracks down and
corners the blind monk, Eco makes Jorge curse Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas while
ingesting the poisoned pages of the lost book.
“Because it was the Philosopher. Every book by that man has destroyed a part of the
learning tha Christianity had accumulated over the centuries. . . . Before, we used
to look to heaven, deigning only a frowning glance at the mire of matter; now we look at
the earth, and we believe in the heavens because of earthly testimony. Every word of
the Philosopher, by whom now even saints and prophets swear, has overturned
the image of God. If this book were to become. . .had become an object for open
interpretation, we would have crossed the last boundary” (Emphases Added) (Eco, p.
473).
113
Thomas Aquinas’ involvement with relevant and urgent problems has led to the rumor
that his death in 1272 was caused by scheme of a certain royalty to poison him. This
same involvement hounded him even beyond his grave, for two years after his death,
the Bishop of Paris condemned 16 of his propositions.
Once Filipino Thomism has rediscovered the passion of Thomas Aquinas for
relevant and urgent contemporary problems, one of the first things that it can do is it to
critique its own self and the traces of structural deformities it incurred during its
implication with the process of colonization. The ideals boldness, passion and humility
of the great master could be the guiding light in this necessary task of auto-critique.
The Filipino Thomism failure to process the negative impact of the greatness of Thomas Aquinas is rooted on the fact it most
Filipino Thomists unreflexively received the intellectual legacy of Thomas Aquinas without any clear agenda as to what to do
with the whole thing. Something that is parallel to this happened with the great master as he inherits the intellectual tradition of
Aristotle. But instead of basking under the shadow of the Philosopher, Thomas Aquinas opts to creatively interpret and
appropriate the former’s philosophical system to serve his own philosophical agenda. This highly creative ideal might prove to
be too difficult a standard for Filipino Thomism in relation to Thomas Aquinas’ intellectual legacy. An easier pathway would be
to benchmark on the contemporary neo-Thomists’ hermeneutic strategy in dealing with the great master’s intellectual system.
Thus, Filipino Thomism can benefit a great deal from a thorough study of the works of the leading contemporary neo-Thomists,
such as Joseph Marechal (1878-1944), Pierre Rousselot (1878-1915), Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), and Etienne Gilson
(1884-1978) (Cf. Rosario).
Catholic
Dogmatism
Metaphysical
& Theological
Master-Narrative
114
Second, Thomas Aquinas deliberately repositioned Aristotle from the latter’s pagan and
secular master-narrative into the former’s peculiar locus. Thus, it is possible to
strategically reposition Filipino Thomism to rectify its subservience to catholic theology.
Based on these considerations, Filipino Thomism can have three possible strategic
points for repositioning itself.
Catholic
Dogmatism 1) Point of Secular Thomism
(Outside Catholic Dogmatism)
The first of these would be the point of secular Thomism, which is a locus located
outside the sphere of catholic dogmatism. Here, Filipino Thomism may speculate
without being encumbered by the parameters of catholic dogmas. Though this is the
most open point, not all Filipino Thomist would appreciate this, since Filipino Thomism
after all is dominated by catholic priests and seminarians. The second strategic point
where Filipino Thomism may reposition itself would be the point of catholic Thomism
that is situated outside the master-narrative of metaphysics and theology but well within
the parameters of catholic dogmatism. The third strategic point where Filipino Thomism
may reposition itself would be another point of catholic Thomism that is still situated
within the master-narrative of metaphysics and theology. In simpler terms, the strategy
of repositioning would create the possibility of a Filipino Thomist who is not
simultaneously a theologian, and at the same time would create Filipino Thomistic
philosopher/theologians who are reflexively conscious of their decision of becoming
Thomistic philosopher/theologians.
115
studies, writings and dictations, and then ends his very long day with prayer. Maritain
tells us:
CONCLUSION
There is a widespread misconception that to develop Filipino philosophy, one
must abandon Thomism. Thomism is the most significant variant of Filipino philosophy
in terms of its number of adherents, and to develop this variant would have much impact
on the development of Filipino philosophy.
This paper accomplished a number of things. First, the paper was able to
explore Rizal’s critique against Filipino Thomism, on one hand, through his images of
the Filipino philosophers, and on the other hand, through his more explicit comments
against the system. Second, the paper stretched Rizal’s critique into the next century
by using the thoughts of Quito and Abulad as sign posts. Rizal, Quito and Abulad
proffer at least seven critiques against Filipino Thomism. Thirdly, the paper argued that
the internal problems of Filipino Thomism may be rectified by going back to the
teachings and the way of doing philosophy of the great master.
When Thomas Aquinas died in 1272 in Fossanova, the people about him had
already practically considered him a saint, due to his holiness, humility and miracles.
Thus, there ensued a row on who will have the custody of his remains. The Cistercian
monks of Fossanova kept the body, for Thomas Aquinas died in their monastery. The
University of Paris petitioned that the body be turned over to them for Thomas Aquinas
studied and taught in their enclave. The Dominicans demanded for the return of the
body, for Thomas Aquinas was one of them. While these three institutional claimants
are at loggerheads, Reginald of Piperno, the great master’s faithful assistant, already
kept the right thumb, while Countess Theodora, the great master’s niece, kept the
thumbless right hand. Four years after the death of Thomas Aquinas, the Cistercian
monks, fearing that the Dominican master general might become pope, exhumed the
uncorrupted body, severed its head and concealed it separately. Eleven years after the
death of the great master, the Cistercian monks exhumed again the still uncorrupted,
though already headless, body boiled off the flesh and concealed the cleaned bones in
a smaller place. Since Thomas Aquinas was tall and heavy, we only can imagine how
gory and grisly the procedure could have been.
116
If Filipino Thomism would persist in its unreflexive and uncritical adherence to
Thomism, Filipino Thomism would still continue to exist in the 21 st century, but it would
be no different from the gruesome relics harvested by the Cistercian monks, by
Reginald, and by Countess Theodora from the body of the great master. Thomas
Aquinas’ philosophy, when carefully safe guarded and venerated from a pedestal, would
just be like any other relics from past.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
117
Weisheipl, James, OP. Friar Thomas D’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Work. New York:
Doubleday and Company, 1974.
The heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in
the love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.
The heaviest burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense
fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real
and truthful they become. . . Conversely, the absolute absence of a burden causes man
to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly
being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. . .
What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?. . . The only certainty is: the
lightness/weight opposition is the most mysterious, most ambiguous of all.
118
-Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Postmodernism is basically not a philosophical concept but a cultural one that
encompasses advertising, anthropology, architecture, art, business, film, information
and communication technology, literature, marketing, music, political science,
philosophy, photography, sociology and many others. Consequently this pervasive
phenomenon is significant to a wide range of disciplines. Filipinos, especially those in
the metropolis, in one way or another have certainly experienced some its facets.
Those who have been to Greenbelt 2 and 3, have seen what postmodern architecture
is. Those who heard Shaggy, Kelly Rowland and Nelly, or the local Salbakuta
superimpose Afro-American rap on standard beat, have heard what postmodern music
is. Those who watch the oftentimes meaningless swirl of images on music television,
have seen what postmodern visual art is. Those who have met couturiers who flaunt
their brazenly asymmetrical and incongruent designs, have been face to face with
postmodern fashion statements. Those who have tried surfing the net, where one
hyperlink leads to another until one forgets what is it that he/she were looking for in the
first place, have experienced what postmodern knowledge is. And those who are into
the humanities or any of the social sciences, have for sure encountered some of the
hotly discussed postmodern criticism and theoretical frames. Because the United
States created the Philippines as an extension of their imperialist market, and because
of the collapse of cultural boundaries exemplified by the internet, satellite television, and
intercontinental air transit, facets of postmodernism have become part of our
metropolitan lives.
This paper is about some problems created by the implosion of postmodernism
in our society and culture that are largely still wallowing in the twilight of premodernity.
Since a claim that Philippine society and culture are too a large extent still premodern,
will never fail to get raised eyebrows as response. This paper is obliged therefore to
prove that our society and culture are still predominantly premodern. Then this paper
would point out that majority of the Filipino intellectuals aspire that these society and
culture would finally develop into modern ones. The problem arises at this point
because postmodern culture could prove to be antithetical to the Filipino aspiration to
modernize. Before moving on into the heart of the matter, it would be better to first set
our concepts straight.
KEY CONCEPTS
119
He had repeated in all his classes his favorite story about that nameless Southeast
Asian peasant sleeping under a coconut tree and how this American AID official had
chided him for not getting up this wonderful morning to work his weedy plot of rice land.
The peasant had asked, “What for?” and the American had said, “So you will be able to
grow more rice.” Again, the peasant asked, “What for?” and the American said, “So you
will be able to buy more land, plant more rice, and make more money.” The peasant
asked, “And if I had more money, what then?” and the American said, “So you can
retire early and enjoy a good rest. . .” It was then that the peasant shook his head,
smiled, and looked at the American, “And what do you think I am doing now?”25
The contented lethargy of the Asian peasant stands for the premodern mind frame, no
concerns for goals and clear visions, no fuss over efficiency and system. The
insistence of the American AID official for slaving oneself to accumulate wealth to be
converted again to capital stands for the modern mind frame, with its will to power and
domination, and obsession for control and the betterment of future. The ideal of the
American AID official for the early bliss of retirement suggests the seeds of
postmodernism, with its penchant for pleasure, consumption, playfulness and disregard
for control. Indeed the three ideas of premodernity, modernity and postmodernity can
be understood only in comparison and contrast with each other. But among the three, it
appears that modernity, being the most clearly understood and studied, holds the key in
the conceptual understanding of the other two ideas.
These are therefore the foundations of modernity and upon them sprouted some
cultural manifestations of modernity. One of these cultural manifestations would be the
idea of the self, which in modernity is constructed as a self-conscious rational individual
that is free and capable of charting his/her own destiny. Another of these cultural
manifestations is the attitude towards pleasure and the manner of consumption, which
in modernity is characterized by restraint and the Protestant ethic of frugality. This
means in modernity, people’s indulgence with pleasure and consumption is regulated
because of the emphasis on the accumulation of wealth, production and the conversion
of income into capital. Still another of these cultural manifestations is the type of art,
which in modernity is simple, functional, and ego-centered (the heroic individual). In
architecture this is exemplified by the glass and steel box-type structures; in literature
and film this is exemplified by the clearly structured narratives and highly developed
characterization; and in painting this is exemplified in the modern abstract painting’s
25
F. Sionil Jose, Ermita: a Filipino Novel (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1988) p. 285.
26
George de Schrijver, SJ, “Postmodernity and Theology,” Philippiniana Sacra, Vol. XXVII,
Number 81 (1992) p. 439.
120
fascination for clear and crisp lines, and images that are mostly flattened out.
Moreover, modern art preserves the traditional distinction between high and low art.
Mary
27
Klages, “Postmodernism,” Online Article from
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENG2012Klages/pomo.html.
28
Klages.
121
pragmatism.”29 According to Jameson, in postmodernity, modernity’s reliance on an
industry exemplified by electricity and internal combustion engines is replaced with a
more advanced industrialization exemplified by nuclear power and electronics.
29
Schrijver, p. 440.
30
122
1998 (on knowledge), is concerned with the critique of the dark side of modernity that is
founded on the oppressive and neurotic control of reason.
So far, this paper has contrasted and defined modernity and postmodernity using
three conceptual strata: their foundations, their cultural manifestations, and their
theoretical and philosophical strapping. Below is a table that summarizes the points
made.
As mentioned already a claim that Philippine society and culture are too a large
extent still premodern, will never fail to get raised eyebrows as response. In this section
this paper will ascertain which aspects of the Philippine condition can pass off as
modern or postmodern, and which aspects are still miserably left behind in the dusk of
premodernity.
The second foundational aspect will ascertain the Filipino attitude towards the
nation-state, or in simpler terms the situation of our nationalism. Filipino nationalism
has been threatened ever since by the regionalism coming from our diverse ethno-
linguistic origins and reinforced by the divide-and-rule strategy of the colonizers. In the
period of neo-colonialism this has been threatened all the more. How can we say that
for the Filipinos the nation-state is sovereign, if as revealed by a 2002 survey of the
31
Michael L. Tan, “Developing People’s Science and Technology: Prospects and Perspective,” in
Lilia Quindoza Santiago, Ed., Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial
Lectures (Quezon City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986) p. 37.
32
Tan, p. 37.
124
Pulse Asia, one out of every five Filipinos desires to leave the country for good due to
the feeling of hopelessness in our soil? How can we say that for the Filipinos the
Nation-State is sovereign, if minute after minute, day after day, and time after time,
money is flying out of the country as payments for unnecessary products intended
merely to slake our insatiable thirst for imported goods? In as far as our attitude for our
own nation-state is concerned, this paper again is inclined to argue that we have not
reached the notch of modernity. We are premodern in this regard.
The fourth and the sixth foundational aspect will ascertain the Filipino economic
mode of production. Our economic and political scholars tend to assert that Philippine
economy is to large extend still agricultural and organized around the feudal system.
This same feudal system is what encroached into our weak capitalism that created a
structurally deformed system called bureaucrat capitalism, or crony capitalism. Tan
explains:
The agriculture sector has been mainly extractive, a source of raw materials for the
industrialized countries. Activities of the so-called industrial sector are still
predominantly limited to packaging and assembly of imported materials, using imported
technology. The few industries that utilize local materials, such as in textiles, have not
expanded its R & D (research and development) activities and its products have
therefore become unacceptable to both the local and export markets.33
The fifth foundational aspect will ascertain the Filipino attitude towards progress.
Whereas modernism believes in the Hegelian plot of steady progress, most Filipinos are
experiencing that sinking feeling of despair. Instead of futural outlook, you will easily
notice a nostalgia for the past. The same 2002 Pulse Asia survey, claiming that one out
of every five Filipinos desire to leave the country for good, l attests to this pervasive
33
Tan, p. 39.
125
despair and gloomy prospects. Again, in as far as our collective outlook for progress is
concerned, this paper again is inclined to argue that would not qualify as a modern
society and culture. We are premodern in this regard.
And after all these years, I see how wrong I have been. Even if we did win, there won’t
be any change because the leaders would be the same. Hostage to relatives, old habits
of mind, personal vanity. . . My country is hopeless. . .There will be no change, no
revolution as I see it now, if we don’t first change ourselves.34
This will make us think that in as far as the construction of the self is concerned the
Filipino has not matured yet into a sober, calculating, scheming, highly individualized
and motivated modern man. We are premodern in this regard.
The second cultural manifestation will ascertain the Filipino attitude towards
pleasure and consumption. Whereas the modernist attitude is characterized by restraint
and the Protestant ethic of frugality, the Filipino has a tendency for ostentation and
profligacy. In the same novel Viajero, Jose mentions another rebel who comments
about the 1986 EDSA revolution:
If this succeeds, that’s one less Filipino tyrant. But when will Filipinos realize that it is
themselves who are often their worst enemy. My people. . . do not know how to save, to
produce, to innovate. They are petty, and they pride themselves in baubles which they
love to show off. We are a nation of show-offs, and Imelda has captured all that is in the
Filipino character—she is the epitome of the Filipino.35
These ostentation and profligacy can be explained by the fact that in a predominantly
feudal society wealth cannot be immediately converted into capital (land), and thus ends
up being disposed of by the feudal lords through conspicuous consumption, which
unfortunately sets a norm of spending pattern among the lower social classes who
likewise have no notions of the modern capital. Though the Filipino attitude for pleasure
and consumption may resemble the postmodern valorization of the individual enjoyment
of goods and services, it is in fact not a good sign of postmodern culture that exudes
from the accumulated affluence of modernism, but a symptom of our decadent and
premodern feudal system.
34
F. Sionil Jose, Viajero: a Filipino Novel (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1993) p. 278.
35
Jose, Viajero: a Filipino Novel , p. 241-242.
126
The third cultural manifestation will ascertain the Filipino mode of art. Whereas
the modern art is characterized by simplicity, functionality and ego-centeredness, as
well as the preservation of the distinction between high and low, Filipino art flares
towards the traditional complexity, stylization, and un-centeredness. We can observe
the screaming colors of our ice-cream carts which are the same hues in our tartly
festooned jeepneys and in our gargantuan movie billboards. They don’t have the
restraint and simplicity of modern art but instead reflect our propensity for verbosity,
hyperbole and exaggeration. “Look at our women,” F. Sionil Jose writes in his novel
Ben Singkol, “how over-dressed, over-jeweled, over-coiffed they are. And our men!
Look at them, their manicured fingernails, their big diamonds, their gold bracelets,
necklaces, their sartorial opulence!”36 In our middle class or even high class interior, the
design will most probably be an accidental pastiche and collage of knick-knacks. We
might mistake Filipino art as postmodern. Yet postmodern art is a self-conscious
reaction to modern art, which the Filipino is hardly aware of. Our film and literature
have great difficulties transcending the deeply embedded didacticism, tired character
stereotyping, and recurrent plot structures of our narrative tradition. Even imported
modern avant-garde films have difficulties enticing Filipino patrons. We have even have
an acclaimed postmodern film maker, who names himself Kidlat Tahimik, yet he is
largely unknown in his own land. Moreover, postmodern art erases the distinction
between high and low art, which Filipino art maintains as revealed by our thundering
condemnations of baduy (counter-fashionable), jolog (provincial or folksy), squa-qua
(slum-like), or squalog (combination of provincial or folksy and slum-like). Hence, aside
from some handful of architectural pieces in affluent sections of the metropolis, aside
from a smattering of foreign music, and aside from the prevalent music television which
may be highly visible tokens of postmodernity, this paper is inclined to argue that
Filipino art is still predominantly premodern.
So far, this section has explored the Philippine condition, and examined each
and every aspect as to whether it belongs to premodernity, modernity and
postmodernity. Below is a table that summarizes the points made.
ASPECTS PHILIPPINE CONDITION PERIODIZATION
F Attitude towards Science Undeveloped Endogenous Science and Premodern
O & Technology Technology
U Attitude towards the Incipient Nationalism Premodern
N Nation-State
D36F.Organizational
Sionil Jose, Ben Singkol Incipient
(Manila: Solidaridad
Bureaucracy Publishing
Riddled House,
with Graft and 2001) p. 98.Modern
Deformed
A Management Corruption
TI Economic Mode Pre-Capitalism Premodern
O (Feudalism) 127
N Attitude to Progress Sinking Feelings, Despair Premodern
S
State of Industry Agricultural Premodern
The analysis in this section revealed that among the different aspects of the Philippine
condition within the three strata, it is only in the theoretical stratum that postmodernism
undeniably exists. Most aspects of the Philippine foundational and cultural strata are
still predominated by premodernity.
The problem that this paper attempts to address is the uneven presence of
postmodernity in our country. Whereas our infrastructural and cultural strata are
predominated by premodern aspects, we have a flourishing theoretical stratum of
postmodernism. The problem arises because with out vaguely felt and articulated
premodernity, the majority of our intellectuals aspire to pull our country into modernity,
because our intellectuals equate modernity with socio-economic development.
128
style social sciences that mercilessly castigated the Filipino self as imprisoned by his
traditional value system making him unfit to move in a modern world point toward the
ideal of transforming the Filipino self into a sober, calculating and scheming modern
man. The bulk of our intellectuals’ brooding flows towards a common direction which is
to modernize the foundational stratum of Philippine society and culture.
ADVANTAGEOUSLY APPROPRIATING
THE POSTMODERN THEORETICAL STRATUM
This paper labored too much in foregrounding the problem brought about by the
uneven presence of postmodernity in the Philippines. Consequently, this same paper
will not pretend to present a final solution to this profound contradiction that has just
been exposed. Instead, this paper will merely give some few recommendations that
can be explored further later on.
The third and final recommendation is that the Filipino intellectuals should make
revisions and refinements on their collective aspiration for Philippine modernization.
The Philippines need not go through the western style of modernity with all of its dark
side. While our intellectuals were slowly conceptualizing Philippine modernization,
suddenly modernity, as the west experienced it, became obsolete. The reason for such
obsolescence is something that just cannot be ignored but has to be taken into
consideration. This means that our intellectuals can not insists on saying “we remain
129
faithful to the philosophies of Fichte, Hegel and Marx for we opted to close our eyes to
the destructive thoughts of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard.”
There is a challenge, then, to the Filipino intellectuals to dream of development without
the dark side of modernity, and postmodern theories and philosophies and on their side
for this new intellectual enterprise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Demeterio, F. P. A. “Speculations on the Dis/Junction Point Between Philosphy and the SocIal
Sciences.” Online Article from http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “The Primitivization of the Indio Mind and the Explosion of Rationalities: The Politics
of Knowledge in the Spanish Colonial Philippines.” Online Article from
http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
Enriquez, Virgilio G. From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience.
Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1994.
Ferrer, Ricardo D. “The Structural Causes of Underdevelopment in the Philippines.” In Lilia Quindoza
Santiago, Ed. Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial
Lectures. Quezon City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986. Pp.
5-14.
Garcia, Edumundo. “Resolution of Internal Armed Conflict in the Philippines: The Quest for a Just and
Lasting Peace in the Period of Democratic Transition.” In Edmundo Garcia & Carolina
Hernandez, Eds. Waging Peace in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy
and Public Affairs & UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, 1989. Pp. 25-42.
Jameson, Frederic. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso, 1991.
Jose, F. Sionil. Ben Singkol. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001.
Jose, F. Sionil. Ermita: a Filipino Novel. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1988.
Jose, F. Sionil. Viajero: a Filipino Novel. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1993.
Klages, Mary. “Postmodernism.” Online Article from http://www.colorado.edu/English/
ENG2012Klages/pomo.html.
Milan, Kundera. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. New York: HarperPerennial, 1999.
Lim, Joseph Y. “Our Economic Crisis: A Historical Perspective.” In Lilia Quindoza Santiago, Ed.
Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial Lectures. Quezon
City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986. Pp. 15-25.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1984.
Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, Louis Wirth &
Edward Shills, Trans. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991.
Said, Edward W. Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures. New York: Vintage
Books, 1996.
San Juan, E. “Towards a Permanent Cultural Revolution.” In Writing and National Liberation: Essays on
Critical Practice. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1991. Pp. 121-131.
Sarup, Madan. An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1993. Second Edition.
Schrijver George de, SJ. “Postmodernity and Theology.” Philippiniana Sacra, Vol. XXVII, Number 81
(1992): 439-452.
Storey, John. An Introductory Guide To Cultural Theory and Popular Culture . New York: Harvster
Wheatsheaf, 1993.
Tan, Michael L. “Developing People’s Science and Technology: Prospects and Perspective.” In Lilia
Quindoza Santiago, Ed. Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson
Memorial Lectures. Quezon City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines,
1986. Pp. 35-47.
130
DEFINING THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD FOR RADICAL INTRA-STATE
PEACE STUDIES IN FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
131
When we hear the word ‘peace’ the immediate picture that crops up in our minds
is that situation characterized by the absence of chaos, of violence, and of actual
warfare. Traditional philosophy calls this the negative understanding of peace. Yet this
kind of peace is no different from the submissive tranquility that accompanies a
successful subjugation, and nor from the deafening stillness that reigns in a deserted
necropolis. Hence, this kind of peace is not only superficial but has a tendency to favor
whoever has the advantage in a given status quo: the exploiters and the dominators. It
is from these reflections that it would appear to us that peace, as mere tranquility and
stillness, is not actually a goal in itself but an effect of something deeper and
profounder. Thus, the Dutch rationalist philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)
stressed that “peace is not” just an “absence of war” but “is a virtue, a state of mind,” “a
disposition for benevolence,” “confidence,” “and justice.” This leads us to what
traditional philosophy calls the positive understanding of peace.
In the more specific context of the indigenous Filipino thought, there happens to
be a conceptual tension between the two understandings of peace. Rose-Marie
Salazar-Clemena, in her 1991 and 1993 field works, documented that Filipinos
associate peace (kapayapaan) with freedom (kalayaan) and justice (katarungan).37 But
in 1992, Virgilio Enriquez has noted that the positive connection between kapayapaan
and katarungan is for the Filipino accommodative and non-confrontative. 38 Implying that
between the negative and the positive understandings of peace the Filipino would tend
to go for the negative one, with its superficiality, and its danger to perpetuate
exploitation and domination, and most of all with its mechanism of sweeping the real
issues and causes of chaos, violence and warfare under the rug of accommodation,
non-confrontation and shallow compromises. With this self-defeating indigenous
tendency, in Philippine intra-state peace studies, there is a need, then, to look deeper
into the anatomical structure of peace.
Repressive Violence
Str Rev
uct olut
ural Substantive Processual ion
Viol Peace Peace ary
enc Viol
37
Quoted in Rose-Marie
e Salazar-Clemena, “Psychologyencand a Culture of Peace: Enriching
e
Relationships and Establishing Balance,” in Allan B.I. Bernardo and Carmela D. Ortigas, Eds, Building
(Heart)
Peace: Essays on Psychology and the Culture (Mind)
of Peace (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2000) p. 4.
Personal Peace
38
Virgilio G. Enriquez, From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience (Manila: De
La Salle University Press, 1994) p. 55.
Personal Violence
39
Soliman M. Santos, Peace Advocate (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2002) p. 3.
132
For Santos, there are basically three types of peace: (1) substantive peace, (2)
processual peace, and (3) personal peace, which can be further conceptualized as (3a)
peace of the heart and (3b) peace of the mind. He defines each of these types in
contradistinction with their opposing types of violence. Hence, substantive peace is
taken as the freedom from structural violence, which in turn is understood as that
violence “which is built into society’s structure,” which manifests “in unequal life chances
founded on unequal power.”40 Processual peace is taken as freedom from revolutionary
violence, which in turn is understood as that violence resulting from the disturbance or
overturning of the status quo due to an unsettled conflict. Personal peace is taken as
freedom from personal violence, which in turn is understood as “the violence of the
heart and mind which is often manifested as violence of the hand (pinagbuhatan ng
kamay).”41 In addition to the three counter-types of violence, there is a fourth one that
opposes and threatens both substantive and processual peace: repressive violence.
These counter-type of violence functions subtly to perpetuate the structural violence of
the unjust social order. Santos explains that it is “the violence used by the state’s
security forces to contain the aspirations of the majority, violently crushing any sign of
protest against injustice.” 42
An advocate or scholar of peace might now wonder which among these three
types of peace, or which among these four counter-types of violence, should be the
primary locus of analysis. In a period of post-Durkheimian social theorizing, when
society is thought of to be structured prior to the individual, and in a period of post-
Marxist analysis, when the infrastructure is thought to be a determinant of the
superstructure, it would be very difficult to ignore the pervasive significance of the binary
substantive peace/structural violence. Edmundo Garcia, in his essay Resolution of
Internal Armed Conflict in the Philippines, describes the operation of this same binary.
In the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, structural violence in
most instances is the main obstacle to peace. Violence is inflicted on the majority of
the people who are voiceless and poor. When people articulate their grievances and
protest against the established order, they often confront state violence. When people
40
Santos, p. 5.
41
Santos, p. 6.
42
Santos, p. 6.
133
respond with counter-violence to defend their lives and dignity, internal armed conflict
then becomes the prevalent form of resolving profound political and economic
differences in society. This leads to the spiral of violence. . . 43
The American philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001), in his book How
to Think about War and Peace, idealistically wrote:
The word ‘peace’ in addition to its negative meaning as an absence of the violence of
actual warfare, has a positive meaning. Civil peace is enjoyed by a people who can
settle all their conflicts and disputes by means of the instrumentalities of government
and law, and so they do not have to resort to the violence of actual warfare.
But a keen reading would reveal that Adler presumed too much that all societies are
peopled with individuals who are enlightened and strong enough to defend their own
interests, and that government instrumentalities and laws are free enough from class-
based distortions. Perhaps he had too much of the American myth of highly motivated
and rugged individuals, as well as of the meta-narrative of their grand democratic
government for the people. The glaring problem that he missed is what would happen
to civil or positive peace if in a given society it is the government itself, together with its
instrumentalities and laws, or that it is society itself as whole, which turns out to be
internally festering with structural and repressive violence? But beyond Adler’s lofty
idealism is actually a challenge for the local advocates and scholars of peace to look
43
Edmundo Garcia, “Resolution of Internal Armed Conflict in the Philippines: The Quest for a
Just and Lasting Peace in the Period of Democratic Transition,” in Edmundo Garcia & Carolina
Hernandez, Eds., Waging Peace in the Philippines (Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public
Affairs & UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies) p. 30.
134
into the Philippine society and ascertain whether we have the same democratically
empowered people or the almost utopian democracy that he all assumed to be given
facts of life. Our rawest gut feelings, however, would immediately tell us that our
society is in diametrical opposition with the Adlerian ideal. These things would
ultimately drag us to the question: what are the manifestations and machination of
structural and repressive violence in Philippine society that hindered our people’s
common aspiration for lasting peace?
In the Philippine society, the infrastructure of chronic chaos, violence and intra-
state warfare can be historically dated back to the Spanish colonial “politics of
exclusion” and “practice of economic exploitation.” 44 When the Spaniards left, their
template of a glaringly unequal governance and socio-economics remained in place,
making the successive governments either unconscious or simply unable to address the
plight of the majority of the Filipinos who wallowed in poverty and dispossession while
power and wealth were practically in the hands of the few privileged elite. This
structural inequality can be more vividly pictured with the estimate that more than 40%
of Philippine wealth and power is under the control of less than 10% of the Filipinos.
The operation of the colonial politics of exclusion and practice of economic exploitation
persisted into the present time through the institutions of feudalism, bureaucrat
capitalism and imperialism. The isolation of these three historic institutions as the
conduit of exclusion and exploitation may sound like the tired clichés of fiery activists,
yet a thorough understanding of each of their processes would in fact reveal their very
real and sinister potencies.
He knew the story by rote, as his own people in Sipnget had told him—how the
Americans came with their transits and their measuring rods, how the Spaniards worked
with the Americans and how with no more than scraps of paper they made binding and
permanent the bondage of those how had from the beginning felled the trees, cut the
grass, killed the snakes, and dammed the creeks, so that this inhospitable land could be
made gracious and fecund. 45
44
Garcia, p. 27.
45
F. Sionil Jose, My Brother, My Executioner (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1988) p. 14.
135
But aside from originary historical moment of injustice during the colonizers’
appropriation of land-based wealth and their distribution to a privileged few, what is so
wrong with feudalism that makes it a favorite point of attack by both the frenzied
activists and speculative academics? There seems to be something inherently wrong
with the feudal system that hinders economic development and consequently pins so
many people into the bondage of poverty. At a deeper analysis, feudalism turns out to
have an inherent lethargy in terms of its inputs to production, and profligacy in terms of
its output. When compared to capitalism where wealth is churned out through
continuous capital accumulation and technological innovation, feudalism does not
bother about further capitalization and innovation. It is a very complacent enterprise
where the landlords can be totally absent during the production period and merely
collect the cream of their land during harvest seasons. Ricardo Ferrer, in his essay
The Structural Causes of Underdevelopment in the Philippines, explains this lethargy to
the fact that feudal wealth is primarily based on “‘space’ in its geographic connotation,”
unlike capitalist wealth which is primarily based on fluid capital that enables output to be
plowed back as input. 46 Because of its negligible thrust for growth and expansion
through capitalization and technological innovation, feudalism drags the whole economy
downwards. Furthermore, without the need to convert accumulated wealth into capital,
wealth is then dissipated in ostentatious profligacy by the privileged few while the rest of
the economy remained undeveloped. Ferrer describes the system as “anti-thetical to
growth.”47 Moreover, the nightmare of feudalism does not end here, this system together
with its ostentatious profligacy and degenerate ethos, had spread over into the domains
of politics, religion, values and the Filipino culture at large. The matter is aggravated
with the realization that the hope for finally blasting the Philippine feudal order is nil.
Historically, in Europe, the clutches of the feudal lords was eroded, transformed and
superseded by the rising influence of the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, this historical
process has no chances of repeating itself for our benefit because, as the famous
expatriate cultural critic E. San Juan argues, Philippine bourgeoisie “is either non-
existent, inchoate, or deformed.”48 Feudalism originated in violence, but the magnitude
of this initial violence is nothing compared to the stream of structural violence it spewed
out coupled with the crushing violence of hopelessness.
46
Ricardo D. Ferrer, “The Structural Causes of Underdevelopment in the Philippines,” in Lilia
Quindoza Santiago, Ed., Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial Lectures
(Quezon City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986) p. 11.
47
Ferrer, p. 12.
48
E. San Juan, “Towards a Permanent Cultural Revolution,” in Writing and National Liberation:
Essays on Critical Practice (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1991) p. 124-125.
136
industrialization, another antithetical institution emerges. Bureaucrat capitalism, the
second conduit of the colonial politics of exclusion and exploitation, is a direct product of
a collusion of the privileged few in commercial and industrial sectors and the
government. Ferrer defines this mutant institution as a mechanism where “a state
instrument is used for the creation and reproduction of feudal private property especially
in the industrial sector.”49 Crony capitalism is the paragon of bureaucrat capitalism and
both do not only aggravate further and sacramentalize the unjust concentration wealth
and power on the privileged few, but also warp the fabric of free competition which is a
necessary backdrop of any authentic capitalist development.
Imperialism, the third conduit of the colonial politics of exclusion and exploitation,
springs from the will to power of stronger nations to expand and maintain their sphere of
control and influence by subjugating weaker nations. In this sense, imperialism is
synonymous with colonialism. But after the colony’s political liberation, imperialism
takes a subtler form as it sinks its spindles of power into the economic and cultural
aspects of the former colony. In this sense, imperialism is synonymous with economic
and cultural neo-colonialism that panders on the highly developed colonial aesthetics
and tastes of the natives. Imperialism becomes double-edged sword, on one side it can
fatally bleed our economy with the flight of payments for our insatiable need and desire
for imported products, on the other side it mows down our country’s chances to
industrialize. Imperialism can effectively stunt our industrial development because it
was successful in constructing us as a mere provider of raw materials and an extension
of the imperial market, ultimately making our economy a pathetically dependent one.
The double-edged menace of imperialism does not end at these points, because it can
rather easily fuse with the collusive forces of bureaucrat capitalism to give birth to an
even more monstrously deformed capitalism.
49
Ferrer, p. 12.
50
Joseph Y. Lim, “Our Economic Crisis: A Historical Perspective,” in Lilia Quindoza Santiago,
Ed., Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial Lectures (Quezon City: The
Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986) p. 24.
137
Furthermore, with the imperialist move of creating our country a cheap source of labor,
who would be there to legislate humane wages? With all these hideous self-replicating
deformities, side by side with the hopelessly powerless or non-existent bourgeoisie and
middle class that are incapable of initiating transformations, the remaining card for
lasting peace would be the historically excluded and exploited class. “The democratic
task within the framework of revolutionary rupture,” San Juan explains, “what Althusser
conceived of as the convergence of all the contradictions in society, can only be
genuinely carried out by a bloc of popular forces led by the organized working people.”
51
I now define radical intra-state peace studies as the theory and praxis of
critiquing and counter-critiquing these hideous self-replicating structural deformities that
serve as the infrastructure of our intra-state chaos, violence and warfare.
138
entitled Thought and Socio-Politics: an Account of the Late Twentieth Century Filipino
Philosophy, I problematized the difference between Abulad and Nakpil-Zialcita’s
classifications and post the question, why is it that in 1971 Nakpil-Zialcita talked about a
Filipino philosophy as a critique of the Philippine social and economic structures, while
in 1988 Abulad is silent about this tradition of Filipino philosophy? By historically
reconstructing the socio-politics of the period, by analyzing the bibliography of Philippine
philosophical writings, and by interviewing our few imminent senior philosophy
professors, I attempted to prove that in the late 1960s and the early 1970s there was
indeed an emerging trend of Filipino philosophy as critique of the Philippine social and
political structures, but the declaration of the Martial Law in 1972 had effectively
derailed its growth. Today, whenever Filipino scholars and students talk about the
trends of Filipino philosophy, they tend to talk about local pockets centered on the
leading institutions of philosophy: namely, scholastic philosophy at the University of
Santo Tomas; existential/continental philosophy at the Ateneo de Manila University; and
logical positivism/linguistic philosophy at the University of the Philippines. Added to
these localized trends is another one that cuts across these leading institutions and
flourishes even outside them, which is that trend that deals with the Filipino worldview.
Filipino scholars and students would tend to miss the subtle undercurrent of critical
Filipino philosophy, which to a very large extent remained barely noticed, barely
discussed, and almost forgotten. There are, then, four clear traditions in Filipino
philosophy and these are: 1) scholasticism, 2) the influx of western philosophical
theories, 3) Filipino philosophy as interpretation of Filipino identity and world-view, and
4) Filipino philosophy as critique of the Philippine social and economic structures.
139
The European nations established their new socio-economic orders through the
painful bloodletting of a revolution. Are Filipinos prepared to purchase lasting peace
with the price of violence? It seems that we have been disenchanted with revolution.
Jose, in his novel Ben Singkol, makes his war veteran protagonist talk with a bunch of
young activists:
Then, the bombshell from the same serious, dark-skinned young man. “Sir, do you think
a revolution could be the answer?” I sat back. I did not expect the question. I must
bide for time. “Just what do you mean by revolution?” Came the quick reply. “I will
define it in the manner that it has always been defined. With bloodshed, like the
revolution against Spain, the revolution in China, in Cuba.” “And much earlier,” I said,
“the French revolution, the Russian revolution.” They were nodding. “The price is too
heavy,” I said. “If you can have change without all that violence. . . Not that I do not
think it is necessary. I live through World War II, and I hope you will never know what
war is like. And violence.”52
Another concrete move for Filipino philosophy is to soul search the identities of
its professors. San Juan places his hopes for democratic transformation on the
excluded and exploited class. Unfortunately, this class has lost its organic intellectuals
as many of our professors abandoned them to masquerade around as members of the
higher classes. The truth is Filipino professors belong to same excluded and exploited
class and we should be the organic intellectuals of this trampled class. The task of
propagating the Gramscian counter-hegemony belongs to us. Though we belong to the
working class we do wield enough symbolic and actual powers to carry out this
Gramscian intellectual task.
52
F. Sionil Jose, Ben Singkol (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001) p. 189.
140
regime. People may understand, owing to its youth and the extremely compromising
circumstances, Filipino philosophy’s sins of the past. But it will be unforgivable if
Filipino philosophy will remain silent again in the face of our hideous infrastructure of
intra-state chaos, violence and warfare. Lasting peace can be purchased not with the
price of violence, but with the price of committed intellectual struggle of critique and
counter-critique, and Filipino philosophy has a moral burden of facilitating the dawning
of this attainable and lasting peace.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abulad, Romualdo. “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy.” Karunungan/Sophia, Vol. 5, 1988.
Abulad, Romualdo. Philosophy Professor at the Christ The Kind Formation Center, Quezon City.
Interview with Richard Sanchez, 20 February 2002.
David, Randolf. Sociologist at the University of the Philippines, Quezon City. Interview with Richard
Sanchez, 15 February 2002.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of Filipino
Philosophy.” Online Article from http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “Speculations on the Dis/Junction Point Between Philosphy and the SocIal
Sciences.” Online Article from http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “The Primitivization of the Indio Mind and the Explosion of Rationalities: The Politics
of Knowledge in the Spanish Colonial Philippines.” Online Article from
http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
Dy, Manuel. Philosophy Professor at the Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City. Interview with
Richard Sanchez, 19 February 2002.
Enriquez, Virgilio G. From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Manila: De La
Salle University Press, 1994.
Ferrer, Ricardo D. “The Structural Causes of Underdevelopment in the Philippines.” In Lilia Quindoza
Santiago, Ed. Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial
Lectures. Quezon City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986. Pp.
5-14.
Garcia, Edumundo. “Resolution of Internal Armed Conflict in the Philippines: The Quest for a Just and
Lasting Peace in the Period of Democratic Transition.” In Edmundo Garcia & Carolina
Hernandez, Eds. Waging Peace in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy
and Public Affairs & UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, 1989. Pp. 25-42.
Gripaldo, Rolando. Filipino philosophy: A Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997. Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 2000.
Jose, F. Sionil. Ben Singkol. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001.
Jose, F. Sionil. Ermita: A Filipino Novel. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1989.
Jose, F. Sionil. My Brother, My Executioner. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1988.
Lim, Joseph Y. “Our Economic Crisis: A Historical Perspective.” In Lilia Quindoza Santiago, Ed.
Synthesis: Before and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial Lectures. Quezon
City: The Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986. Pp. 15-25.
Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, Louis Wirth &
Edward Shills, Trans. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991.
Nakpil-Zialcita, Fernando. “Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino.” Trans. Nicanor Tiongson. In Virgilio
Enriquez, Mga Babasahin sa Pilosopiya: Epistemolohiya, Lohika, Wika at Pilosopiyang Pilipino.
Manila: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House, 1983.
Ordonez, Elmer A. “Literature and Social Change.” In Lilia Quindoza Santiago, Ed. Synthesis: Before
and Beyond February 1986: The Edgar Jopson Memorial Lectures. Quezon City: The
Interdisciplinary Forum of the University of the Philippines, 1986. Pp. 79-89.
Salazar-Clemena, Rose-Marie. “Psychology and a Culture of Peace: Enriching Relationships and
Establishing Balance.” In Allan B.I. Bernardo and Carmela D. Ortigas, Eds. Building Peace:
Essays on Psychology and the Culture of Peace. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2000. Pp.
3-10.
141
San Juan, E. “Towards a Permanent Cultural Revolution.” In Writing and National Liberation: Essays on
Critical Practice. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1991. Pp. 121-131.
Sanchez, Richard. “Isang Pag-uusisa at Pagguhit sa Naging Landas at Agos ng Pilipinong Pilosopiyang
Kritikal sa Panahon ng Batas Militar.” AB Thesis, San Beda College, 2002.
Santos, Soliman M. Peace Advocate. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2002.
Timbreza, Florentino. Philosophy Professor at De La Salle Univesity, Manila. Interview with Richard
Sanchez, 31 January 2002.
Abstract: This paper explores the contributions of Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza,
Florentino Timbreza and Rolando Gripaldo of De La Salle University to the development
of Filipino philosophy. The four philosophy professors of this university are selected
based on their textual productivity and on the fact that they retired from this same
university as full professors. Filipino philosophy in this paper is limited to the following
concerns of Filipino philosophy professors: the practice of logical analysis, the practice of
phenomenological and hermeneutical reflection, critical philosophy, the appropriation of
foreign philosophical theories, the appropriation of folk philosophies, breakthrough
writings or researches that make original contributions by going beyond the thoughts of
certain established foreign philosophers, the interpretation of Filipino identity and
worldview, the discourse on local themes, and the discourse on universal and foreign
themes. This exploration is accompanied by some critique and assessments of the
aforementioned philosophers’ contributions, and concludes with a comparison and
contrast of their contributions and impact to Filipino philosophy. Due to the length of this
paper, it is split into three parts. Part I, therefore, covers the general introduction, brief
history of the Philosophy Department of De La Salle University, the contributions of Quito,
and the contributions of Ceniza; while Part II covers the contributions of Timbreza; and
Part III covers the contributions of Gripaldo, and the conclusion of the full paper.
Key Words: Filipino Philosophy, De La Salle University, Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza,
Florentino Timbreza, Rolando Gripaldo
142
(Part I of Three Parts)
Include abulad ang mabaquiao in this book project:
INTRODUCTION
143
(1) Grassroots/Folk
Philosophy
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/
Academic Thomism (Lecture)
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Method (7) Critical Philosophy
(8) Appropriation of
Foreign Theories
(11) Breakthrough
Writing
144
of Filipino Philosophies by Zialcita, Quito, Abulad, Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao
Hence, on one extreme end of its semantic spectrum, “Filipino philosophy” can
refer to everything philosophical going on in these islands as manifested in numbers 1
to 10, and 12 of figure 1. Whereas, on the other extreme, the term could refer to the
almost non-existent and definitely under-represented practices of breakthrough writing
(number 11), discoursing on local themes (number 13), and discoursing on universal
and foreign themes (number 14). Therefore, in order to give this paper a more specific
focus, there is a need to adopt a functional definition of “Filipino philosophy” taken from
somewhere in between the aforementioned semantic extremes.
For this paper, we have to exclude the meanings of “Filipino philosophy” as the
grassroots or folk philosophies of Filipinos (number 1), as the lectures of some Filipino
academicians on Scholasticism and Thomism (number 2), and as the lectures of some
Filipino academicians on other foreign philosophical systems (number 3), for the
reasons that these discourses are not textualized, and are not emanating from the
academe. We have to exclude also the meaning of “Filipino philosophy” as the non-
academic practice of critical philosophy, for the reason that we are talking here about
the academic philosophical practices from De La Salle University.
This paper explored and preliminarily assessed the contributions towards the
enrichment and development of Filipino philosophy by some of the luminaries of De La
Salle University. Due to the restrictions on length set by the article format of this study,
however, the number of these luminaries had to be delimited using two principles. First,
this study focused on the Lasallian philosophical luminaries who extensively published
their philosophical labors. Second, this study focused on such luminaries who retired as
full professors in the said institution. Hence, this paper examined only the thoughts of
Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza, Florentino Timbreza and Rolando Gripaldo. Abulad, who
produced tremendous quantity of texts on Filipino philosophy, could not be
accommodated in this study because he opted to retire early from De La Salle
University as an associated professor. He will definitely be a subject of a separate
study in the near future.
145
A BRIEF HISTORY
OF THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT
OF DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY
In 1975, the same year when De La Salle College became a university, it started
to offer a degree program in philosophy and literature. This is the time when the
university’s Department of Philosophy started to officially become eclectic in its outlook.
The University Catalogue of the academic year 1975-1976 talked about the department
as “cognizant of the various trends in the philosophical discipline” and has, therefore,
“devised an arrangement whereby students can select their own program of study in
philosophy after they have completed a basic course in either Philosophy of Man. . . or
a 3 unit course of Man-God or a 3 unit course of Ethics” (Quoted by Quito, The State of
Philosophy in the Philippines 29). Two years after the program opened, Ceniza joined
the institution as a full time faculty member.
When this institution became a university in 1975, its president, Bro. Hyacinth
Gabriel Connon FSC, envisioned it to become a research university. Unfortunately,
Bro. Connon died in 1978. But his successor, Bro. Andrew Benjamin Gonzalez FSC,
inherited the vision of his predecessor and worked hard in achieving their shared
dream. Bros. Connon and Gonzalez are the reason why De La Salle University was
able to contribute so much not only in the development of Filipino philosophy, but in the
general knowledge production in various fields of specializations. Hence, by 1981, its
Department of Philosophy was able to publish in printed form its journal Sophia which
flourished a decade earlier as mimeographed pages; and in 1983, this department
already took pride in being the only philosophical center in the country that is supported
by a robust infrastructure for research and publication (Cf. Quito, The State of
Philosophy in the Philippines 47). It was in 1983 also that Timbreza joined the
department as a full time faculty member.
In the early 1980s, the department started to offer an advanced program leading
to a master’s degree in philosophy and produced its first graduate in 1985. In 1992,
Gripaldo joined the department as a full time faculty member. In the early 1990s, the
department noticed that the University of Santo Tomas remained the only institute of
higher education in the country that offered a program leading to a doctor’s degree in
philosophy, and because of this university’s commitment to Scholasticism and Thomism
146
it was not able to exhaustively respond to the needs and expectations of the philosophy
students and teachers in the country. The department initially tried to establish a
consortium with the University of Santo Tomas and the Ateneo De Manila University to
come up with a more extensive doctoral program in philosophy by pooling together their
professors and other resources. Since nothing materialized from this plan, the
department finally decided to offer its own program leading to a doctor’s degree in
philosophy, and produced its first graduate in 1997. In 1999, the department launched
its ladderized program leading to the degrees of master in philosophical research and
doctor of philosophy in contemporary philosophy.
Today, the department preserves its commitment to eclecticism and states in its
webpage that its “curriculum provides the student with the unique chance to design
his/her own program upon completion of the basic courses in philosophy, psychology,
ethics, and theology. In order to produce a diverse group of graduates, the Department
offers a wide range of electives that vary from Ancient Greek Thought to Asian
Philosophy.”
EMERITA QUITO
Quito was born 1929 in San Fernando, Pampanga. Thinking that she wanted to
take up law, she enrolled in philosophy at the University of Santo Tomas and earned
her bachelor’s degree in 1949. Falling in love with the discipline, she pursued graduate
studies at the same university and earned her master’s degree in 1956. She left the
country in 1961, and worked for her doctor’s degree at the Universite de Fribourg,
Switzerland, and earned the degree in 1965, with a dissertation on the thoughts of Louis
Lavelle.
She came back to the country and taught at the University of Santo Tomas until
1967. Frustrated with the University of Santo Tomas’ adherence to Scholasticism and
Thomism and its lack of research infrastructure for faculty and students, she tried
teaching at Ateneo De Manila University, and Assumption College until Bro. Gonzalez
invited her to transfer to De La Salle University. Consequently, in 1971, she became a
full time faculty member in this institution.
She was able to get post-doctoral fellowships and grants in Universitat Wien,
Austria, in 1962, in Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain, in 1964. She further trained in
oriental philosophy and Sanskrit at the Universite de Paris-Sorbonne, France, in 1974.
147
In 1990, De La Salle University honored Quito with a voluminous festschrift
containing thirty-four of her major books and articles that were originally published from
1965 to 1988. This paper will only examine the ones that have direct relevance to
Filipino philosophy as defined by this paper, specifically: 1) the 1970 article “Should
Communism be Taught in our Universities;” 2) the 1972 book Ang Pilosopiya sa Diwang
Pilipino; 3) the essay “The Filipino and the Japanese Experience: a Philosophy of
Sensitibity and Pride,” which is a chapter of the 1979 book Lectures on Comparative
Philosophy; 4) the 1979 article “The Role of the University in Changing Women’s
Consciousness;” 5) the 1979 article “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino;” 6) the 1981
article “Ang Pilosopiya: Batayan ng Pambansang Kultura;” 7) the 1982 essay “Teaching
and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines,” which is the preliminary version of the
1983 book The State of Philosophy in the Philippines; 8) the 1983 article “Structuralism
and the Filipino Volksgeist;” 9) the 1984 article “A Filipino Volksgeist in Vernacular
Literature;” and 10) the 1984 article “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos.”
The contents of these ten books and articles yielded a conceptual map that
summarizes Quito’s contributions to the development of Filipino philosophy:
Critique of Politics
Reflection on the State
of Filipino Philosophy
Critique of Colonial
Mentality
Preliminary Construction
of Filipino Identity
This map shows us that Quito’s work on Filipino philosophy, aside from her reflection
and analysis on the state of Filipino philosophy, is concentrated on Filipino philosophy
as the academic practice of critical philosophy (Cf. number 7, figure 1) and as the
interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview (Cf. number 12, figure 1). These
contributions are discussed in more detail in the succeeding sub-sections of this paper.
148
Research of Philosophy in the Philippines,” which as mentioned already is a preliminary
version of the book The State of Philosophy in the Philippines.
Quito made a distinction between academic and formal philosophy on one hand,
and grassroots philosophy, or folk philosophy, on the other hand. Whereas academic
and formal philosophy, in their strictest sense, may not be present in country, for the
bulk of our philosophical activities are limited to the exposition of foreign philosophical
theories, Quito asserts that the Filipinos have a rich reservoir of grassroots philosophy,
or folk philosophy, or philosophy in its loose sense, which remained unexplored by our
western-oriented academicians. Quito alternately called this loose philosophy as
“diwang Pilipino” (Filipino spirit), “Volksgeist” (Folk spirit) and “Weltanschauung”
(worldview). She believes that understanding this level and sense of philosophy will not
only provide us with a deeper understanding of our own national and cultural identity but
will also endow Filipino philosophy in the strict sense with concepts, languages and
systems of thought that it can use to build and develop itself into a more significant and
powerful discourse.
Quito focused her attention on the question why the academic and formal
philosophy in the Philippines remained underdeveloped and subsequently presented
ten reasons which we may cluster into 1) factors pertaining to our political and cultural
climate, 2) factors pertaining to institutional and structural shortcomings of our
universities and colleges, and 3) factors pertaining to professional capacities of our
philosophy professors. The following figure conceptually maps out these reasons:
149
for the Underdevelopment of Filipino Philosophy
Quito pinpointed that the politics and culture of the Philippines seems to be
inhospitable for the tedious process of philosophizing and doing philosophical research.
Politically, our history of Spanish, American, and Japanese colonizations curtailed our
freedom to philosophize because it is against the interests of our colonial masters to
train us to think in an unrestrained manner for the reason that sooner or later we would
be attacking their unjustifiable occupations of our homeland (Cf. number 1 of figure 3).
Hence in the 1970s and in the 1980s when Quito wrote her two pertinent works, Filipino
philosophy only had about thirty to forty years of chance to thrive freely from foreign
subjugation. But even with the political independence that we gained from our foreign
colonizers, freedom of thought was still not guaranteed to flourish, for we remained
shackled by the colonial discourse of Scholasticism and Thomism, and in the 1970s to
the early 1980s Martial Law imposed censorship on academic publications (Cf. number
1 of figure 3; Quito, “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 713).
Culturally, Quito noticed that we Filipinos have a pejorative connotation for philosophy,
as we associate the term with our often misunderstood image of Rizal’s Filosofo Tacio
(Cf. number 2 of figure 3; Quito, “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the
Philippines” 707). Hence, instead of associating philosophy with Tacio’s bold social
criticism and stoic refusal to be engulfed by the colonial society’s subjugating norms, we
tend to associate the term with Tacio’s eccentric stance on the boundary between sanity
and insanity.
In the more specific set up of the Philippine universities and colleges, Quito
identified some factors that are detrimental to the development of Filipino philosophy.
Compared to the standards that she saw in Europe, the low salary scale of the Filipino
academicians would not attract the brightest students to pursue their career in college
level teaching and research (Cf. number 3 of figure 3; Quito, “Teaching and Research of
Philosophy in the Philippines” 710). Those who gravitated towards the academe for one
reason or another would no sooner find out that because of the average teaching
assignment of twenty-four hours a week for a college professor, there would no longer
be any time left for research and more serious philosophizing (Cf. number 4 of figure 3;
Quito, “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 710). Those few who
are hardworking and motivated enough to pursue research and serious philosophizing
despite the time constraints would no sooner realize that most of the Philippine
universities and colleges do not have adequate infrastructure for research, such as
grants, professorial chairs, and respectable libraries (Cf. number 5 of figure 3; Quito,
“Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 709). In addition to these
shortcomings, Philippine universities and colleges do not exert pressure nor give
incentives to their teachers and professors to undertake research and publication (Cf.
number 6 of figure 3; Quito, “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines”
710).
In the still more specific context of the professional capacities of the Filipino
teachers and professors of philosophy, Quito identified some more adverse factors.
Filipino academicians have inadequate graduate training due to the very costly graduate
studies abroad or even locally (Cf. number 7 of figure 3; Quito, “Teaching and Research
150
of Philosophy in the Philippines” 711). Those who opted to pursue their graduate
degrees locally are mired in the process of inbreeding were they imbibed the deplorable
academic practices of their non-researching and unproductive professors (Cf. number 8;
Quito, “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 710-711). Quito also
found the Filipino philosophy teachers and professors’ inability to use the major
European languages as a significant barrier for the development of Filipino philosophy
because this will prevent them from directly accessing the thoughts of the leading non-
Anglophone European thinkers (Cf. number 9 of figure 3; Quito, “Teaching and
Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 710). Ironically, Quito also found the Filipino
philosophy teachers and professors’ fixation for the English language at the expense of
the Filipino language another significant developmental barrier because English cannot
adequately express the Filipino spirit and it will limit the Filipino academicians’
communication among themselves as well as with the other Filipinos (Cf. number 10 of
figure 3; Quito, “Ang Pilosopiya sa Diwang Pilipino” 200).
Philippine Politics
151
of student unrest and classroom boycotts, the demonstrators continued to follow her
lectures. In the same year, she spearheaded the establishment of the National
Association of College and University Professors, with the intention of providing the
country a more circumspect intellectual force amidst the escalating political turmoil (Cf.
Evasco 4).
It is unfortunate that this political preoccupation gradually waned with the waxing
of the authoritarianism of the Marcos regime. Quito herself admitted that: “During the
first years of martial law (1972-74), even academic books had to pass through a Board
of Censors before publication. This is perhaps a reason why many philosophers do not
undertake research, or undertake research only in what are considered as innocuous
subjects, such as Philippine philosophy” (Quito, “Teaching and Research of Philosophy
in the Philippines” 713).
In the Festschrift aside from Quito’s curt but scathing mention on how the Marcos
regime had contributed to the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophical thinking,
specifically found in the essay “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the
Philippines,” her critical political outlook is only substantially manifested in her 1970
essay “Should Communism be Taught in our Universities” (Cf. Quito, “Teaching and
Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 713).
In this short 1970 article, Quito expressed her negative sentiments to both the
repressive academic policies of the Marcos regime, and the looming threat of a
communist takeover. Quito believed that once communism is thoroughly studied by the
Filipinos, our people would be repelled by the prospects of living in a communist regime.
On the contrary, by making communism a taboo in the Philippine academic setting, the
government only stoked the curiosity of the youth towards this ideology. Quito derided
the Marcos regime for claiming to be a democratic government while curtailing the
democratic and free discussions of all ideas and possibilities for our country. She
recalled how the Universite de Fribourg had put up the Institut de l’ Europe Orientale,
under Józef Maria Bocheński, in order to thoroughly study and consequently
demythologize Soviet communism. Quito is careful however not to conflate Marxism
with communism, after all she had deep respects and fascination for the Marxisms of
Jean Paul Sartre and Marcuse (Cf. Abulad vi-vii).
Colonial Mentality
152
But worse than this self chastisement, is our almost schizophrenic love/hate and
attraction/contempt for the foreign. Love and attraction because we want to become
like them; and hate and contempt because we still vaguely remember how they brought
us to our knees with their greed and cruelty. Colonial mentality did not only give us
inferiority complex, but also this almost schizophrenic mind set. For Quito, the Filipino’s
readiness to do everything just to leave the country and transplant his life on a foreign
soil, no matter how inhospitable this may turn out to be, is just a symptom of our
wrecked soul (Cf. Quito, “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos” 762).
Quito believed that the Filipino intellectuals have the duty of pulling us out from
the mental malady of colonization by freeing us from the shackles our past and by
bringing us to a nationalistic future that is free from all traces of our colonial baggage.
The task may be daunting for the reason that these intellectuals have to shatter the
status quo and theorize new possibilities. Such status quo is difficult to dismantle
because it is fortified by the inertia of the ailing present, as well as by people who have
already embraced it as part of their comfort zone. But Quito insisted that our
intellectuals have to do what they need to do, otherwise we will continue to wallow in
our current mental malady that is the root of our political, cultural and economic
underdevelopment (Cf. Quito, “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos” 762). She used
the metaphor of weaning, alluding to that difficult process where a child had to cease
sucking his mother’s milk and start facing the task of growing up.
The project of addressing the problem of our colonial mentality, for Quito, is
intimately connected with her critique of the Filipino language, with her critique of
Philippine education, and with her discussion on the Filipino’s lack of self identity, which
will all be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Filipino Language
In the 1983 book State of Filipino Philosophy, Quito mentioned that there are two
streams of theorizing about Filipino philosophy: one insisted on using only the Filipino
language in order to fully capture and express the Filipino spirit; while the other argued
that philosophy need not be restricted by any language and utilized the existing colonial
English language (Cf. Quito, State of Filipino Philosophy 41). Quito, although a polyglot
who can read and speak six or seven languages, tended to position herself with the first
stream. She explained that Filipino philosophy can be extracted from the grassroots,
built, developed and shared among Filipinos more efficiently if these activities are done
using the Filipino language.
In her 1979 essay “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino,” she deconstructed the
rationalizations that are commonly used by some Filipino intellectuals to justify their
fixation for the colonial language left by the Americans. She disproved the myth of
English as a universal language by simply recalling her experiences as a student in
Europe and by citing the standard operating procedures in the United Nations
Organization where multiple major languages are used as media of communications
(Cf. Quito, “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 600-601). She debunked the
153
reasoning among non-Tagalog speakers that if they need to learn another language just
for us to have a national tongue, they might as well opt to learn the English language.
Quito did this by making her readers remember that in our long history of attempting to
master this foreign language we have never succeeded beyond the levels of simple
literacy (Cf. Quito, “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 601).
She argued against another myth that using the Filipino language in the
academe would not prosper due to its lack of scientific and abstract vocabulary. She
explained that all languages start with very little vocabulary but once their people
commit to use them in all of their endeavors their vocabularies would naturally grow
richer and richer (Cf. Quito, “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 601). This is the
principle of intellectualization that was advocated by Bonifacio Sibayan. The only
difference was that Quito believed that the academe had to use the Filipino language in
the soonest possible time, while the English speaking Sibayan could afford to buy some
more time and wait for intellectualization to take its natural course. Quito disparaged
the wisdom of preserving the English language due the tremendous financial
implications if we are forced to translate the vast English literature into Filipino. She
explained that it might be cheap to read the English works directly, but if most Filipinos
who claim to be English speakers could not effectively comprehend their contents, we
would all end up as sore losers in terms of the missed cultural and economic
developmental targets (Cf. Quito, “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 602).
Quito also scored the objection against using the Tagalog language as the basis
of our national tongue as well as the compromise plan to brew a totally new language
using the vocabularies culled from our country’s over a hundred ethnic groups. She
reasoned out that it does not matter actually whether it is Tagalog, Ilokano or Cebuano
or whatever native language is used as the basis of our national language, as long as at
the bottom line the Filipino people are willing to commit to its rigorous use and
consequent development (Cf. Quito, “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 602). On the
other hand waiting for our government to concoct an artificial language from our native
languages is an impractical option because language is a living system that does not
emerge the way a cook mixes ingredients to create a certain dish (Cf. Quito, “Ang
Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 602).
Finally, Quito invited our attention to the wisdom of the Chinese Prime Minister
Chou En Lai’s plan of making English China’s second language. As a polyglot who
once argued that Filipino philosophers are disadvantaged by their inability to use the
major languages of Europe, Quito was definitely not against the Filipinos’ desire to
master the English language. What she was against was the Filipino’s self deception
that lured him to the idea that English is his first language and therefore should be the
language of the academe (Cf. Quito, “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino” 603). Quito
was open to take Chou En Lai’s idea as compromise to maintain English as a second
language as long as we commit ourselves to the Filipino language as our first language.
It must be noted that in the aforementioned book and essay, Quito was using the
name “Pilipino” instead of “Filipino” because during the period of effectivity of the 1972
154
Philippine Constitution “Pilipino” was the name used for the official language, while
“Filipino” was the name used for the hypothetical national language that is supposed to
be concocted by the government from our native languages. It was only the 1987
Philippine Constitution that specified that “Filipino” is name of the official and national
language of our country. Quito’s advocacy for the use and development of our national
language is not only intended for the emergence and development of Filipino philosophy
but more so for the cultural and economic development of our country. The use of
Filipino language is for her an important tool in dismantling our well entrenched colonial
mentality and in the subsequent project of our intellectuals in theorizing our nationalist
future.
Philippine Education
If Quito considered the Filipino language as a potent weapon in her war against
colonialism, education could even be a more powerful weapon. But education in the
Philippine, as it is, needs a thorough critique in order for it to become a functional
weapon. In the Festschrift, Quito’s critique of the status of Philippine education is also
found in the 1984 article “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos.”
Quito’s first move was to debunk the universalist definition of education as “the
eduction (from the Latin educere) of potentialities out of a person” because such
universalism could only veneer the ugly reality that Philippine education so far only
preserved and propagated colonialism that made the totality of our educational system
dysfunctional amidst the problems and concerns of the present (Quito, “Philosophy of
Education for Filipinos” 766). She asserted: “if in the past, it was natural for a fledgling
nation to cling to the umbilical cords of the mother country, we have reached a
crossroad of decisive action. Should we continue mouthing a philosophy of education
that undermines rather than develops our national patrimony? We have to decide now.
The end result may be a culture shock but it is necessary” (Quito, “Philosophy of
Education for Filipinos” 766). Thus, instead of supporting our current universalist
philosophy of education, she called for the construction of nationalistic, contextualized
and relevant, transformational, and ethical education.
For the Europe trained philosopher, Quito definitely did not mean that a
nationalistic education should close its door to the knowledges and theories that
proliferate in the world. A nationalist education should in fact keep track of these
intellectual developments and make itself abreast with the international pace of
155
knowledge production. But a nationalist education should cease to do the current
practice of Filipino academics of fishing bits and pieces of information from the global
scene and dishing them out to their students. Instead, Quito argued that recent
intellectual developments should be appropriated, contextualized and tested by our
academicians if they are effective in our own conditions. “Every piece of knowledge
therefore should not only be learned as such but must be sowed into the mainstream of
Filipino life” (Quito, “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos” 764). In this way Philippine
education can sort out which ideas are useless and which ideas are functional. This
strategic approach to foreign ideas would also jumpstart the knowledge production of
our Filipino academicians because studying, appropriating, contextualizing and testing
them would already entail a lot of intellectual labor.
156
In this essay, Quito made a cursory look at the diachronic image of the Filipina
starting from the creation myth of Malakas and Maganda that symbolizes the Pre-
Hispanic gender equality among the Filipinos. This equality is corroborated by the early
Filipinos’ customs on property and inheritance as well as their kinship structures that
reckon descent both matrilineally and patrilineally. The Spanish period, however,
subdued this gender egalitarianism with the propagation of the European patriarchalism.
But the tradition of equality between sexes proved to be something that is difficult to
eradicate. Quito wrote: “during the three centuries of Spanish domination, women
proved themselves valiant and useful in the country’s resistance to Spanish rule.
Several names grace our history books: Gabriela Silang. . . Melchora Aquino. . .
Gregoria de Jesus. . .” (Quito, “The Role of the University in Changing Women’s
Consciousness” 591). The Spanish suppression of this deeply ingrained tradition was
reversed with the coming of the Americans who at that time had already a more than
five-decade old history of feminism. They did not only open the universities to women
but also the other opportunities that previously were possible only for the males. Quito
was especially thankful for the technological innovations brought by the Americans that
freed the Filipinas from the drudgery of domestic toils and gave her enough time to
devote to the public sphere. Because of our peculiar history, modern day Filipinos can
joke about women’s liberation as something superfluous, because they were already
free decades ago, and that men are the ones who needed liberation (Cf. Quito, “The
Role of the University in Changing Women’s Consciousness” 590).
But even with the gains of the Filipina, Quito was not satisfied. She invited the
attention of those who are interested in increasing the gains of the Filipina and in
utilizing such gains to the fact that the Philippine universities are predominated by
women (Cf. Quito, “The Role of the University in Changing Women’s Consciousness”
595). She saw the tremendous potential of these universities as vortices of
transforming the Filipinas into agents of development and change. For Quito the
continuous liberation and empowerment of the Filipina is nothing if these are not
harnessed for the cultural, economic and total development of our country.
Quito, however, directed our attention beyond these possible feminist vortices of
transformation to see the still gloomy reality that a huge number of Filipinas remained
excluded from these universities because of their current economic and rural
marginalization (Cf. Quito, “The Role of the University in Changing Women’s
Consciousness” 595).
As shown in figure 2, aside from Quito’s critique of Philippine culture and politics,
her substantive work on Filipino philosophy also focused on some preliminary
constructions of the Filipino identity. Such project is founded on her agenda of
understanding the Filipino spirit in order to cull out some native concepts and systems
of thinking that may be appropriated for the building of a more Filipino and more
systematic philosophical discourse. This is the type of Filipino philosophy expressed by
157
number 9 of figure 1. It must be noted however that although Quito supported the
agenda of Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of folk philosophy, she did not claim
that she was able to substantially contribute in this area of philosophizing. Instead, she
expressed that she was only doing some preliminary legwork that the later generations
of Filipino philosophers may use as one of their building blocks. Hence, her project of
discoursing on the Filipino identity remains within the parameters of Filipino philosophy
as interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview, as illustrated in number 12 of figure
1.
The same project of constructing the Filipino identity is also founded on her
nationalistic vision of understanding the Filipino in order for us as a people to have
some basis in charting our future. This line of thinking seemed to be premised in the
Socratic dictum of “knowing one’s self.” We have already seen in her critique of the
Philippine education how our self knowledge of our collective consciousness could be
the basis of her proposed transformational and ethical educational program.
In the Festschrift, Quito’s efforts in profiling the Filipino identity are specifically
found in the 1979 essay “The Filipino and the Japanese Experience: a Philosophy of
Sensitibity and Pride;” in the 1981 article “Ang Pilosopiya: Batayan ng Pambansang
Kultura;” in the 1982 essay “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines;” in
the 1983 article “Structuralism and the Filipino Volksgeist;” and in the 1984 article “A
Filipino Volksgeist in Vernacular Literature.” It is noticeable how the theme of identity
construction runs through a number of her works, in contrast to her critique of Filipino
culture and politics that are thematically scattered in a number of works. This could be
the reason why when Quito is being discussed as a Filipino philosopher, it is her
contributions to the identity construction that usually comes out instead of her cultural
and political criticisms.
For Quito the challenge of profiling the Filipino identity rests on the fact that the
Filipino character is not something that is physically inscribed on the each Filipino, nor is
it something that is immediately and directly perceptible on the behavior of these
Filipinos. She wrote: “There is Filipino identity, but unlike the Chinese, Japanese,
Indian, Negro or Aryan identities which can be and are expressed in physical terms, that
of the Filipino is a soul identity” (Quito, “The Filipino and the Japanese Experience” 516-
517). But to peer into the Filipino soul, she used as her window the prior sociological
discourses of Filipino and foreign scholars that attempted to describe the Filipino
axiology, such as those of Jaime Bulatao, Vitaliano Gorospe, George Guthrie, F. Landa
Jocano, Frank Lynch, and Armando Tan.
From these existing researches, Quito listed down what for her are the most
discernible highlights of the Filipino philosophy of life, namely: 1) the bahala na attitude,
2) the gulong ng palad attitude, 3) the kagandahang loob value, 4) the reciprocity value,
and 5) the hiya value (Cf. Quito, “Structuralism and the Filipino Volksgeist” 734-737).
These attitudes and values are the bases of the outward Filipino behavior as well as of
the articulated maxims and folk sayings, such as: 1) “Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa
pinanggagalingan ay hindi makararating sa paroroonan (He who does not look back to
158
the past will never reach his destination)” (Quito, “Structuralism and the Filipino
Volksgeist” 737); 2) “Kapag may hirap ay may ginhawa (When there is sorrow or pain,
there will be joy)” (Quito, “Structuralism and the Filipino Volksgeist” 737); 3) “Ang
kapalaran ko, di ko man hanapin, dudulog, lalapit kung talagang akin (Even if I do not
work for my destiny or fortune, it will be mine if it is really mine)” (Quito, “Structuralism
and the Filipino Volksgeist” 737); and 4) “Lahat ay may katupusan (Everything is going
to end)” (Quito, “Structuralism and the Filipino Volksgeist” 737).
But Quito is less interested with these external and articulated phenomena,
because for her these belong to expertise of the sociologists and anthropologists. On
the contrary she is more interested in piercing through the Filipino attitudes and values
in order to reveal their underlying foundational principles. The following conceptual
schema shows how Quito visualized the relationships between the external behavior
and maxims of the Filipinos, with their attitudes and values, and with the underlying
foundational principles that she ultimately wanted to profile as the characteristics of the
Filipino soul.
External
Behavior
Attitudes
Foundational
Principles
and Values
and Maxims
Quito believed that the attitudes and values of the Filipinos are founded on their
extreme sensitivity and unreasonable pride (Cf. Quito, “The Filipino and the Japanese
Experience” 517). For example, Quito traced the connection between sensitivity,
personalism and the bahala na attitude. “The Filipino trust in Bathala is always a shade
deeper than that of his Oriental neighbors due to the fact that the mythical Bathala is a
personal God whereas other Orientals believe in impersonal deities” (Quito,
“Structuralism and the Filipino Volksgeist” 734). As another example, she demonstrated
the link between unreasonable pride and the value of hiya: “Hiya can be both a cause
and effect of the fear of failure, and hence, saving face is usually paired with hiya. Both
are Filipino ethical values; in the psychic recesses of the Filipino mind, one discovers
that a Filipino would rather not try at all than risk failure” (Quito, “Structuralism and the
Filipino Volksgeist” 736-737).
Even the other more external characteristics of the Filipino can be explained by
these extreme sensitivity and unreasonable pride. She reasoned, for some instances:
“This Filipino sensitivity perhaps explains why the Filipino nurse is the tenderest, most
loving, and most caring in the world. She is sensitive to human suffering;” and
“Because of his sensitivity, the Filipino is emotional and explicit. He is very explicit in
159
his music or painting or literature. Even his piety is emotional” (Quito, “The Filipino and
the Japanese Experience” 517). For Quito, extreme sensitivity and unreasonable pride
are the barest characteristics of the Filipino soul.
160
As a teacher, mentor, administrator and colleague, Quito’s impact on the manner
philosophy is being done at De La Salle University is truly profound. If Filipino
philosophy professors and students would only invest more time in revisiting her
thoughts, she also would have a significant impact on the further development of
Filipino philosophy.
CLARO CENIZA
Ceniza was born in 1927 in Cebu City. Like Quito he gravitated to philosophy
because of his desire to become a lawyer. Unlike Quito, however, Ceniza knew what
philosophy is before taking it up in college, as he was able to read Rene Descartes’
Discourse on Method as a sixteen year old boy who was seeking shelter from the
dangers of World War II. Unlike Quito also, Ceniza indeed became a lawyer after
finishing his bachelor of laws from Siliman University, Dumaguete City, in 1953, and
practiced the profession for twelve years before totally giving it up for the academic life
of a philosophy teacher. It was most probably his experiences at this Protestant
university that led him to become a religious minister. He pursued his graduate studies
at the Syracuse University in New York and earned his master’s degree in 1971. He
worked for his doctor’s degree at the same university and earned the degree in 1974,
with a dissertation on the presuppositions of classical philosophy.
He came back to the country to resume his teaching job at the Silliman
University. Like what happened to Quito, Ceniza was also invited by Bro. Gonzalez to
transfer to De La Salle University. Hence, in 1977, he became a full time faculty
member in this institution.
161
Ceniza had published a number of books on metaphysics, epistemology and
logic, such as the 1980 The Structure of Metaphysical Inquiry, the 1982 New Essays in
Metaphysics, the 1987 Elementary Logic, and the 2001 Thought, Necessity and
Existence: Metaphysics and Epistemology for Lay Philosophers. However, his
contributions to Filipino philosophy as defined in this study are contained in some
articles that are dispersed in the volumes of the Sophia: Journal of Philosophy of the
Philosophy Department of De La Salle University, and in the volumes of Karunungan: a
Journal of Philosophy of the Philippine Academy for Philosophical Research.
Specifically these articles are: 1) the 1982 “Self-Identity and the Filipino Philosophy,” 2)
the 1988 “The Filipino in Politics,” 3) the 1989 “Filipino Logic: a Preliminary Analysis,”
which he co-authored with Bro. Gonzalez and Timbreza, 4) the 2000 “On the Death
Penalty,” and 5) the 2001 “EDSA II and the Filipino Consciousness,” which is probably
his last published essay. This paper will limit its analysis to these five directly relevant
essays.
The contents of these five articles yielded a conceptual map that summarizes
Ceniza’s contributions to the development of Filipino philosophy:
Critique of Colonial
Mentality
Critique of Philippine
Ceniza’s Contributions
Culture and Politics
to Filipino Philosophy Critique of Nationalism
Occasional Reflections:
Substantive Work on Filipino Death Penalty and EDSA II
Philosophy
Reconstruction of Filipino
Logic
This map shows us that Ceniza’s work on Filipino philosophy, aside from his reflection
on the ideal direction of Filipino philosophy and similar to that of Quito, is also
concentrated on Filipino philosophy as the academic practice of critical philosophy (Cf.
number 7, figure 1) and as the interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview (Cf.
number 12, figure 1) that specifically dealt with the profiling of how the Filipino reasons
out. These contributions are discussed in more detail in the succeeding sub-sections of
this paper.
Unlike Quito who engaged in an almost clinical diagnosis of the problems that
hindered the development of Filipino philosophy, Ceniza’s reflective thoughts on Filipino
162
philosophy only tangentially touched the said issue through the 1982 essay “Self-
Identity and the Filipino Philosophy” that predominantly focused on a critique of our
colonial mentality and our intellectuals’ valorization of nationalism. In this work, Ceniza
did not even problematize the status of Filipino philosophy, what he pondered on was
the question why young Filipinos tend to dismiss philosophy as an irrelevant discourse.
He then presented his answers at two levels. The first one is at the level of philosophy’s
being a foreign subject matter that do not relate well with our Filipino experiences and
questions, while the second one is at the level of philosophy’s disconnectedness with
the students stage of maturity and concerns (Cf. Ceniza 1982, 22).
In order to bridge the gap between philosophy’s foreign origin and the Filipino
students’ context, Ceniza wrote: “In the field of philosophy, we can express our
nationalism by reading the thoughts of our heroes and by encouraging our students to
speak up and express their ideas and opinions on major issues” (Ceniza 1982, 22). In
order to reconnect philosophy to the students’ stage of maturity and concerns, he said:
“There has to be a balance between objective lessons and student response. We must
allow students some leeway for discussions, even if we disagree with the opinions the
express. We must, if possible situate the lessons and examples in terms of the
students’ personal experiences” (Ceniza 1982, 24). At the bottom line, he envisioned
the problem of Filipino philosophy as a pedagogical problem that needs to be solved by
Filipinizing philosophy and contextualizing it to the world of the students. He believed
that once a fully developed Filipino philosophy emerges side by side with equally fully
developed Filipino literature, sciences and arts, it would contribute much to the
strengthening of the Filipino pride and sense of nationalism (Cf. Ceniza 1982, 21).
But humanism is still not the final developmental stage for Filipino philosophy, for
Ceniza pointed out that such philosophy is anthropocentric and could put the other non-
human beings in a representational disadvantage. Hence, Ceniza believed that the final
developmental stage of Filipino philosophy is the discourse which he named the “ethics
of being” or the “philosophy of being” (Cf. Ceniza 1982, 24). He wrote: “the ethics of
being is not man-centered only, but centered on all things—regarding everything as
possessing worth on its own. Yet, I think that a philosophy of being is the most
completely human of all. . . because it tends to bring out the best in everyman, as well
as in everything” (Ceniza 1982, 25).
163
Like Quito the bulk of Ceniza’s contributions to the development of Filipino
philosophy in the area of the pragmatic discourses of applied and critical philosophy (Cf.
number 7, figure 1). But unlike Quito who was more familiar with the sharper conceptual
tools of Marxism through her more intimate knowledge of Marcuse and Sartre, Ceniza
has a more congenial and milder notion of what philosophy is. In a poem that he wrote,
entitled “Philosophy is Learning to Live with Others,” he said: “Philosophy is a
conversation between two honest people. It is being myself to the other, and letting the
other be himself to me. Philosophy is not an intellectual exchange (although an
intellectual exchange my take place in philosophy); philosophy is, in a deeper sense, a
sharing of selves” (Ceniza 1978, 21). Hence, armed with his concepts and theories
from logic, metaphysics, general philosophy, as well as from his previous profession as
a practicing lawyer, he ventured on a critique of Philippine politics, colonial mentality,
nationalism, the reinstated death penalty for heinous crimes, and the occurrence of the
controversial EDSA II Revolution (Cf. figure 5).
Philippine Politics
Ceniza’s take on Philippine politics is found in the 1988 essay “The Filipino in
Politics.” Just like a logician, he neatly conceptualized Philippine politics as an
interaction between three classes of Filipinos: 1) the class that is composed of the
professional politicians, 2) the class that is composed of the educated and highly
idealistic citizens, and 3) the class that is composed of the ordinary Filipino citizens, or
the masses (Cf. Ceniza 1988, 14). He described the typical member of the first class
as: “usually very aggressive, like a fighting cock, and if he is to have his way—which is
usually his ambition—brooks no opposition. He is usually rich and powerful, and enters
politics partly at least to safeguard or further advance his economic position or position
of power” (Ceniza 1988, 14). He portrayed the typical member of the second class as:
“motivated by visions of an ideal and just society, and devotes some effort to attain that
goal for his community and for the country as a whole” (Ceniza 1988, 14). Lastly, he
viewed the typical member of the third class as: “meek and usually poor, can be easily
manipulated, and, depending upon the circumstances, either follows the first or the
second” (Ceniza 1988, 14).
Ceniza noted that there are very few Filipinos belonging to the first class, but
because of their economic and political power they tend to dominate and control the
Philippine society. Although the Filipinos belonging to the second class outnumber
those who belong to the first class, their lack of cohesiveness, the fluidity of their
aspirations, and the diversity of their origins, make them much less dominant when
compared to the first class. When opportunity comes, some members of the second
class would even migrate to the first class and forget about their past idealisms. Ceniza
asserted: “many of our politicians who begin as idealists soon become corrupted and
quickly enrich themselves while in office—because such corruption helps maintain the
power, wealth, and status of those who are already wealthy and powerful” (Ceniza
1988, 18). The Filipinos belonging to the third class far outnumber even the sum of
Filipinos belonging to both the first and the second classes. But because of their
164
economic, educational and political poverty, more often than not, they are being preyed
upon by those who belong to the first class.
According to Ceniza, the Filipinos belonging to the first class can easily
manipulate and victimize not only those who belong to the third class but even those
who belong to the second class because of the Filipinos general acceptance of the
politics of advantage, which he described as: “the politics of particular—either personal,
familial, or sectoral—advantage. This is the politics whose main aim is the achievement
of particular gain at the expense of the rest of the population. It is the politics that
extracts blood from the ordinary citizens and rewards with sinecures the economically
unproductive but politically powerful or useful” (Ceniza 1988, 17). For him, the opposite
of the politics of advantage is the politics of justice and the politics of the common good.
Ceniza imagined that our way out from the shackles of the politics of advantage
is to indirectly attack the dominance of the first class by expanding the membership of
the second class through shrinking the membership of the third class. In other words,
by multiplying the number of educated and idealist Filipinos, Ceniza hoped that the
economic and political power of the professional politicians will eventually be eroded.
For him, the more specific interventions for the expansion of the second class and the
165
shrinking of the third class would be the implementation of a more functional and
realistic land reform program that would not only economically empower the members
of the third class but also dilute the feudal nature of Philippine commerce and industry,
substantial wage increase, the dismantling of the huge monopolies on mass media, the
establishment of a more nationalistic economic planning, and the encouragement of
more citizens to engage in entrepreneurship.
Colonial Mentality
Ceniza’s analysis of our colonial mentality is found in the 1982 essay “Self-
Identity and the Filipino Philosophy” which we have already examined under the sub-
section on his reflective thoughts on Filipino philosophy. Again just like a logician,
Ceniza conceptualized the phenomenon that is our colonial mentality in terms of sets, or
classes, and their specific members’ identification or dissociation with such collectivities.
When he arrived, however, at the part when he explained the root causes of such
identification or dissociation, he shifted his language and discourse into the fields of
psychology and psychoanalysis.
Ceniza started with the assertion that individuals normally identify themselves
with other individuals, things, collectivities or ideas in order to make their existence
more meaningful and worthwhile. Otherwise, he wrote: “A person who finds nothing to
identify with lives a desolate life—an aimless existence. He is one of whom it may be
said, he has not found himself” (Ceniza 1982, 17). In the political context, this
identification is the basis of nationalism, which Ceniza understood as the normative
association of individuals to their homeland. It appears that he regarded robust and well
developed nationalism as the logical opposite of colonial mentality. Ceniza believed
that nationalism is not something static that exists in the minds and hearts of certain
individuals, for he conceptualized nationalism as the act of committing to belong to the
collectivity of one’s fellow countrymen with its attendant conviction to become a true
representative of such collectivity. He explained: “If the class with which one identifies
himself is not yet true of him, he can take steps to make the identification true. A man
wants to be a professional. He takes steps to fulfill that goal” (Ceniza 1982, 18).
166
himself was an Afro-American who experienced tremendous trauma from the racial
slurs and discriminations he suffered as a young individual. Such trauma became the
cause of his hatred against black children.
Just as not all Afro-Americans who suffered racial humiliation became Wayne
Williams, not all collectivities who suffered colonial trauma would develop colonial
mentality. Ceniza clarified: “Let your people be continually oppressed, insulted and
otherwise treated in a degrading manner. Either of two things can happen here. Either
you feel personally oppressed, insulted and treated in a degrading manner and react
more or less violently. Then you become a rebel—either in spirit or in act. The other
thing that can happen is that you escape this feeling of personal oppression, insult and
degradation by identifying with the oppressors. You adopt the values of the oppressors,
affect his manners, learn and master his language—in other words, become culturally
and spiritually one with the oppressor” (Ceniza 1982, 19-20). It is unfortunate that
instead of standing up as real or spiritual rebels against the cruelties of our colonizers,
the Filipinos followed the pathway taken by Williams, and started bashing and
murdering our own souls while glorifying the icons and culture of our past masters. In
simpler words, Filipino nationalism not only failed to develop but transmogrified into
colonial mentality because of the trauma that we as people suffered from the hands of
the colonizers and because of our failure to actually or spiritually resist such trauma.
What Ceniza is suggesting here is that it is not futile to unearth the causes of our
colonial malady, what is futile is to keep on blaming our past colonizers for our present
undeveloped nationalism. We can still gather ourselves and collectivity rebel against
our past and slowly build our nation and culture so that we as a people can finally have
more reasons to be proud of own homeland and race. Ceniza wrote: If we are to build
our spirit of nationalism, we must first build a spirit of pride in ourselves as a people.
We must not let foreigners freely insult us. A spirit of pride helps us to protect us from
indecent incursions on our consciences from the outside, whether foreign or local”
(Ceniza 1982, 21).
Philippine Nationalism
Ceniza’s critique of nationalism is still found in his 1982 essay “Self-Identity and
the Filipino Philosophy” which we have already examined under the sub-sections on his
reflective thoughts on Filipino philosophy and on his critique of our colonial mentality. In
reality, his critique of nationalism is tightly intertwined with his thoughts on Filipino
philosophy and colonial mentality. In addition to his metaphor of identification or
dissociation with the collectivity of individuals who are committed to their homeland,
Ceniza also conceptualized nationalism as an incremental movement of an individuals’
commitment from the smaller spheres of family, ethnic and civic groups towards the
bigger sphere of nation or homeland. We may represent these concentric collectivities,
together with other bigger collectivities, in the following figure:
Being
International Groups
Nation
Ethnic
&Civic Groups
167
Family
Individual
Figure 6: Conceptual Scheme of Ceniza’s Concentric
Spheres of Commitment to Collectivities
Ceniza argued that our disrupted nationalism did not only give us the problematic
phenomenon of colonial mentality but also the presence of regionalism and other forms
of stunted loyalties to smaller collectivities. He wrote: “Filipinos are small-group
oriented. We tend to be loyal to small groups, such as our barkadas, our families, our
school, our clubs, our region” (Ceniza 1982, 21). In other words, the incremental
movement of the Filipino individual’s commitment to bigger collectivities has failed to
reach the sphere of the nation.
Ceniza assumed that the commitment to the nation and homeland is a necessary
sentiment for the maintenance of a modern democracy that is based on the idea of a
nation-state. Hence it goes without saying that he is urging the Filipinos to transcend
their loyalties and commitments beyond the spheres of the family, civic and ethnic
groups and embrace the sphere of the nation and homeland. In the essay “The Filipino
in Politics,” he even went to the extent of siding with Fallows’ controversial assertion
that our low sense of nationalism is one of the major reasons for our underdevelopment
just for us to realize that we as a people need to concertedly focus on this deficiency
and find ways and means to cultivate and strengthen our nationalism (Cf. Ceniza 1988,
20).
At the point when Ceniza delivered his ultimate critique of Filipino nationalism he
shifted his language from that of a logician, psychologist and political theorist into that of
a metaphysician and cosmopolitan thinker. He believed that once the commitment of
the Filipino individual reaches the sphere of the nation and homeland, it should not stop
there but should continue its incremental journey towards the sphere of the international
groups that would lead him to the realization that be belongs to one humanity. Just like
how he envisioned Filipino philosophy to open itself to humanist philosophy, Ceniza is
inviting Filipinos to see the value of humanism beyond nationalism. This is Ceniza as a
cosmopolitan theorist, but the metaphysician in him further suggested that humanism
can still open up to the largest sphere of acknowledgement that we as individuals are
just beings among other beings. Ceniza argued that this most inclusive collectivity can
be attained through the philosophy and ethics of being.
168
Ceniza’s reflections on death penalty and the sociologically and politically
contested EDSA II Revolution are grouped under the heading occasional reflections
because these two themes were obviously his responses to some contemporary issues
of national significance. The 2000 essay “On the Death Penalty” was published about a
year after the execution by lethal injection of Leo Echegaray, the first one to receive
such punishment under the Republic Act 7659, or the New Death Penalty Law. The
2001 essay “EDSA II and the Filipino Consciousness” was published during the same
year when President Joseph Estrada was deposed through a predominantly middle
class uprising.
But Ceniza did not end his reflections on the re-imposition of the death penalty at
the ontological level, for he also invited our attention to the pragmatic level of governing
and living in a real society. He wrote: “The only reason which society can have for
punishing criminals for anti-social acts which the criminal may have committed is
pragmatic—and perhaps only because such punishment is appropriate and effective to
promote social good, to protect society from harmful acts, to reform the criminals and
make them socially useful citizens, and thereby make them useful to themselves and to
those who have to associate at close range with them” (Ceniza 2000, 2). Even though
death penalty, or any other penalties, cannot be legitimated at the ontological level,
Ceniza accepted it as a necessary evil at the pragmatic level. He said: “But, yes, let us
face it. To protect our interests and our safety and the safety of those we love, perhaps
we need to kill some of our fellowmen so that we could have a more peaceful society to
live in. I can think of some cases where the death penalty may be meted out, for
example, in cases of serial killing, rape or robbery with murder, and similar cases.
Maybe” (Ceniza 2000, 3).
169
Even in his reflections on the re-imposition of the death penalty, Ceniza’s
cosmopolitanism and humanitarianism are manifested clearly. Republic Act 7659, with
its official title of “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes,
Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes,” states:
“the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious
and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common
standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society”
(Republic Act 7659). Section 2 of this same Act specified that treason is one of the
heinous crimes that may be punishable with death. Whereas, Ceniza can tolerate the
re-imposition of death penalty, he could not accept that treason be included in the list of
crimes punishable by such penalty. He said: “the crime of treason is an obsolete crime
that should be obliterated from the books. All humanity now are fellow citizens of the
world, or should regard themselves as such. The only legitimate state that should exist
is the state of humanity” (Ceniza 2000, 3-4).
If we recall, the predominantly middle class uprising that was EDSA II Revolution
was triggered by the Senate’s, acting as the impeachment court for Estrada, refusal to
admit as evidence the contents of a sealed envelope coming from a bank where the ill-
gotten wealth of the impeached president was allegedly deposited. It set aside the
constitutionally mandated procedure of impeachment and forcibly removed Estrada
from the presidential seat and replaced him with the then Vice President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo. Unlike the EDSA I Revolution, which was truly revolutionary in the
sense that the deposition of President Ferdinand Marcos was followed by the total
replacement of the 1973 constitution written under his regime, the events that transpired
before and after EDSA II Revolution all happened under our one and the same 1987
constitution. Hence, Ceniza elaborated: “That EDSA II was a uniquely Filipino event
can be seen from the fact that many similarly democratic nations did not understand its
significance and implications. Many saw it as the victory of mob rule over the normal
constitutional processes” (Ceniza 2001, 36).
The conflict between the constitutional discourse and the middle class Filipinos’
assertion of the propriety and morality of the deposition of Estrada as well as the
assumption of office of Macapagal-Arroyo gave Ceniza a window to peer into the
otherwise opaque Philippine political axiology. In his process of reading such axiology,
he profiled four Filipino political values. The first of these is the Filipinos’ desire for
170
substantive justice instead of sheer legalism and the rampant circumventing of the laws
undertaken by well compensated lawyers of the rich and powerful. The second of these
is the Filipinos’ move and assertion for a constitutional hermeneutics that is autonomous
from the majority of the western countries. Ceniza explained: “That our Supreme Court,
led by the Chief Justice (Hilario Davide, Jr.) himself, took the initiative of legitimizing the
new government on the basis of the doctrine of salus populi est suprema lex as soon as
it observed that the former president could no longer perform his duties as president
because of circumstances, was a good Filipino move” (Ceniza 2001, 41). The third of
these is the perpetuation of the spirit of EDSA as a safeguard of Philippine democracy.
He said: “The EDSA people should ever be watchful for any possible violation of
substantive rights on the principle that ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and real
justice’” (Ceniza 2001, 41). The fourth of these is the Filipinos’ collective frustration
against the traditional politicians who are mired in corruption and their selfish interests.
Ceniza’s only attempt to venture into the project of interpreting the Filipino
identity and worldview (Cf. number 12, figure 1) is found in a rather lengthy paper,
entitled “Filipino Logic: a Preliminary Analysis,” which is a product of a collaboration with
Timbreza and Bro. Gonzalez. It should be made clear at the outset that Timbreza is
somebody who devoted much of his philosophical career on the same project of
interpreting the Filipino identity and worldview, while Bro. Gonzalez is not only
remembered for being the visionary who goaded the De La Salle University to transform
itself into a research university but also as a highly respected figure in the field of
linguistics. Hence the said paper is actually a product of a partnership among Ceniza,
the logician, Timbreza, the specialist on Filipino identity and thought, and Bro.
Gonzalez, the linguist.
The materials that were thoroughly analyzed by the team are some randomly
collected Filipino maxims and sayings, as well as statements and assertions made by
various Filipinos that found their way to some newspapers, magazines and comics.
There were to fundamental methods employed by the team: the first one was to subject
these sayings to a logical analysis under the frameworks of Aristotelian logic and
modern symbolic logic; the second one was to subject them to some sort of
phenomenological reading in order to reveal their hidden assumptions.
The study revealed seven characteristics of the way Filipinos reason out. First,
Filipino reasoning tends to be metaphorical instead of being literal (Cf. Timbreza,
Ceniza & Gonzalez 94). Second, it tends to be concrete instead of being abstract (Cf.
Timbreza, Ceniza & Gonzalez 95). This is intimately related to the first characteristic in
the sense that whenever abstract themes are tackled they have to be concretized with
the help of metaphors.
171
practical and socio-ethical in nature instead of being theoretical and cognitive (Cf.
Timbreza, Ceniza & Gonzalez 95). They explained: “It pertains more to human
relationships and moral actions than to metaphysical speculations. It is intended to be
lived, practiced, and concretized in man’s daily living with his fellowmen” (Timbreza,
Ceniza & Gonzalez 95).
172
and other similar fields, who are into the Filipinizing project could also learn a lot from
Ceniza’s cosmopolitan, humanist and even metaphysical caution for Filipino philosophy.
SOURCES
Abulad, Romualdo. “Introduction.” In Quito, Emerita. A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in Honor of Emerita
S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. iii-xii.
Besa, Federico B. “Claro Rafols Ceniza's Rationalist Theory of Man: a Critical Synthesis of his
Epistemology and Metaphysics.” Master’s Thesis. De La Salle University, 2005.
Ceniza, Claro. “EDSA II and the Filipino Consciousness.” In Karunungan: A Journal of Philosophy.
Volume 18 (2001). Pp. 36-41.
Ceniza, Claro. “On the Death Penalty.” In Karunungan: A Journal of Philosophy. Volume 17 (2000). Pp.
1-4.
Ceniza, Claro. “Philosophy is Learning to Live with Others: a Definition for Our Times.” In Dialogue:
Professional Journal of De La Salle University. Volume 14, Number 1 (1978). Pp. 21.
Ceniza, Claro. “Self-Identity and the Filipino Philosophy.” In Sophia: Journal of Philosophy. Volume 12,
Number 1 (1982). Pp. 17-25.
173
Ceniza, Claro. “The Filipino in Politics.” In Karunungan: A Journal of Philosophy. Volume 5 (1988). Pp.
14-26.
Demeterio, F.P.A. “A Comparative Study on the Status and Directions of Filipino Philosophies as Implied
in the Taxonomies and Periodizations of Zialcita, Quito, Abulad, Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao”
Unpublished Manuscript.
Evasco, Marjorie. “Introduction to Part I: 1965-1970.” In Quito, Emerita. A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in
Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 3-4.
Garcia, Elenita. “Claro R. Ceniza, Poet: the Metaphysician Wrote Poetry.” In Sophia: Journal of
Philosophy. Volume 22 (1992-93). Pp. 38-40.
Guevarra, Jaime. “Philosophical Thoughts of Claro Rafols Ceniza.” In Sophia: Journal of Philosophy.
Volume 22 (1992-93). Pp. 32-37.
Quito, Emerita. The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1983.
Quito, Emerita. “A Filipino Volksgeist in Vernacular Literature.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in Honor
of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 752-760.
Quito, Emerita. “Ang Kayamanan ng Wikang Pilipino.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in Honor of
Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 600-605.
Quito, Emerita. “Ang Pilosopiya sa Diwang Pilipino.” In Quito, Emerita. A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in
Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 200-264.
Quito, Emerita. “Ang Pilosopiya: Batayan ng Pambansang Kultura.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in
Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 684-689.
Quito, Emerita. “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in Honor of
Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 761-766.
Quito, Emerita. “Should Communism be Taught in our Universities.” In Quito, Emerita. A Life of
Philosophy: Festschrift in Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp.
191-195.
Quito, Emerita. “Structuralism and the Filipino Volksgeist.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in Honor of
Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1990. Pp. 727-741.
Quito, Emerita. “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines,” which is the preliminary version
of the 1983 book The State of Philosophy in the Philippines.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in
Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 701-717.
Quito, Emerita. “The Filipino and the Japanese Experience: a Philosophy of Sensitibity and Pride.” A
Section of “Lectures on Comparative Philosophy.” In Quito, Emerita. A Life of Philosophy:
Festschrift in Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 513-523.
Quito, Emerita. “The Role of the University in Changing Women’s Consciousness.” A Life of Philosophy:
Festschrift in Honor of Emerita S. Quito. Manila: De La Salle University, 1990. Pp. 588-599.
Quito, Emerita, Ed. “Pilosopiyang Filipino.” In Ensayklopidiya ng Pilosopiya. Manila: De La Salle
University Press, 1993.
Republic of the Philippines. “Republic Act Number 7659: An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain
Heinous Crimes, Amending for the Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.”
Timbreza, Florentino; Ceniza, Claro & Gonzalez, Andrew. “Filipino Logic: a Preliminary Analysis.” In
Karunungan: A Journal of Philosophy. Volume 6 (1989). Pp. 71-100.
174
QUITO, CENIZA, TIMBREZA,
GRIPALDO AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
Abstract: This paper explores the contributions of Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza,
Florentino Timbreza and Rolando Gripaldo of De La Salle University to the development
of Filipino philosophy. The four philosophy professors of this university are selected
based on their textual productivity and on the fact that they retired from this same
university as full professors. Filipino philosophy in this paper is limited to the following
concerns of Filipino philosophy professors: the practice of logical analysis, the practice of
phenomenological and hermeneutical reflection, critical philosophy, the appropriation of
foreign philosophical theories, the appropriation of folk philosophies, breakthrough
writings or researches that make original contributions by going beyond the thoughts of
certain established foreign philosophers, the interpretation of Filipino identity and
worldview, the discourse on local themes, and the discourse on universal and foreign
themes. This exploration is accompanied by some critique and assessments of the
aforementioned philosophers’ contributions, and concludes with a comparison and
contrast of their contributions and impact to Filipino philosophy. Due to the length of this
paper, it is split into three parts. Part I, therefore, covers the general introduction, brief
history of the Philosophy Department of De La Salle University, the contributions of Quito,
and the contributions of Ceniza; while Part II covers the contributions of Timbreza; and
Part III covers the contributions of Gripaldo, and the conclusion of the full paper.
Key Words: Filipino Philosophy, De La Salle University, Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza,
Florentino Timbreza, Rolando Gripaldo
175
(Part II of Three Parts)
Part I of this paper that consists of three parts dealt with the general introduction
of the whole project, a brief history of the Philosophy Department of De La Salle
University, the contributions of Quito, and the Contributions of Ceniza. This second
part of the whole project deals with the contributions of Timbreza. Since the following
discussions will refer over and over again to figure 1, labeled “Grand Synthesis of the
Taxonomies and Periodizations of Filipino Philosophies by Zialcita, Quito, Abulad,
Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao,” and found in Part I, for convenience’ sake the whole
figure is reprinted below with its original number:
(1) Grassroots/Folk
Philosophy
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/
Academic Thomism (Lecture)
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Method (7) Critical Philosophy
(8) Appropriation of
Foreign Theories
(11) Breakthrough
Writing
176
FLORENTINO TIMBREZA
Timbreza was born in 1938 in Tayum, Abra. A few years after the Second World
War, he studied philosophy at the Far Eastern University, which at that time was still
offering a bachelor’s degree in this discipline. Around that time, philosophy in this
university was dominated by the larger than life figure of the theosophist Benito Reyes,
who later on founded the World University in California. Timbreza finished his degree in
1962, and from 1964 to 1967, he took some graduate courses in sociology and
philosophy at the University of the Philippines and at the University of Santo Tomas.
Although he was not able to earn a degree from these endeavors, these gave him the
rock solid foundation for his life work on the study and understanding of Filipino culture
and values. He eventually transferred to the Ateneo De Manila University where he
finished his master’s degree in philosophy in 1971, and pursued his doctor’s degree at
the University of Santo Tomas. He earned this degree in 1980 with a dissertation on
Lao Tzu, the first dissertation in philosophy to be written and defended in the Filipino
language.
At the De La Salle University, Timbreza is known for his dedication for Filipino
philosophy. Compared to Quito and Ceniza, he is the one who is most focused on
Filipino philosophy. The Bato Balani Foundation recorded his vision that stated: “I look
forward to the day when Filipino Philosophy shall be taught in many classrooms all over
the country.” He retired from this university as a full professor in 2003, and continued to
teach part time until he reached the age of seventy in 2008. Because septuagenarians
are no longer allowed to hold teaching posts at the De La Salle University, the still
robust and spritely professor continued to serve this university as the editor of the
interdisciplinary Filipino journal Malay.
177
the philosophy of Timbreza based on the reasons that it is the most comprehensive and
recent one.
The book Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino contains 21 essays that were
mostly originally published in between 1976 to 2004 in the following platforms: Daloy,
the journal of the Filipino Department of De La Salle Univeristy; Malay, an
interdisciplinary journal in Filipino language of De La Salle University; Karunungan, the
philosophy journal of the Philippine Academy for Philosophical Research; The De La
Salle Graduate School Journal; The Florentino T. Timbreza Reader; Ideya, the journal
of humanities research of De La Salle Univerity; and Trinity Observer, a student
publication of the Trinity College, Quezon City. Among these 21 essays, two have no
direct relevance to Filipino philosophy as defined by this paper, and these are “Ang
Doktrina ng Wu-Wei ni Lao Tzu” and “Paghahanap ng Kabuluhan.” Hence, this paper
only analyzed the contents of the 19 remaining essays, namely: 1) “Ang
Pampasaherong Dyipni at ang Ugaling Pinoy” of 1976, 2) “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling
Wika: mga Problema at Solusyon” of 1981, 3) “Diwang Filipino: Pangako at Pagkatao”
of 1982, 4) “Pagkataong Filipino: Kaalaman, Gamit at Etika” of 1986, 5) “Mga Hugis-
Pag-iisip ng mga Pilipino” of 1989, 6) “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino” of 1990, 7)
“Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” of 1992, 8) “Mga Tagapaghawan ng
Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino” of 1993, 9) “Tao: Sa Pananaw ng mga Pilipino” of
1994, 10) “Mga Sangkap ng Pilosopiya ng Buhay ni Huseng Batute” of 1995, 11)
“Parusang Kamatayan” of 2000, 12) “Maituturo ba ang Pagpapahalaga” of 2001, 13)
“Pilosopiya ng Terorismo” of 2003, 14) “Ekolohiya at ang Landasin ng Tao” of 2004, 15)
“Pilosopiya ng Kudeta: Sisteng Pinoy” of 2004, 16) “Pilosopiya bilang Tagasuri ng
Kulturang Pilipino” of 2004, 17) “Sariling Disiplina sa Diwang Filipino” of 2004, 18)
“Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan” of 2004, and 19) “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang
Filipino” of 2008, which is the only recently published essay.
Filipino Self
Reconstruction of Filipino
Worldview & Identity
Filipino Philosophy of Life
178
Figure 7: Conceptual Map of Timbreza’s Contributions
to the Development of Filipino Philosophy
This map shows us that Timbreza’s work on Filipino philosophy, aside from his
reflection on the ideal direction of Filipino philosophy, is dispersed through the areas of
Filipino philosophy as the academic practice of critical philosophy (Cf. number 7, figure
1), as discourse on local themes (Cf. number 13, figure 1), as discourse on universal
themes (Cf. number 14, figure 1), and as the interpretation of Filipino identity and
worldview (Cf. number 12, figure 1). Compared to Quito and Ceniza, Timbreza covered
a wider parameter in Filipino philosophy. These contributions are discussed in more
detail in the succeeding sub-sections of this paper.
Creative Interpretation
Progressive Effort
Methods of Filipino
Philosophy
Indigenization
Constructive/Substantive
Filipino Philosophy
Intellectualization
Filipinization
Ramon Reyes
Emerita Quito
Leonardo Mercado
Luminaries of Filipino
Philosophy Manuel Dy
Romualdo Abulad
In order for these raw materials to become a fully articulated and textualized
Filipino philosophy, the Filipino academicians have to process them using the following
cognitive methods. First is the practice of reflective thinking, which includes “analysis,
examination, reflection, ordering, critique, explanation, (and) meaning construction for
the native spirit (diwang katutubo) and views of the Filipinos” (Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa
Pilosopiyang Filipino” 5-6, author’s own translation). Second is the practice of creative
interpretation, during which the interpreter “enhances, brings to the surface, extracts,
excavates, searches the spirits (diwa) that are implied in the folkore (panitikang-bayan)
that conceals the self experiences and thought patterns of the common folks (taong-
bayan)” (Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 6, author’s own translation).
180
Third is the progressive effort, which Timbreza understood as the “proposal,
establishment, formulation of a new system of thinking which is similar to a movement”
(Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 6). Fourth is the practice of
indigenization, which follows either the exogenous or the indogenous patterns (Cf.
Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 6). For him, exogenous indigenization
meant the use of western and foreign concepts in order to explicate native concepts,
while indogenous indigenization meant the use of native concepts in order to explicate
western or foreign concepts. In simpler terms, indigenization for Timbreza is all about
the dialogue between the articulated western or foreign philosophy and the
unarticulated Filipino spirit or worldview. To whichever side such a dialogue leans it
would end for the benefit of Filipino philosophy.
Aside from these major thinkers, he also acknowledged the potentialities of the
contributions of the anthropologist Jocano, the theologian Bulatao, the cultural critic
Nicanor Tiongson, the founder of Sikolohiyang Filipino Virgilio Enriquez, the axiologist
181
Gorospe, the cultural critic Soledad Reyes, the sociologist Socorro Espiritu, the
axiologist Tomas Andres, the cultural historian Delfin Batacan, the post-structuralist
historian Reynaldo Ileto, the historian Carmen Guerrero Nakpil, the cultural
anthropologist Fernando Zialcita, the theologian Ruben Villote, the anthropologist and
philosopher Alberto Alejo, the philosopher and axiologist Dionisio Miranda, the
philosopher Rainier Ibana, the theologian Rodrigo Tano, the philosopher Ceniza, the
cultural critic Florentino Hornedo, the philosopher Leovino Garcia, the sinologist and
philosopher Alfredo Co, the philosopher Roque Ferriols, philosopher Quintin Terrenal,
and a certain C. Pua (Cf. Timbreza, “Mga Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang
Filipino”33-35).
Timbreza’s critique of some Filipino cultural traits is found in the 1992 essay
“Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino.” This essay clearly went against the
bigger stream of nationalist discourses that are prone to flatter the Filipinos through a
celebration of his positive traits and values. There are two main motivating for Timbreza
to undertake such project. The first one is to compliment the brighter picture of Filipino
identity that these more nationalistic discourses have constructed with the contrasting
dark side of the Filipino psyche (Cf. Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga
Pilipino” 73). The bright and dark aspects of the Filipino psyche would in the end
amount to a fuller picture of that illusive Filipino identity. The second one is to shock his
Filipino readers by confronting them with their ugly mirror image and hopefully goad
them into committing for a more serious and sustained values education (Cf. Timbreza,
“Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 85).
In this essay, Timbreza was able to gather at least 15 such negative traits. The
first of these is the desire to be ahead or to be greater than the rest (mapanlamang) to
the extent of doing questionable practices just to maintain such desired status. He
asserted: “oftentimes, the Filipino will destroy the reputation (sisiraan) of others so that
they will not excel (sumikat o tumanyag), and so as to maintain his own high standing”
(Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 74, author’s own translation).
Timbreza connected this negative trait with the infamous “crab mentality.” The second
of these negative traits is practice of brown nosing (palakasan) in order to gain the
favors one’s superiors. This trait is still intimately connected with the first mentioned
182
trait. The third of these negative traits is dishonesty (madaya) in terms of producing
goods such as the low quality Filipino manufactured products, in terms of weighing
goods in the market, in terms of the diminishing size of the famous breakfast item
pandesal, in terms of substituting high quality spare parts with lesser quality spare parts
in repair shops, and in similar other situations (Cf. Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-
uugali ng mga Pilipino” 75-77). The trait of dishonesty is also intimately connected with
the first mentioned trait.
The fourth of these negative traits is the propensity of Filipinos to borrow items
and forget about returning them to the owner. Timbreza elaborated: “It occurs often that
the thing borrowed will be lent to someone else, so that in the end the owner will be
forced to go to that other person in order to retrieve the borrowed object” (Timbreza,
“Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 76, author’s own translation). The fifth of
these negative traits is the Filipino’s lack of sportsmanship (pikon). Timbreza explained:
“the Filipino does not have the openness to accept failure/loosing, for example, in an
election or contest, just like in courtship. He will always have an explanation/excuse for
such failure/loosing, such as the cheating done by his opponent” (Timbreza, “Mga
Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 76-77, author’s own translation). The sixth of
these negative traits is the Filipino’s propensity to have tantrums (pagwawala) in the
face of failure/loosing. Timbreza said: “it is common for a Filipino to have tantrums
(magwawala) if they fail in a courtship. If he will not kill others, he will kill himself. It is
also common that he will drown himself with alcohol or create chaos in order to deaden
his sore feelings” (Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 77, author’s
own translation). It appears that the fifth and the sixth negative traits are the Filipino’s
way of coping up should he experience problems with his first negative trait.
The eleventh of these negative traits is the Filipino carelessness in handling his
garbage that Timbreza connected with the Filipino’s low sense of community (Cf.
Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 79). The twelfth of these
negative traits is the Filipino’s superficial religiousity. Timbreza wrote: “every week he
goes to the house of worship. On Wednesdays he goes to Baclaran Church; on
183
Thursdays he goes to St. Jude Church; on Fridays he goes to Quiapo Church. He
prays always, he prays the novenas always, he prays the rosary always. Whenever
there is a problem he implores all the saints. But when the problem is over he goes
back to his old vices” (Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 80,
author’s own translation). The thirteenth of these negative traits is the Filipino’s
fondness for extravagant feasts and gatherings. The fourteenth of these negative traits
the Filipino’s gullibility and ignorance that makes him victim of scammers and violator of
simple ordinances such as pedestrian and traffic rules. The fifteenth of these negative
traits is the Filipino’s tendency to bribe officials that is one of the roots of our deplorable
graft and corruption.
184
pertinent and conflicting ideas from the Old Testament, the New Testament, Lao Tzu,
the sentiments of the Filipino people, and some Anglo-Saxon philosophers who all
pondered on the tension between the state’s duty to protect each and every human life
and the act of the state to take away the life of certain criminals. After doing so he
focused his attention on the arguments of the British utilitarian thinkers Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill, as well as of the Scottish deontological moral theorist William
David Ross.
The utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill has a consequentialist moral theory that
considered an action as something morally good it results to the happiness of the
greatest number of people. Timbreza adapted this consequentialist moral theory in
depending the legitimacy, correctness, goodness and reasonableness of the reinstated
death penalty. He argued: “his (heinous criminal) personhood is similar to a grave
cancer that destroys the health of the society. If we allow him to live and continue to do
his atrocious crimes, he will be the only one who will benefit from this, while the masses
(taong-bayan) will suffer and will be endangered” (Timbreza, “Parusang Kamatayan”
164-165, author’s own translation).
Probably sensing the tendency of utilitarian moral theory to sacrifice the one for
the sake of the many, Timbreza deepened his support for the re-instated death penalty
by using the deontological moral theory of Ross. Ross believed that there are prima
facie duties that a human being must pursue because of their irrefutable goodness.
These prima facie duties are fidelity, reparation, gratitude, non-maleficence, justice,
beneficence, and self-improvement. In cases when these prima facie duties would be in
conflict with each other, then the moral agent has to determine which is the most
significant and the weightiest duty that he should follow while putting into consideration
the context that circumscribes his moral dilemma. Ross, in simpler terms, was saying
that there is no such thing as a paralyzing moral dilemma because in real life situations,
the context of such dilemma would always assist the moral agent in identifying his
appropriate moral option.
In the case of a death penalty that is imposed on an atrocious criminal the prima
facie duties of non-maleficence (against the criminal) and self-improvement (for the
criminal) would be in contradiction with the prima facie duties of reparation, justice, non-
maleficence (against the society) and self-improvement (for the society). In a context
therefore where there is greater danger and damage if the state allows the atrocious
criminal to live, then it would be morally just to impose the death sentence on such
criminal. Timbreza asserted: “the welfare of the masses (taong-bayan) is weightier and
more important, specially their right to live orderly and peacefully, than the welfare and
the right to live of a killer which is not beneficial but a looming threat for the whole
community” (Timbreza, “Parusang Kamatayan” 167, author’s own translation).
The Oakwood mutiny of July 2003 gave Timbreza the inspiration to ponder on
the reasons that make some military uprisings legitimate and successful, as well as the
reasons that make others illegitimate and unsuccessful. To give him a wider horizon in
attaining his investigative project, he surveyed all the uprisings that involved the military
185
since the time of President Marcos: the mutiny led by Lieutenant General Fidel Ramos
and Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile against the Armed Forces that was loyal to
President Marcos that eventually resulted into the EDSA I Revolution; the seven coup
attempts led by Army Captain Gregorio Honasan; the EDSA II Revolution during which
the Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff General Angelo Reyes withdrew his
support from President Estrada; and of course the Oakwood mutiny itself. Even though
the so called “EDSA III Revolution” of May 2012 did not have a clear military
participation, Timbreza also included this in his comparative study.
From his reflections he concluded that there are four elements that differentiated
EDSA I and EDSA II Revolutions as legitimate and successful uprisings compared to
the other illegitimate and unsuccessful attempts to topple the government. These
elements are: 1) the uprising should be founded on a reasonable, just and sufficient
cause, 2) the uprising must have the involvement of the military, 3) the uprising must
have the involvement of the Catholic Church, and 4) the uprising must have the
sympathy, empathy (pakikiisa), and assistance of the masses (taong-bayan) (Cf.
Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Kudeta” 240). Timbreza explained that the Oakwood mutiny
did not sufficiently have these four elements which resulted to its failure. He deepened
his reflections with a story about Confucius and his student Tzu-Kung (Cf. Timbreza,
“Pilosopiya ng Kudeta” 242). The student asked the master about the essential
elements of good governance, to which the master answered three: sufficient weapons,
sufficient food, and sufficient public trust. When the student asked further which among
the three is the most important, the master answered that it is public trust. Timbreza
said: “hence, Confucius was right. The widespread belief and trust of the masses
(taong-bayan) is the strong foundation for a sturdy and powerful government. However,
when these disappear, that government will not last long” (Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng
Kudeta” 243, author’s own translation).
The series of violent crimes that shocked the Philippine nation in 1993 gave
Timbreza the occasion to reflect on the Filipino’s perception of violence and non-
violence. Using his signature phenomenological reading of some folk sayings that he
collected from the various Philippine ethno-linguistic groups he asserted that the
Filipinos have an aversion for violence because of his foundational belief on the law of
karma. Among the folk sayings that he used in his analysis are: “kung ano ang iyong
itinanim ay iyon din ang iyong aanihin” (whatever you sow will be the thing that you
reap); “anuman ang panukat mo ay iyon din ang panukat ng iba sa iyo” (the measure
that you use will be the same measure others will use for you); “kapag hangin ang
itinatanim, bagyo ang aanihin” (whoever sows wind will reap a storm); and “ang taong
humahawak ng sundang ay siyang masusugatan” (he who wields a knife will be
wounded) (Timbreza, “Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan” 170-171, author’s self
translation). Timbreza wrote: “violence will lead nowhere because it will just give birth to
more violence. Thus, whoever will use violence will also experience violence”
(Timbreza, “Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan” 181, author’s self translation). It is
notable that although some of the folk sayings that he used are already deeply
influenced by Christianity, the Filipino’s perception of violence remains strongly
186
anchored on the Filipino’s indigenous adherence to the law of karma than to some
biblical passages or Christian doctrines.
Using the same methodology, Timbreza analyzed the following themes in order
to map out the Filipino’s perception of non-violence: the primacy of cold against heat,
the nobility of bread against stone, the power of whispering against shouting, and the
victory of flowers against rifles as demonstrated during the EDSA I Revolution (Cf.
Timbreza, “Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan” 173-181). Timbreza then stated: “from
the perspective of the Filipinos, peace and understanding can be achieved only through
non-violent means. . . a person who favors non-violence will be safe from the
temptations of violence. Similarly, through peace, war can be avoided” (Timbreza,
“Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan” 181-182, author’s own translation).
On the Jeepney
187
The 1976 essay “Ang Pampasaherong Dyipni at ang Ugaling Pinoy” is a playful
reading of the equally playful, and often naughty, stickers that we can find inside the
passenger jeepneys. Timbreza’s intention in this hermeneutic project is to acquire a
frame of reference in probing into the Filipino psyche. “The sincere (taos-pusong) goal
of this short article,” he wrote, “is to show some Filipino practices, and our point of
reference and basis are the texts and explanations that are written on the stickers of
passenger jeepneys” (Timbreza, “Ang Pampasaherong Dyipni at ang Ugaling Pinoy”
300, author’s own translation).
On Terrorism
188
framework. Timbreza called these thinkers “mightistic” theorists as they tended to
justify power and violence for the sake of progress and development (Cf. Timbreza,
“Philosopiya ng Terorismo” 213). He explained that from the perspective of the
terrorists the attacks that they unleashed into the society are justifiable because they
are the only effective means in attaining their goal of establishing what for them is a
good and just society. He wrote: “the goodness of a terrorist’s intention will give justice
(katwiran) to whatever means he will use, whether good or evil, clean or unclean, lawful
or unlawful, humane or inhumane” (Timbreza, “Philosopiya ng Terorismo” 225, author’s
own translation).
But, Timbreza, based on his earlier discourse on violence, did not only disagree
with the legitimacy of a terror attack, he moreover pointed out the senselessness of
terrorism based on the wisdom that any social order or situation that is established by
means of terror and other illegitimate means will also perish due to terror and other
illegitimate means. He asserted: “a violent person will die through violence. Violence
will be repaid with violence. And evil will bear evil fruit” (Timbreza, “Philosopiya ng
Terorismo” 226, author’s own translation). Timbreza adhered to the Filipino belief in the
law of karma and declared that a good and just society can only be attained through just
and peaceful means.
On Ecology
Using Aristotle’s teleological metaphysics, Timbreza argued that man should not
meddle with the elements of nature, because these elements have their own specific
purposes and meddling with them might derail them from their pre-ordained goals. He
189
said that this teleological metaphysics was given a theistic twist by Thomas Aquinas
when this Scholastic thinker linked the doctrine of specific purposes with the eternal and
grand design of an all powerful God. An offense against ecology for this matter is an
offense against metaphysical and theological principles.
Timbreza pointed out that even oriental thinkers acknowledge the fragility of
nature as well as of man’s duty to protect nature. Lao Tzu’s way of the Dao is teaching
us to live with nature and not against nature. Timbreza explained: “we follow the way of
the Dao if we take into consideration the balance of nature, for example, the effort to
maintain the ecological balance of our environment” (Timbreza, “Ekolohiya at ang
Landasin ng Tao” 190, author’s own translation). He supplemented Lao Tzu’s
speculation with Chuang Tzu’s famous distinction between the essence of nature and
the essence of man. Chuang Tzu elaborated that whereas plants and animals follow
their natural essences, man tends to follow his artificial, man-made and conventional
goals. Timbreza hoped that with this realization of our tendency to go against nature,
man will realize that our ecosystem has already suffered so much damage and the time
has come that man should pursue the essence of nature and follow the way of the Dao.
Filipino Self
The 1982, 1994 and the 2008 essays “Diwang Filipino: Pangako at Pagkatao,”
“Tao: Sa Pananaw ng mga Pilipino” and “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” contain
Timbreza’s speculations on the Filipino self. Timbreza claimed that the Filipino self is
intimately connected with good reputation, inner goodness (kagandahang loob) and
good character (kabutihang-asal), instead with the more external things and worldly
possessions such as properties and wealth (Cf. Timbreza, “Tao: Sa Pananaw ng mga
Pilipino” 98). Aside from good reputation, which is the social perception of a Filipino
individual, inner goodness and goodness of character are qualities that are not
necessarily externally and immediately observable. Hence, the Filipino measure for
these inner characteristics is action and deeds. Timbreza stressed: “in fact his (the
Filipino’s) identity is based on the totality of his works and accomplishments. The inner
self is revealed through work” (Timbreza, “Tao: Sa Pananaw ng mga Pilipino” 98-99,
author’s own translation). He pointed out that externalization of such goodness is even
more important than faith in God. He wrote: “for the masses (taong-bayan), faith in God
that is devoid of humane (makataong) actions is senseless” (Timbreza, “Tao: Sa
Pananaw ng mga Pilipino” 99, author’s own translation). Some of the important duties
that would build the good reputation of the Filipino self and externalize his inner
goodness are being true to one’s words and promises, respect for fellowmen (kapwa),
190
honesty and loyalty to others (Cf. Timbreza, “Diwang Filipino: Pangako at Pagkatao”
120-127).
For his description of the Filipino mind he reasserted some of the findings that
he, together with Ceniza and Bro. Gonzalez, uncovered about Filipino logic and
mentioned seven distinguishing characteristics of the Filipino mind: 1) metaphorical
rather than literal, 2) concrete rather than abstract, 3) personal and subjective rather
than impersonal and objective, 4) cyclical rather than linear, 5) holistic rather than
analytic, 5) centripetal rather than centrifugal in as far as the ego and the moral
discourses are concerned, 6) non-critical to others (di-pamumulang tuntunin), and 7)
theological rather than scientific (Cf. Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 4-
5).
It appears that Timbreza’s positive descriptions of the Filipino self is more cryptic
compared to his negative descriptions that we already tackled above in the sub-section
“Critique of Filipino Traits.” In any manner, Timbreza intended that his negative
discussion should also compliment his positive discussion in order for us to get a fuller
picture of the Filipino self.
Third is the circular view of life that is aptly expressed by the metaphor of the
wheel of life that brings one person at the top in a certain moment and at the bottom the
following moment (Cf. Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino” 137-139).
Timbreza elaborated: “the spirit (diwa) of the circular view of life is the implicit
foundation of the Filipinos’ fortitude/perseverance (lakas-loob). Upon this rest their
endurance and the will to carry on, because they believe that if there is will to endure
there is also a sweet reward” (Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino” 139,
author’s own translation). The fourth of these philosophies of life is the Filipino view of
life and death that conceptualizes life as a turn to be born, to grow and to die, as a
borrowed gift from God, and death as something that could happen any moment, and
as the ultimate equalizer of all men (Cf. Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga
Pilipino” 139-141). Fifth is the attitude of self restraint (simulating pangkatimpian) that is
a way for a longer and contented existence, a source of inner strength, and a powerful
191
weapon against the trials of life (Cf. Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino”
141-143).
192
Timbreza’s philosophical reflections on some local and universal themes,
although repetitious in terms of the folk materials that he used, were able to
demonstrate how our folk wisdom can be utilized as bases in pondering and probing
lofty existential questions as well as in theoretically addressing the pressing concerns of
both local and international terror threats, environmental degradation and climate
change. It is in these sections where he brought his philosophizing at the threshold of
Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of folk philosophy in dealing with more or less
the same themes that his foreign counterparts would deal with. Quito, with her
impressive armory of western theories, and Ceniza, with his logic and metaphysics, did
not dare to venture into this area of Filipino philosophy.
Timbreza might be accused of intellectual laxity for his random and arbitrary
selection of folk sayings that oftentimes are obviously contradictory in their messages,
for his hermeneutic method that borders on the preachy and homiletic proof texting, for
his promise of metalinguistic analyses that he never pursued as a method, for his
repetitive speculations and publications, and for his piecemeal treatment of selected
philosophical themes and problems, but he remains the philosophy professor of De La
Salle University who is most dedicated to the development of Filipino philosophy. He
should be read and analyzed by the younger generations of Filipino students and
scholars together with his hope that these younger scholars will surpass the pathways
that he cleared and make Filipino philosophy no longer a marginalized course in
colleges and universities where philosophy programs are offered.
SOURCES
Timbreza, Florentino. “Ang Pampasaherong Dyipni at ang Ugaling Pinoy.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 300-307.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Diwang Filipino: Pangako at Pagkatao.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 118-129.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Ekolohiya at ang Landasin ng Tao.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon
City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 184-197.
193
Timbreza, Florentino. “Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 168-183.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Maituturo ba ang Pagpapahalaga.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon
City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 262-268.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Hugis-Pag-iisip ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 59-72.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 73-85.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Sangkap ng Pilosopiya ng Buhay ni Huseng Batute.” Sariling Wika at
Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 198-212.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at
Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 22-37.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pagkataong Filipino: Kaalaman, Gamit at Etika.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 269-281.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 1-21.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling Wika: mga Problema at Solusyon.” Sariling Wika at
Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 38-58.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Parusang Kamatayan.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, 2008. Pp. 156-167.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya bilang Tagasuri ng Kulturang Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Filipino. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 100-117.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 130-143.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya ng Kudeta: Sisteng Pinoy.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 229-243.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya ng Terorismo.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City: C &
E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 213-228.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Sariling Disiplina sa Diwang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 144-155.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Tao: Sa Pananaw ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon
City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 86-99.
194
QUITO, CENIZA, TIMBREZA,
GRIPALDO AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
Abstract: This paper explores the contributions of Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza,
Florentino Timbreza and Rolando Gripaldo of De La Salle University to the development
of Filipino philosophy. The four philosophy professors of this university are selected
based on their textual productivity and on the fact that they retired from this same
university as full professors. Filipino philosophy in this paper is limited to the following
concerns of Filipino philosophy professors: the practice of logical analysis, the practice of
phenomenological and hermeneutical reflection, critical philosophy, the appropriation of
foreign philosophical theories, the appropriation of folk philosophies, breakthrough
writings or researches that make original contributions by going beyond the thoughts of
certain established foreign philosophers, the interpretation of Filipino identity and
worldview, the discourse on local themes, and the discourse on universal and foreign
themes. This exploration is accompanied by some critique and assessments of the
aforementioned philosophers’ contributions, and concludes with a comparison and
contrast of their contributions and impact to Filipino philosophy. Due to the length of this
paper, it is split into three parts. Part I, therefore, covers the general introduction, brief
history of the Philosophy Department of De La Salle University, the contributions of Quito,
and the contributions of Ceniza; while Part II covers the contributions of Timbreza; and
Part III covers the contributions of Gripaldo, and the conclusion of the full paper.
Key Words: Filipino Philosophy, De La Salle University, Emerita Quito, Claro Ceniza,
Florentino Timbreza, Rolando Gripaldo
195
(Part III of Three Parts)
Part I of this paper that consists of three parts dealt with the general introduction
of the whole project, a brief history of the Philosophy Department of De La Salle
University, the contributions of Quito, and the Contributions of Ceniza; while Part II
deals with the contributions of Timbreza. This third and final part deals with the
contributions of Gripaldo and the conclusion of the full paper. Again, since the following
discussions will refer over and over again to figure 1, labeled “Grand Synthesis of the
Taxonomies and Periodizations of Filipino Philosophies by Zialcita, Quito, Abulad,
Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao,” and found in Part I and also in Part II, for convenience’
sake the whole figure is reprinted below with its original number:
(1) Grassroots/Folk
Philosophy
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/
Academic Thomism (Lecture)
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Method (7) Critical Philosophy
(8) Appropriation of
Foreign Theories
(11) Breakthrough
Writing
196
ROLANDO GRIPALDO
Gripaldo was born in 1948, in Madrid, Surigao del Sur. This makes him the only
one among the four philosophy professors studied by this paper who did not experience
the Second World War. He finished his bachelor’s degree in philosophy at the Mindanao
State University, Marawi City, in 1969. Around that time philosophy in this university
was handled by David Wiley, Ross Kales and Christine Kales, American Peace Corps
volunteers, and Leyol Moredo, Juvenal Lazaga and Ambrosio Quinones, among others.
He then joined his professors at this same university, and pursued his graduate studies
at the University of the Philippines, Quezon City, where he earned his master’s degree
in philosophy in 1975. His experiences in this institution shaped his lasting interest in
logic and Anglo-American linguistic philosophy. He earned his doctor’s degree in
Philippine studies in this same university in 1984, in the fields of history, political science
and philosophy, and with a dissertation on the political and social thought of President
Manuel Quezon. His option to pursue a doctor’s degree in Philippine studies instead of
pure philosophy definitely shaped his dedication for Filipino philosophy.
Gripaldo continued his career at the Mindanao State University and eventually
served as the Dean of its College of Social Sciences and Humanities from 1987 to
1991. He started to explore the brighter opportunities of Metropolitan Manila by working
as a history professor at the Ateneo De Manila University, Adamson University and De
La Salle University. He became a full time faculty member of the Philosophy
Department of De La Salle University in 1994. Gripaldo served as President of the
Philosophical Association of the Visayas and Mindanao, and the founding Executive
Governor of the Philippine National Philosophical Research Society. In 2006, he was
granted a visiting research fellowship at the Catholic University of America.
At the De La Salle University, Gripaldo is known for his dedication for Filipino
philosophy. Although he wrote in the English language, his textual production on this
specific area of philosophizing is almost comparable to that of Timbreza. Tomas
Rosario of Ateneo De Manila University, commenting about Gripaldo’s monumental
project of compiling a bibliography of Filipino philosophy said: “his continuous research
and painstaking gathering of Filipino literature on philosophy is a clear demonstration of
his conviction that Filipino consciousness is also philosophical” (Rosario iv). After
serving as Chair of the Department of Philosophy for a number of terms, he retired from
this university as a full professor in 2007. Instead of pursuing a post-retirement career
in the academe, he opted to devote his time and energy for the management of the
Philippine National Philosophical Research Society, for the editorship of this society’s
biannual journal Philosophia, and for this society’s monthly philosophical lectures that
are usually held in a restaurant at the United Nations Avenue.
197
of 2000, 6) Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach, Part I, Section 2 of 2004, and 7)
The Making of a Filipino Philosopher and other Essays of 2009. Based on the criteria of
comprehensiveness, this paper opted to focus its analysis on just three books: 1)
Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach, Part I, Section 1, 2) Filipino Philosophy:
Traditional Approach, Part I, Section 2, and 3) The Making of a Filipino Philosopher and
other Essays. These three books more or less contain the ideas and themes
expounded in the other four books.
The book The Making of a Filipino Philosopher and other Essays contains five
main essays, all of which are also used by this paper. These are: 1) “Is there a Filipino
Philosophy?” of 2003, 2) “Filipino Philosophy: a Western Tradition in an Eastern Setting”
of 2006, 3) “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building” of 2006, 4)
“The Concept of the Public Good: a View from a Filipino Philosopher” of 2006, and 5)
“The Making of a Filipino Philosopher” of 2007.
198
Hindrances for Filipino
Philosophy
Developmental Path of
Filipino Philosophy
Andres Bonifacio
Emilio Jacinto
Manuel Quezon
Restituto Embuscado
Cirilo Bautista
Claro Ceniza
On Mass Media
Circumstantialist Moral
Theory
199
to the Development of Filipino Philosophy
This map shows us that Gripaldo’s work on Filipino philosophy, aside from his reflection
and analysis on the conditions and prospects of Filipino philosophy, is concentrated on
Filipino philosophy as the academic practice of critical philosophy (Cf. number 7, figure
1), as discourse on local themes (Cf. number 13, figure 1), and as discourse on
universal themes (Cf. number 14, figure 1). These contributions are discussed in more
detail in the succeeding sub-sections of this paper.
200
The second element and factor mentioned by Gripaldo is similar to Quito’s third
reason for the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy, which has something to do with
the limited career opportunities offered by philosophy as a terminal degree program. If
philosophy in the Philippines could not attract the best and the brightest students,
Gripaldo pointed out that it really would have developmental problems, as philosophical
speculations could not effectively prosper if what we have are second or third class
specialists in philosophy (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and
Nation Building” 46-48). The third of these elements and factors is Filipino philosophy’s
western orientation and its failure to dialogue with its own local and native tradition. Our
western orientation leads us to the trap of just remaining a philosophical scholar of a
given foreign philosophy. Gripaldo argued that no matter how good a philosophical
scholar a certain Filipino would be, this would not be a guarantee that he would mature
into a true philosopher (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation
Building” 49-50).” Our failure to dialogue with our own local and native philosophical
tradition gave us the disadvantage of not being aware of the philosophical questions
that historically had been relevant to us as a nation. Unlike Quito who believed that the
Filipinos do not have a philosophy in the strict sense of the word, Gripaldo is a staunch
advocate of the idea that Filipinos have their own philosophies and these can be
gleaned in the writings of our intellectuals, who may not be academic philosophers or
doctors of philosophy. This idea of Gripaldo will be discussed more fully in the
succeeding sub-sections.
Gripaldo’s fourth element and factor is very much related to the third one in the
sense that he pinpointed that our infatuation with western philosophies and our failure to
root ourselves in our own philosophical tradition had given us philosophical activities
that are devoid of direction. Gripaldo stressed that Filipino philosophy should be utilized
for the project of nation building by helping in the intellectual formation of our
professionals and by helping in the bigger project of enriching our intellectual heritage
(Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building” 51-52). The
fifth of these elements and factors is the Filipinos’ easy and contended life and lack of
drive for professional excellence (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher”
67). Gripaldo noted that the majority of Filipino academicians in philosophy who
finished their master’s or doctor’s degrees are no longer motivated to pursue further
research. Even rigorous scholarship in philosophy, which for Gripaldo is clearly inferior
to real philosophizing, would suffer from this way of life. Unlike Quito who explained the
institutional and cultural causes of such unproductive way of life, Gripaldo left his
observation hanging, probably as a challenge to the Filipino academicians in philosophy
that they themselves can do something about this.
201
deserving Filipino academicians in philosophy. Furthermore, around 2005, as a board
member of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines, he lobbied for the revision
of the constitution and bylaws of this older organization in order to accommodate
institutional members over and above its pre-existing individual membership. He
enlisted his Philippine National Philosophical Research Society as an institutional
member of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines with the hope that the other
philosophical organizations in the Philippines, such as the Philosophical Association of
Northern Luzon, and the Philosophical Association of the Visayas and Mindanao, would
do the same thing.
On the other hand, for Gripaldo, the cultural approach in Filipino philosophy
refers to the project that started in the 1970s on the extraction of philosophical insights
from anthropological data, such as folk sayings, folk lore, songs and other popular
practices (Cf. Gripaldo, “Cultural Approach to Filipino Philosophy” 173). He named
Leonardo Mercado and Timbreza as the main proponents of this approach in Filipino
philosophy. As already mentioned, what Gripaldo called “cultural approach in Filipino
philosophy” corresponds to number 9 and number 12 of figure 1. He then traced the
emergence of this approach in Filipino philosophy back to a style of philosophizing that
was initiated by the Yale University sociologist and anthropologist William Graham
Sumner, who in his 1907 book Folkways: a Study of the Sociological Importance of
Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals made the assertion that cultural
folkways and mores are the product of a given society’s adaptation for survival and they
may only be changed through the presence of new challenges and through the
manipulations of some elite and powerful group. Sumner was suggesting that folkways
202
and mores should be considered more important to philosophies and morals because
they are actually the philosophies and morals of a given society.
Gripaldo’s second remedy is his emphasis that Filipino philosophy should tone
down its western orientation by focusing on its own philosophical tradition (Cf. Gripaldo,
“The Making of a Filipino Philosopher” 69-70). With his desire for educating the
younger generations of Filipino specialists in philosophy in our own philosophical
tradition, he devoted much of his academic career extracting and re-articulating the
philosophical insights of many of our Filipino intellectuals. As already mentioned, this is
what Gripaldo called the traditional approach in Filipino philosophy, and his work on
these individual intellectuals will be tackled in more detail in section on his discourse on
203
local themes. His third remedy is his recommendation that philosophizing should be
done for the service of nation of building (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western
Tradition, and Nation Building” 58) . Gripaldo is not saying here that Filipino philosophy
should interface with nationalistic ideology to the point that Filipino philosophers would
be reduced to the status of patriotic demagogues. On the contrary, he is merely saying
that philosophizing should be done with the purview of strengthening the intellectual
capital of our youth and citizens, and consolidating and enriching further our intellectual
heritage as a nation (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation
Building” 58).
204
but should speculate further whether the aspects of Filipino identity or the cultural traits
under scrutiny are negative or positive in relation to the holistic developmental goals of
the Filipino nation, and should exert efforts in advantageously using the positive aspects
and traits as well as suppressing and rectifying the negative ones.
While other anthropologists and sociologists have already explored the negative
side of the padrino system, Gripaldo made a rather broad historical study on his this
cultural system and demonstrated its being one of the root causes of mis-governance in
the country. The padrino system is something that is related to the feudal Filipino
patronage system where the landlord acts as the patron to his tenants, as well as to the
compadrazgo system where two individuals who are not related by blood are socially
bonded together as a consequence of their involvement in the rites of baptism or
marriage (Cf. Gripaldo, “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and Contemporary Change”
189). In the padrino system, the superior individual may not be a landlord just as the
inferior individual may not be a tenant, for the system can exist outside the feudal
context. In the padrino system, the social bond may not be a result of a baptismal or a
wedding rite, for the system can transcend the more traditional compadrazgo context.
The dominant feature of the padrino system appears to be the mutual and symbiotic
commitment between a more powerful and a less powerful individual. The more
powerful individual is the one is called padrino.
Gripaldo argued that the padrino system is one of the root causes of our mis-
governance and rampant corruption in the sense that it engenders nepotism, when the
padrino places his protégé in an otherwise meritocratic position, and in the sense that it
leads to other forms of corrupt practices, when the padrino expects his protégé to
reciprocate his initial placement with honest or dishonest favors. Gripaldo wrote: “a gift
is given as a token of gratitude. This is followed by a second request for a favor, a third,
and this time with or without a gift. But always, there is a build-up of expectation from
the padrino of a reciprocal favor in the future, and sometimes this reciprocal favor may
involve corrupt or unethical deed” (Gripaldo, “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and
Contemporary Change” 189).
He mentioned that this system was practiced during the Spanish period by
Filipinos who wished to belong to the principalia class through the backing of Spanish
officials, Spanish friars, or other principalia who happened to be favored by the
Spaniards. The same practice was reinforced by the Americans. Gripaldo pointed out
that Marcos and his cronies, and Estrada and his midnight cabinet are but more recent
manifestations of the padrino system (Cf. Gripaldo, “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and
Contemporary Change” 191-193). Gripaldo, however, qualified that the padrino system,
may not be evil in itself, and may not necessarily lead to mis-governance and
corruption. He used the story of Jose Laurel as his example who in all practical
considerations acted as a padrino to many Filipinos who otherwise would have fallen
victims to the dreaded Japanese Kempeitai (Cf. “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and
Contemporary Change” 190-191).
205
Gripaldo’s main point in this critique of the padrino system is that although the
cultural system under scrutiny may be ethically and neutral in itself, in a meritocratic and
bureaucratic government, or even corporate set-up, such cultural system may no longer
be fit and could only be the reason for the commission of corrupt practices. Filipinos,
therefore, need to understand and be aware of this cultural system that if left unchecked
could lead them to countless misdeeds that in sum would hinder their country’s
development.
First, he said that the heritage and tourist sites might not be well maintained such
that it would be incapable of drawing enough interests locally and internationally.
Second, he pointed out that the country might not be spending enough for advertising
and marketing to make these heritage and tourist sites known to potential tourists.
Gripaldo stressed the importance of extensive linkages with foreign travel agencies (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Tourism and Heritage in a Global Society” 191). Third, our country as an
archipelago is isolated from the other ASEAN countries. Although this gave us so many
wonderful beaches this also gave us a disadvantage in the sense that tourist would
prefer destinations that are linked to other destinations in other countries through the
more economical bus routes or railways. Even our heritage sites have no reliable
interlinking routes that would force our tourists to return to Manila before proceeding to
the next heritage site.
Fourth, the professional organizations in the Philippines are not fond of hosting
international conferences which draw international participants who double as tourists
206
during the conference breaks. Gripaldo desired that the Philosophical Association of
the Philippine would one day organize an international conference, not only to let
foreign philosophy scholars notice our Filipino philosophy but also help in marketing our
heritage and tourist sites. Our Department of Tourism has not thought of the idea yet of
linking with our professional organizations. Fifth, our relatively frequent natural
calamities either damage our heritage and tourist sites or periodically discourage the
potential tourists from coming. Sixth, the presence of transnational and huge
companies near heritage and tourist sites spoils their natural purity with pollution and
abrupt urbanization.
Seventh, our government is not very keen and strict in protecting our heritage
and tourist sites from the ravages of infrastructural developments. Gripaldo mentioned
as his example the construction of a bridge in Cagayan de Oro that damaged part of the
Huluga archeological site (Cf. Gripaldo, “Tourism and Heritage in a Global Society”
192). Eighth, our peace and order situation is a little scary for potential tourists.
Gripaldo laid out these eight causes not to further discourage the potential tourists but
for the government and its concerned agencies, and even private individuals and
corporations, to address and to rectify.
Gripaldo’s discourse on local themes is aligned with his advocacy that there is
such a thing as Filipino philosophy in the traditional sense. Such philosophy, however,
can only be gleaned if we are open to the idea that philosophical insights and theories
may be contained in the writings of some of our local intellectuals. Hence, figure 9
shows that he in fact ventured into the extraction of philosophical insights and theories
of at least nine Filipino intellectuals, namely: the national heroes Jose Rizal, Andres
Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto; the presidents Manuel Quezon and Jose Laurel; the
political historian Renato Constantino; the painter Restituto Embuscado; the poet and
literary critic Cirilo Bautista; and the philosopher Claro Ceniza. This kind of
philosophizing constitutes the bulk of Gripaldo’s textual production.
On Jose Rizal
207
Filipinos were trampled upon by the Spanish officials and the elite principalia. But if the
Philippines, or the patria chica, would become a true province of Spain, or the patria
grande, just like the other Spanish provinces, or patrias chicas, of Catalonia, Vizcaya,
Galicia and Andalucia, it would be accorded with rights and privileges that sooner or
later would assure that each and every Filipino would have the chance of attaining
his/her full potentialities. This was the mindset of Rizal when he sailed to Spain and
joined the propaganda movement (Cf. Gripaldo, “Rizal’s Philosophy of Nonviolence”
10). For him, a bloody and violent revolution is not necessary, especially if the people
who are expected to overthrow the colonial power are largely uneducated and
unenlightened. If in case this bloody and violent revolution would prosper and succeed,
the uneducated and unenlightened masses would only replace the vacuum that will be
left behind by the colonizers, and they would only become even worse tyrants. Hence,
education and enlightenment is more important than revolution for Rizal. But as history
unfolded in front of him, Rizal realized that his philosophy of nonviolence was
inadequate and he was sooner overtaken by the vengeance of the colonizers and the
desire of the Filipino for real political freedom.
Gripaldo attempted to extract Rizal’s utopian society from his visions and desires
for the Philippine country. Gripaldo listed down six characteristics of Rizal’s utopia.
First, that “the Philippine archipelago must be united as a Filipino nation: compact,
vigorous, and homogeneous” (Gripaldo, “Rizal’s Utopian Society” 27). Second, that the
Filipinos will have sound education about civic virtues that would lead them to
enlightenment, so that each and every one of them will be capable of fighting slavery
and injustice and working for their individual and collective good. Third, that the country
will have sufficient schools that would be effective in humanistically, professionally and
vocationally molding the Filipino youth. Fourth, that the Filipinos will have a national
language that is based on one of their native languages that will unite the Filipinos and
sufficiently articulate their aspirations. Fifth, that the state will guarantee that all
Filipinos will have their liberties, such as “freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press,
redress of grievances, and the enjoyment of other human rights” (Gripaldo, “Rizal’s
Utopian Society” 27). Sixth, that the Filipinos will have a strong sense of nationalism.
On Andres Bonifacio
208
Bonifacio’s Philosophy of Revolution,” and “Bonifacio and Jacinto: Two Philosophies of
Revolution and their Sources.” His study on Bonifacio focused on the latter’s
philosophy of revolution which the former outlined in six points. First, Bonifacio
conceptualized the Spanish colonization as a contract between the Spaniards and the
Indios in which the former promised to look after the welfare of the latter for the
consideration of the latter’s agreement that the former occupy their homeland (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Reflections on Bonifacio’s Philosophy of Revolution” 73). Then, Bonifacio
pointed out that the Spaniards committed a breach of contract in the sense that they did
not fulfill their obligation of looking after the welfare of the Indios. Instead, the
Spaniards even persecuted the Indios who aired their sentiments about the Spanish
shortcoming. Bonifacio concluded that a revolution is necessary to put an end to the
contract which the Spaniards are not willing to respect in the first place. Second,
Bonifacio was aware that to lead a revolution meant to agitate the people against the
colonizers. His strategy was to work on the Tagalog people first and consolidate their
support for the Katipunan (Cf. Gripaldo, “Reflections on Bonifacio’s Philosophy of
Revolution” 74-75). He expected that the other individuals from the other ethnic groups
would do the same thing to their people. Instead of spreading himself thinly to cover all
the ethnic groups of the whole country, he decided to concentrate on his own people
and just wait for the ripple effects of his efforts.
Third, Gripaldo argued that Bonifacio, although he was poor and uneducated,
was in fact an ilustrado in the sense that he attained enlightenment through his own
readings and political involvement. Gripaldo clarified that the term “ilustrado” is not
primarily a socio-economic category but a category that pertains to the accumulation of
intellectual and cultural capitals. There were many other richer Filipinos at that time
who had the privilege of going to a university, but who never attained enlightenment (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Reflections on Bonifacio’s Philosophy of Revolution” 75-76). Fourth, Gripaldo
laid down his findings that Bonifacio’s revolution might not exactly be a revolution from
below as popularized by such eminent historian as Teodoro Agoncillo and Reynaldo
Ileto, because Bonifacio could not be easily categorized as a typical lower class Filipino
due to his considerable intellectual and cultural capital, and because many of the
leading Katipuneros were actually members of the middle class. Hence, Gripaldo
claimed that the revolution was a movement that was actually led and organized by
some middle class and maybe lower-middle class freedom fighters (Cf. Gripaldo,
“Reflections on Bonifacio’s Philosophy of Revolution” 76-77).
Fifth, when Bonifacio agitated the people to rise up against their colonizers he
mentioned the abuses and mis-governance that they suffered from the hands of the
Spaniards, but he also made it a point that the people will be animated with the utopia
that will serve as the gleaming beacon of their struggles and sacrifices. Bonifacio’s
utopia was the lost eden, the pristine and bustling Filipino societies that existed prior to
coming of the rapacious Spaniards (Cf. Gripaldo, “Reflections on Bonifacio’s Philosophy
of Revolution” 77-78). This lost eden can only be regained by driving the colonizers
away. Gripaldo agreed with Ileto that Bonifacio cast his utopia in the language of the
pasyon in order to reach the hearts of more Tagalogs who are familiar with this Lenten
practice. Sixth, Bonifacio liberally used history and his ability to write poems and to
209
translate some works of Rizal in order to attain his end of agitating and animating the
Tagalogs to his cause. In the essay “Bonifacio, the Translator: a Critique,” Gripaldo
demonstrated that Bonifacio’s supposedly bad translation of Rizal’s “Mi Ultimo Adios”
was actually a strategic praxis of bringing the poem of Rizal closer to the hearts of the
Tagalogs (Cf. Gripaldo, “Bonifacio, the Translator” 62-71).
On Emilio Jacinto
Gripaldo had written a whole book on Jacinto’s philosophy, the Love and Liberty:
the Political and Ethical Philosophy of Emilio Jacinto, but our short discussion about his
extraction of the latter’s philosophical insights is just based on the 1996 and 1997
essays “Jacinto’s Libertarian Philosophy of Revolution,” and “Bonifacio and Jacinto:
Two Philosophies of Revolution.” In these two essays, Gripaldo focused only on the
idea of liberty in Jacinto’s “Manifesto,” which he used in agitating and animating the
Tagalogs for the revolution that was waged by the Katipunan.
Gripaldo argued that Jacinto’s idea of liberty was shaped by the European
philosophers of the enlightenment, which the latter understood as “inherent reason of
man to think and do whatever he pleases for as long as it does not conflict with the
inherent reasons of others” (Quoted by Gripaldo, “Jacinto’s Libertarian Philosophy of
Revolution” 88). Gripaldo claimed that this understanding of liberty has three important
philosophical implications. First, that Jacinto’s idea of liberty leaned towards intellectual
freedom, rather than towards volitional freedom. Gripaldo explained: “It is not freedom
of the will, but the freedom to think unrestrictedly and to do what reasons dictates for as
long as it does not conflict with the reasons of others. Intellectual liberty is primary and
the foundation of physical and political liberty” (Gripaldo, “Jacinto’s Libertarian
Philosophy of Revolution” 89).
Second, Gripaldo pointed out that Jacinto’s idea of liberty seemed to have a
circuitous relationship with freedom. Whereas liberty is based on reason, reason can
only fully unfold when there is liberty (Cf. Gripaldo, “Jacinto’s Libertarian Philosophy of
Revolution” 89). Jacinto might be basing his musings here on the realities of the
Philippines during his time. Whereas he had strong faith on the enlightened and
educated reason that he shared with his fellow ilustrados, he remained cognizant about
the sad state of reason that the common Filipinos have due to the ignorance and
fanaticism that the colonial government allowed to thrive in the archipelago. Third,
Gripaldo claimed that for Jacinto liberty is a fundamental condition for the development
of a truly humane existence. He wrote: “Jacinto argued that (without liberty) man would
not be able to discuss such ideas as honor (praise or fame), reason, excellence, and he
would not be worthy of being called a man” (Cf. Gripaldo, “Jacinto’s Libertarian
Philosophy of Revolution” 89).
On Manuel Quezon
210
his extraction of Quezon’s political philosophy is based on the 1992, 1994 and 1998
essays “Quezon’s Political Philosophy,” “Social Justice: Cornerstone of Quezon’s Social
Thought,” and “Quezon’s Philosophy of Philippine Education.” Gripaldo focused on what
he claimed to be Quezon’s double stranded political philosophy, the first one of which
pertained to the latter’s political strategy while the second one to the latter’s substantive
theorizing that was geared towards the preparation of the country for its eventual
independence from the United States of America.
The second strand of Quezon’s political philosophy is more complex in the sense
that it dealt with the more detailed plan on how to make the Filipinos and the youthful
Filipino government ready for the tremendous responsibilities of an independent nation-
state (Cf. Gripaldo, “Quezon’s Political Philosophy” 122-140). Quezon saw a number of
threats that could disable such independence from the very start, such as the imperialist
ambitions of Japan, the political immaturity of the Filipinos, the possible abuses of the
elite Filipinos on the unfortunate masses, and the weak pre-modern character of the
masses.
The most interesting aspect of the second strand of Quezon’s political philosophy
is probably his critique of the weakness of the Filipino character which led him to
formulate a code of ethics/conduct that he thought could rectify such defective
character. Gripaldo wrote: “Quezon noticed that the Filipinos lacked earnestness; were
not inclined to sustain hard effort; were frivolous and inconstant; lacked perseverance;
had only skin-deep patriotism; valued face-saving very much; were desirous of personal
gain which dulled their sense of righteousness; valued expediency in their norm of
conduct rather than principle; showed a ‘failing in that superb courage which impels
action because it is right, even at the cost of self sacrifice’; had as their greatest fear not
the act to do wrong, but of ‘being caught doing wrong’; took religion lightly; easily
accepted defeat; and were apt to compromise with ethical principles and to regard truth
as compatible with misrepresentation or self deceit” (Gripaldo, “Quezon’s Philosophy of
Philippine Education” 169). If we as a people are not ready to accept these
weaknesses that also weakened our nation, then we will never be ready for any serious
effort in systematically correcting these shortcomings.
Because Quezon was bold and sharp enough to tell the Filipino straight into his
eyes that there is something wrong with his soul, he earned the right to lay down his
prescription, which he did in the form of a code of ethics/conduct. According to
Gripaldo, this code contained 16 items that each and every Filipino should learn and
211
master by heart: 1) faith in God, 2) unconditional love for the country, 3) respect for the
constitution and the government, 4) proper payment of taxes, 5) commitment to the
sanctity of elections, 6) love and respect for the parents, 7) valorization of one’s honor,
8) truthfulness, justice and charity, 9) clean and frugal life, 10) commitment to emulate
the virtues of our heroes, 11) industry, 12) self-reliance and the tenacious pursuit of
one’s legitimate ambitions, 13) love for one’s work, 14) promotion of social justice, 15)
dedication to buy Filipino products, and 16) wise use of our natural resources and
vigilance against the exploitation of fellow Filipinos (Cf. Gripaldo, “Quezon’s Philosophy
of Philippine Education” 169).
On Jose Laurel
The main points of Laurel’s political philosophy were focused on his reflection on
law and democracy. Human beings and nations are analogous in the sense that they
need other human beings and other nations to continue their healthy existence. But
such need also entails difficulties in the day to day dealing with the other human beings
or nations. The love-hate relationship between human beings and between nations
needs to be regulated by laws (Cf. Gripaldo, “Laurel” 174). These laws, for practical
considerations, embody the ethics, morality and the sense of justice and goodness of a
given community of individuals or nations. In the case of the community of individuals,
Laurel stressed that laws should strike a good balance between government control and
the individual liberties, because the predominance of the former would result into a
tyrannical government while the predominance of the latter would result into an
anarchical society (Cf. Gripaldo, “Laurel” 175).
Gripaldo claimed that for Laurel the functional model of democracy for the
Philippines is representative republicanism (Cf. Gripaldo, “Laurel” 175). In this model
the people remain the sovereign, even if they delegate their power to some elected
representatives. These elected representatives, together with their appointed
executives, career officers and employees, would assure the people that government
212
would provide the sovereign people with sufficient chances for livelihood, health, social
justice and educational programs, as well as an environment of economic opportunities.
On Renato Constantino
213
for their surplus products. Constantino argued that after the American left us our
colonial economy did not change much as manifested by our mendicant policies that
still focused on the export of raw materials and the import of so much manufactured
goods. Even our industries are dependent on imported raw materials. These are the
roots of our underdevelopment and widespread poverty. According to Gripaldo,
Constantino’s proposed antidote for the economic aspect of colonialism is the
formulation of an economic system that takes into consideration the masses, instead of
merely the elite members of the society who predominantly benefited by our mendicant
policies, and an economic system that is anti-imperialist (Cf. Gripaldo, “Renato
Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism” 211).
On Restituto Embuscado
Hence, Embuscado’s art is the anti-thesis of realism, in the sense that it negates
the past to present bias of realism, as dissectional aesthetics brings the present towards
the future. It is also the anti-thesis of cubism, in the sense that the distortive power of
dissectionalism does not emanate from the raw desire to steer away from figurative
realism, but from the desire to represent motion, energy and the multiple possibilities of
the present unity. It is also the anti-thesis of surrealism, in the sense that it does not
mask the blighted aspects of modernity with phantasmagorical images. Lastly,
dissectional aesthetics is the anti-thesis of kitsch, in the sense that dissectional art is a
highly meditative, highly theoretical, and work-intensive production.
On Cirilo Bautista
Cirilo Bautista is a multi-awarded poet, fictionist, critic and literary theorist who
moved to De La Salle University about the same time as Quito did. In his book Words
and Battlefields: A Theoria on the Poem he philosophized about structure and meanings
214
of poetry. Gripaldo’s reflection on his poetics is contained in the 2002 essay “The Ideal
Poem as the Rubber Tower: a Hermeneutical Analysis of Cirilo Bautista’s Theory on the
Poem.” The term “rubber tower” pertains to Bautista’s imagery of the ideal poem that
looms in the consciousness of a poet during the creation process (Cf. Gripaldo, “The
Ideal Poem as the Rubber Tower” 45).
Being a bi-lingual writer who is at home with both the Filipino and English
languages, Baustista asserted that the Filipino people had already appropriated the
English language in their project of expressing and understanding themselves as a
modern Filipino people (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Ideal Poem as the Rubber Tower” 52). He
saw that there was no need to suppress one language in order to cultivate the other as
both can be simultaneously used to perfection. In a brew of formalism and metaphors,
Bautista conceptualized the structure of a poem as composed of several layers of
masks: the layer of the verb that gives the poem its intellectual direction; the layer of the
adjective that imbues the poem with colors; the layer of the adverb that animates the
poem’s colors; and the layer of the noun that acts as the poem’s fulcrum.
Baustista unbundled the meaning of a poem into three different, and often
competing, senses. The first of these is the poet’s intended meaning, which in its purest
state would be equivalent to the meaning of the ideal rubber tower (Cf. Gripaldo, “The
Ideal Poem as the Rubber Tower” 70). As this meaning is accessible only by the poet
and is oftentimes ephemeral, in the sense that poets do not usually document their
struggles in en-fleshing their particular rubber towers, many hermeneutic and
poststructuralist critical strategies would relegate this poetic meaning to the realm of the
unknowable. The second of these senses is the meaning of a poem as gleaned by the
reader (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Ideal Poem as the Rubber Tower” 70). This second sense is
a product of the dialogue between the poem as a text and the subjectivity of the reader.
This implies that there could be a multiplicity of such meanings depending on the
differences in the subjectivities of the poem’s readers. Finally, the third of these senses
is the assumed meaning of the poem as it circulates through various readers and as it
crosses through different points in time (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Ideal Poem as the Rubber
Tower” 70). Hence, for Bautista, when we talk about poetic meaning, this could mean
any or all of these three different senses of poetic meaning.
Despite its inner structural dynamism, and despite its multiple hermeneutic
possibilities, a poem, according to Bautista is still vulnerable to death. Bautista believed
that there are two reasons why poems die. The first one is the immaturity of the poet
that makes him unable to sufficiently construct his own rubber tower, or to sufficiently
en-flesh such rubber tower with textual or aural existence (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Ideal
Poem as the Rubber Tower” 92). The second one is the inferiority of the poem itself
that makes such poem incapable of standing in comparison with other texts, or of
validating its poetic assertion, or of adequately articulating itself (Cf. Gripaldo, “The
Ideal Poem as the Rubber Tower” 93).
On Claro Ceniza
215
Whereas this paper’s discussion on Ceniza, at the first part of this whole project,
is focused on his contributions to Filipino philosophy, Gripaldo’s study on this Filipino
thinker focused on his contributions to metaphysics. This study is found in the 2004
essay “Ceniza the Neo-Parmenidean: a Critique of his Metaphysics.” Gripaldo called
Ceniza a Neo-Parmenidean in the sense that this metaphysician, logician and specialist
in the philosophy of science attempted to harmonize the abstruse being of Parmenides
with the more perceptible, although equally baffling, becoming of Heraclitus. In other
words, Ceniza struggled to put up a conceptual bridge between the stillness of the one
and the flux of the many.
Aside from this central incursion into the world of metaphysics, Ceniza also
speculated on the nature of the universe, the possibility of the final cause, the nature of
the person, the implications of the concept of space-time, and many more.
On Mass Media
216
their aboriginal, traditional and modern modes, but as his essay progressed he
narrowed down his focus on modern mass media (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media Powerhouse”
172-174).
Gripaldo started his critique with the identification of the tremendous powers of
the modern mass media, and this is the reason why he used the phrase “media
powerhouse” in the title of his essay. The first of these powers is their awesome speed
that is made possible by the developments from science and technology (Cf. Gripaldo,
“Media Powerhouse” 175-176). The second of these powers is the capacity of these
modern media to subtly propagate their ideology through their recurrent and far
reaching circulation of messages, sounds and images (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media
Powerhouse” 177). The third of these powers is closely related to the second and
pertains to the capacity of these modern media to equally subtly propagate their
national, cultural, and ethnic epistemes (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media Powerhouse” 178-180). It
seems that Gripaldo anchored his distinction between ideology and episteme on the
difference between the politico-economic principles and cultural worldviews of any given
human collectivity. For him, the former are the basis of ideology, while the latter are
the basis for episteme. The fourth of these powers is the convincing facility of these
media to interpret the world, or any aspects of it, for their recipients (Cf. Gripaldo,
“Media Powerhouse” 180-181). The fifth and the last power of the modern media that
Gripaldo identified is their ability to dish out relative meaning (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media
Powerhouse” 181-183). This pertains to the covert control of modern media on how
they create meaning by manipulating the contexts and connotations of their messages,
sounds and images.
Gripaldo’s identification of these powers came with the unveiling of their hidden
threats to man, nations, cultures and ethnicities, as well as with his subsequent
challenge to other contemporary philosophers to further explore these dangers and
come up with viable recommendations and solutions. He pointed out that the awesome
speed of modern media can potentially fragment our values and persons. He invited
other philosophers to ponder not only on “the importance of technological speed” but
also on how “to strike a balance between the slow and the rapid in order to arrive at just
the right speed to ensure one’s efficiency in a rapidly changing society” (Cf. Gripaldo,
“Media Powerhouse” 183-184). He explained that the ideological power of modern
media will not only compromise truth but would also imprison their recipients within the
ideological frames of the controllers of such media. He encouraged other philosophers
to be able to effectively educate the people on how to “temporarily distance. . .
(themselves) in order to objectively uncover, evaluate, or critique the presupposed
ideological content of a message relayed through the new media prior to its acceptance
or rejection” (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media Powerhouse” 184).
Gripaldo demonstrated that the epistemic power of the modern media can
obliterate national, cultural and ethnic diversity as the hegemonic epistemes of the
controllers of the modern media are propagated. He advised the other philosophers on
finding ways and means on how to “enlighten local, national, and world leaders to
respect and uphold the different tribal and national epistemes of different countries in
217
order to preserve national integrity; unless, of course, a danger or threat from a
country’s episteme is imminent to the world-at-large” (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media Powerhouse”
184). Gripaldo revealed that the power of the modern media to interpret the world
actually meant the multiplication of different interpretations of the world which in the end
would create nihilism among their recipients. Thus, he enjoined the other philosophers
to reject “the prejudice of nihilistic perspectivism” while arguing that “even if all is
interpretation, there is evidence of inter-subjective truth and an inter-subjective
knowledge for a given period of time in a given historical setting” (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media
Powerhouse” 184). Lastly, he pointed out that power of modern media to dish out
relative meaning by manipulating the contexts and connotations of their messages,
sounds and images is already self evident to be threatening and dangerous to their
recipients. He explained to the other philosophers that “the challenge lies in the
recognition that technological advances in new media and in other aspects of post-
industrial society, wherein human beings are the beneficiaries, cannot guarantee human
happiness and, thus, must raise again the existential issue as to what it truly means to
live” (Cf. Gripaldo, “Media Powerhouse” 184).
On Public Good
The concept of the public good had already been exhaustively discussed in the
context of politics and economics. Gripaldo attempted to reconstruct this same concept
within the context of politics and ethics with the intention of using it later on as a
heuristic device in analyzing public evils such as corruption, pollution and crimes. His
politico-economic take on public good is contained in the 2006 essay “The Concept of
the Public Good: a View from a Filipino Philosopher.”
218
After laying down his politico-ethical construct of public good, Gripaldo revealed
at least four important implications, the first one of which states that the private sector
may provide public goods for the reason that it may indirectly profit from them (Cf.
Gripaldo, “The Concept of the Public Good” 95-96). A mall owner, for example, may
organize a free concert with a long term goal of making his mall more popular to his
possible clientele. The second implication according to Gripaldo is that the government
should provide public goods based on its obligation for social-service. The third
implication, which is intimately related with the second implication, explained that when
a government provides public goods based on purely electoral reasons, that is in order
to for its political leaders to gain favorable votes in the next elections, such government
is exposing itself to the possibility of dishing out only an apparent public good (Cf.
Gripaldo, “The Concept of the Public Good” 96-97). The fourth implication according to
Gripaldo is that in the case of the inability of a given government to provide some public
goods, it is still possible for some private organizations, or groups of individuals, to band
together and pool their resources in order to be able to come up with such needed
public goods.
Gripaldo’s attempt to construct his own moral theory is found in the 2003 and
1977 essays “Freedom to Choose: an Essay on Situational Determinism,” and “He
could have Chosen Otherwise?,” which are both based on his 1977 book
Circumstantialism. He started his formulation with a distinction on the two different
meanings of circumstance: the first one of which refers to a totalized situation in which
the moral agent is compelled by his own context to act in a certain way; while the
second meaning refers to a situational condition which gives enough room for the moral
agent to make a rational choice on what he is going to do (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom to
Choose” 144). Gripaldo founded his circumstantial moral theory on the second
meaning of circumstance that allows the possibility of making authentic rational choices.
219
Gripaldo pointed out that it is during the second stage of the choosing/deciding
process when the situational conditions, or the circumstances of the moral agent, would
start to determine his weighing of the pros and cons of the alternatives that are available
to him. He grouped these situational conditions into four: “the person’s present external
environment (Source1), the person’s past (Source2), the person’s future (Source3), and
the person’s present physical and mental condition (Source4)” (Gripaldo, “Freedom to
Choose” 150). He further explained that some of these specific situational conditions
may or may not be directly present in the moral agent’s consciousness at the time of his
choosing/deciding. Gripaldo emphasized that because each individual person is
unique, and because the configuration of situational conditions that surround him is
unique at every point in time, each choosing/deciding situation is therefore unique (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 154).
Finally, Gripaldo revealed the five corollaries of his circumstantialist moral theory.
Firstly, the feeling of remorse has no part in his rational ethics as he is in favor of
adopting a stoic attitude towards past mistakes that prioritizes the making of amends in
order to rectify a situation (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 159). Secondly, a moral
agent should not think of his alternatives always in terms of black and white, because
there are instances that such an agent can take more than one alternative (Cf. Gripaldo,
“Freedom to Choose” 159). Thirdly, a moral agent should try to broaden his awareness
of the situational conditions circumscribing him in order to assure a more reliable
decision-making (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 159-160). Fourthly, the
understanding of the process of decision-making should make us de-emphasize the
punitive aspects of moral formation, and instead put more importance on the incentive
aspects of moral formation (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 160). Fifthly, awareness
of the process of decision-making should make us aware to struggle on how to control
our passion so as to make our choices/decisions more rational (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom
to Choose” 160).
In the second part of this whole project, we have mentioned that Timbreza’s
contribution to Filipino philosophy is more extensive compared to the those of Quito and
Ceniza, as the bulk of Timbreza’s textual production is devoted to this philosophy and
220
as he was able to surpass Quito and Ceniza’s parameters of reflection on this
philosophy, critique of Philippine culture and politics, and interpretation of Filipino
identity and worldview (Cf. numbers 7 & 12, figure 1) by moving on to the areas of
discoursing on local themes, as well as on universal themes (Cf. numbers 13 & 14,
figure 1). Gripaldo’s contribution to Filipino philosophy could easily equal, if not
surpass, the extent of Timbreza’s contributions to this philosophy. Unlike Quito and
Timbreza who started with the premise that Filipino philosophy as such is hardly
existent and therefore they had to scrounge philosophical elements from folklore and
folk ways, Gripaldo took the pathway similar to that of Ceniza as they were both guided
with the conviction that Filipino philosophy exists. However, whereas Ceniza simply
philosophized and did problematize much the Filipinoness of his philosophy, Gripaldo
invested much effort in proving that philosophy as such implicitly existed in the
discourses of a number of Filipino intellectuals and at the same time philosophized with
the consciousness that he is philosophizing as a Filipino thinker.
Figure 9 also shows us instead that the bulk of Gripaldo’s contributions to Filipino
philosophy is found in his reflections on local themes, which at a closer look would turn
out to be exclusively dealing with the extraction of the philosophical insights that are
concealed in the otherwise non-philosophical texts of some of our Filipino intellectuals.
This preoccupation is consistent with his agenda of proving that there is indeed a
Filipino philosophy in the traditional sense of the word. By articulating these
philosophical vignettes, he connects his readers to the philosophical themes and
concerns that creatively perplexed the Filipinos. Thus, Filipino philosophy scholars may
revisit and critique these implicit vignettes or address these themes and concerns using
more explicit philosophical frameworks.
221
Gripaldo’s incursion into some universal themes in philosophy is different from
that of Timbreza who insisted of talking about universal issues from the point of view of
his folkloric material. Gripaldo positioned himself as a Filipino philosopher who is ready
to tackle these concerns from the point of view of his experiences and insights as a
Filipino thinker. He was not afraid to use whatever philosophical frameworks, local or
foreign, that were ready at hand. Although Quito and Ceniza also had their own
reflections on universal themes, this research project opted not to discuss them as
these reflections were done without the explicit statement that they were philosophizing
as Filipino thinkers. Hence, among the four Filipino philosophers studied by this project,
it is only Gripaldo who was able to delineate a philosophical parameter that is Filipino
without being paranoid about the presence of foreign theories.
CONCLUSION
Finally, this section will conclude the whole project, which spanned through three
parts, by pointing out the similarities and difference of Quito, Ceniza, Timbreza and
Gripaldo’s contributions to Filipino philosophy, by stating the concluding statement of
this project, and by explicating some recommendations gleaned by the researcher as he
plowed through the whole research project.
The most obvious similarity shared by the four philosophy professors from De La
Salle University is their attention to the state of Filipino philosophy. Quito spent time
diagnosing the factors that caused the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy; Ceniza
talked about the reasons why philosophy and Filipino philosophy are marginalized as
discourses; Timbreza expressed his conceptualization of what Filipino philosophy
should be; and Gripaldo did a similar diagnosis of the under-developmental factors
before he proposed his developmental pathway for Filipino philosophy. All of these
reflections on Filipino philosophy are problematized within the context of our colonial
and third world situation.
222
The other similarity shared by these four philosophy professors is their
engagement in the critique of Philippine culture and politics. Quito examined Philippine
politics, our colonial mentality, our language, our educational system and the status of
the Filipina; Ceniza scrutinized Philippine politics, our colonial mentality, our
nationalism, the re-imposed death penalty law, and the EDSA II Revolution; Timbreza
analyzed our cultural traits, the re-imposed death penalty law, the recurrent coup d'état,
and violence; and Gripaldo pored over Philippine governance and the state of our
tourism industry and heritage conservation initiatives. For good or for bad, the critical
projects of these four philosophers are framed using some non-Marxist inspired
philosophies.
Concluding Remarks
223
speaking, Quito contributed to the development of Filipino philosophy in the area of
critical investigations on Philippine culture and politics.
Ceniza did not have much work on Filipino philosophy, as he was preoccupied
with his researches and speculations on the areas of metaphysics, epistemology, logic
and philosophy of science. Compared to the other three De La Salle University
philosophers he might have the least impact on Filipino philosophy, but this is only
because of this research’s blind spot that failed to look into his impact on his preferred
areas of philosophizing.
Timbreza churned out more texts on Filipino philosophy, as he was more focused
on this are than either Quito or Ceniza. His impact on Filipino philosophy would be his
insistence that there is such a thing as folk philosophy that can be extracted from our
folklore and can be used as a framework in speculating on more contemporary
philosophical issues. Substantively, he was specialized in the reconstruction and
critique of Filipno identity, worldview and mind. Compared to Quito, Ceniza and
Gripaldo, Timbreza had the widest range of researches in Filipino philosophy.
Recommendations
First and foremost are the contributions of Abulad. Even though he retired as an
associate professor he definitely was able to produce a respectable amount of texts
dealing with Filipino philosophy. His stature as a Filipino philosopher could easily equal
those of the four aforementioned De La Salle University philosophers. Second, there
might be some other works of Quito on Filipino philosophy that are not included in her
224
Festschrift. A careful study of these texts may alter the findings of this research work
about her contributions to Filipino philosophy. Third, we have already mentioned
several times the failure of this research project to look into the contributions of Ceniza
to metaphysics, epistemology, logic and philosophy of science. Although Gripaldo did a
research on Ceniza’s metaphysics, no one has done serious studies yet on his
epistemology, logic and philosophy of science.
Fourth, there might be some scholars who would want to study the beginnings of
philosophical speculations in De La Salle University. They could research on the
philosophies of Estrada and Pinon. Fifth and lastly, for those scholars who would want
to study the next generation philosophers of De La Salle University, then they have to
study the publications of Napoleon Mabaquaio, Elenita Garcia and Gansham
Mansukhani, the current most senior associate professors of this university’s Philosophy
Department.
225
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Laurel: the Political Philosopher and the Man.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 173-201.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Media Powerhouse: Challenges to Contemporary Philosophers.” Filipino Philosophy:
Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp.
172-184.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Quezon’s Philosophy of Philippine Education.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 164-172.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Quezon’s Political Philosophy.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I,
Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 113-141.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Reflections of Bonifacio’s Philosophy of Revolution.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 72-79.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism: a Critique.” Filipino Philosophy:
Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp.
202-220.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Rizal’s Philosophy of Nonviolence.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I,
Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 7-17.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Rizal’s Utopian Society.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 1.
Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 18-32.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Social Justice: Cornerstone of Quezon’s Social Thought.” Filipino Philosophy:
Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp.
142-163.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “The Concept of the Public Good: a View from a Filipino Philosopher.” The Making of
a Filipino Philosopher and other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, 2009. Pp. 82-
103.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “The Ideal Poem as the Rubber Tower: a Hermeneutical Analysis of Cirilo Bautista’s
Theory on the Poem.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 2. Quezon City:
C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 44-104.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher.” The Making of a Filipino Philosopher and other
Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, 2009. Pp. 62-81.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Tourism and Heritage in a Global Society: the Philippine Experience.” Filipino
Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E Publishing,
Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 185-197.
Rosario, Tomas. “Foreword to the Second Edition.” In Gripaldo, Rolando. Filipino Philosophy: a Criticial
Bibliography, 1774-1997. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2000. Pp. iii-iv.
226