Readings For Filipino Philosophy Course

RE-READING EMERITA QUITO’S THOUGHTS
CONCERNING THE UNDERDEVELOPMENT

OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
F.P.A. DEMETERIO
A national culture is the whole body of efforts made by a people in the

sphere of thought to describe, justify, and praise the action through
which that people has created itself and keeps itself in existence.
- Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Romualdo Abulad, in his essay Contemporary Filipino Philosophy, schematized

the evolution of Filipino Philosophy into four phases: 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, so to say; and 4) the beginnings of the late indigenization, which is
characterized by Filipino academicians’ distantiation from the agenda of the early phase
of indigenization. The main reason, why I selected Professor Doctor Emerita Quito as
the subject of my investigation into the problems of Filipino philosophy is that she is one
of the very few respectable Filipino philosophers who reflectively witnessed, and
actively participated through, the evolution of Filipino philosophy as schematized by
Abulad. Graphically, the chart below demonstrates my point.
1
ABULAD’S CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES QUITO’S INVOLVEMENT
PERIODIZATION
First Colonial Unchallenged Predominance of Thomism
Phase
Quito’s training at UST
Second Colonial Influx of Contemporary Philosophical Quito’s return from the

Theories brought home by Filipino Universite de Fribourg
Phase Academicians from Western Universities
Early Filipino Academicians started to Reflect Quito’s publication of Pilosopiya

upon the existence and progress of sa Diwang Filipino and her
Indigenization Filipino Philosophy efforts in the Quest for Filipino
philosophy
Beginning of Late Filipino Academicians distanciation from Later reflections of Quito

the Early indigenization’s fascination for
Indigenization the search for the underlying philosophy of
Filipino culture
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
Quito is a very prolific writer, and her speculations concerning the

underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy are scattered throughout a number of her
works. I am going to concentrate on three of her writings, the 1982 monograph entitled
Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines, the 1983 monograph entitled
The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, and the 1983 encyclopedia article entitled
Pilosopiyang Filipino. Her scattered speculations are not very sustained nor highly
organized. For the sake of this presentation, I took liberty, therefore in re-organizing
them under four headings, namely: 1) the historical problem, 2) the economic and
institutional problems, 3) the linguistic problems, and 4) the cultural problem.
The Historical Problem
Though Quito got her basic training at the University of Santo Tomas, and for
some time taught at this renowned Thomistic enclave, she has very noticeable
sentiments against Thomism. The historical problem that we have mentioned above
refers to the fact that philosophy in the Philippines started as a preparatory course for
Catholic theology, and as such it is almost exclusively Thomistic. 1 Since philosophy 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. Abulad’s schema is misleading, in the sense that it suggests that the first
colonial phase that is predominated by Thomism is a thing of the past. The first colonial
phase is still very much with us. In fact, it is still the most predominant mode of doing
philosophy in the Philippines. The other three phases in Abulad’s schema are just
insignificant enclaves of progressive school of thoughts scattered mostly in the
metropolis. I fully agree with Quito regarding the significance of this problem.
The Economic and Institutional Problems
Having been educated in Europe, Quito personally witnessed the economic,

cultural and symbolic benefits accorded by European societies on their philosophers
and philosophy professors. Back in the Philippines things appeared very stark. “The
number one problem of the profession,” she would say later on, “is the paucity of a
professor’s remuneration. In the Philippine context, academic personnel are among the
1
”The hold of the Catholic faith on the minds of the Filipino people has been so tenacious that
most people no longer draw a line between religion and faith on the one hand, and philosophy and
reason, on the other. As a result, the most prominent philosophical trend among the majority of
professors until the 1960’s had been Catholic philosophy, or to be more specific, the philosophy of Saint
Thomas Aquinas.” Emerita Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines (Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 1983) p. 10.
3
lowest paid among professionals.”2 Bereft of economic rewards, as well as cultural and
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.
The Linguistic Problems
Even the most under-qualified Filipino academician is multi-lingual, with two

languages at least, and if he does not belong to the Tagalog ethno-linguistic block, three
languages at least. Yet such a multi-lingual skill is not enough for Quito. She says:
“professors who knew no other language than English are greatly handicapped in
philosophical research. They depend largely on translations which are most often mere
interpretations.”3
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
The Cultural Problem
Quito noticed that culturally speaking, in the Philippines there seems to be a

resistance against philosophy. She says:
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.
2
2
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 49.
3
4
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 53-54
5
Quito, The State of Philosophy in the Philippines, p. 53-54.
6
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:
Strict Sense: No real Philosophers
Academic
Loose Sense: Mentors of Philosophy,

mostly Thomists
Levels of Prognosis
Philosophy/ Diwa/Volksgeist
Philosopher in will fertilize Filipino
Philosophy in the
the Philippines
Strict Sense.
Nominally: Virtually unknown, except for
the pejorative term ‘Pilosopo’
Popular/
Grassroots
Conceptually: Diwa, Volksgeist
START HERE DISCUSSION FOR JAN 26, 2021

ASS. PP. 6-20
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
5
philosophy on the academic level. This philosophy however, is still in the process of
formalization.7
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.
CRITIQUE OF QUITO’S DIAGNOSIS
Basically, the above-mentioned clusters of problems, as well as the hypothesized

pathway of emergence, constitute my reading of Quito’s thoughts concerning the
underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy. The succeeding sections will present my
detailed critique of her thoughts.
On The Historical Problem
I believe that an ideological enclosure and philosophy are two incompatible

things. Once you put philosophy inside an ideological enclosure, the result is either
philosophy will break the latter’s walls, or these walls will incarcerate and decimate
philosophy. Thomas Aquinas, was a free thinker, when situated inside the ideological
enclosure of the Catholic dogmatism, he powerfully broke through the latter’s walls.
After breaking through its walls, however, Catholic dogmatism using Thomas’
philosophy rebuilt a larger and stronger ideological enclosure. This bigger and stronger
enclosure is the same wall that incarcerates a huge section of philosophy in the
Philippines. If we accept the predominant conceptions of many Thomists that this
Aquinian wall is so strong and sturdy, which I believe its is, then the implication will be
that any philosophy that happens to be incarcerated inside its walls, cannot reasonably
survive. I totally agree with Quito that Thomism is a great stumbling block for Filipino
philosophy. However, she overlooked that philosophy is a paradigm that can be
adopted at one moment and rejected in another moment. This means that if a
philosopher finds himself incarcerated inside the Aquinian wall, through which he cannot
break free, this does not mean that he cannot breach this wall. In fact, Quito herself did
not break through Aquinian wall, she merely breached over it and went out in search for
other useful philosophical paradigms. The second colonial phase in Abulad’s scheme,
was largely induced by the same process of breaching the Aquinian wall. My objection
for Quito is: how come that after a number of Filipino academicians have successfully
breached the Aquinian wall, there remains no authentic Filipino philosophy?
On The Economic and Institutional Problems
Quito’s identification of the defective economic and institutional infrastructure of

Filipino philosophy as a major obstacle for the development of an authentic Filipino
philosophy is perfectly valid. The French post-structuralist Michel Foucault, in his essay
7
7
6
Prison Talk, says: “knowledge and power are integrated with one another, and there is
no point in dreaming of time when knowledge will cease to depend on power.” 8 In order
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?
On The Linguistic Problems
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?
8
Michel Foucault, “Prison Talk,” Colin Gordon, Ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1980), p. 52.
7
On The Cultural Problem
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.
THE RADICAL PROBLEMS OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
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.
The Historically Distorted Concept of Philosophy
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
P some radical distortions. Such distortions can be easily
revealed by a simple structural comparison between what philosophy should be and
A
what philosophy has been inRA the Philippines. Graphically, this should be the structure of
philosophy. Reality D
Question Search Answer
I
G
M
8 Theories
TRADITION
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
9
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.
This historically distorted concept of philosophy can be most probably traced to

the fact that Thomism that transplanted philosophy into our soil, because of its dogmatic
undertones, had the same predilection for an undue emphasis on the answer
component of philosophy. This predilection, sowed and nurtured by Thomism, I suspect
was brought out by our scholars who breach the Aquinian wall. Though these people
rejected Thomism, in favor of other philosophical paradigms, they brought with them the
residual predilection for a distorting emphasis on the answer component of philosophy
at the expense of the other five structural components. This answers the lingering
problem how come that after a number of Filipino academicians have successfully
breached the Aquinian wall, there remains no authentic Filipino philosophy?
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 Economic and Institutional Practices
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
10
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
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.
When Quito critiqued the defective economic and institutional infrastructure of

Filipino philosophy, the program of action that she had to propose was tremendous. She
had to argue that the state, as well as the leading academic institutions, must
restructure the defective economic and institutional practices. Now, after almost two
decades, our program of action will no longer be hitched on the material component, but
on the intellectual and spiritual component of the problem. Since we already have the
basic machinery, what we need now is a catalyst that can make the cogs of this
machinery hum with life. There is, I believe, no other source of such a catalyst but us,
the Filipino professors of philosophy. Through our creative and informed intellectual
energy and will power, we can make the cogs of our rudimentary discursive formation
turn, and hopefully hum with life. The least we can do is being cognizant about the
scattered philosophical utterances of our Filipino pioneers and present them to our
students. By encouraging ourselves and our students to study them further, react to
them, critique them or make them paradigms or research methods for further
philosophical researches, then I think Filipino philosophy will not be too far away.
FEBRUARY 15, 2022

The Linguistic Poverty of Filipino Philosophy
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.
11
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
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
9
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
proposal in sociological theory is similar to Florentino Timbreza’s exogenous method in
philosophy.10 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.
The Culture of Orality

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.
In her encyclopedia article Pilosopiyang Pilipino, Quito enumerates some of the

dominant features of the Filipino Volkgeist: 1) “kongkreto sa halip na abstrakto,” 2)
“personal sa halip na impersonal, kung kayat kalimitan ay subhetibo at sikolohikal,” 3)
praktikal at pangkabutihang-asal sa halip ng teoretikal at kognitibo,” 4) “sikliko at
1
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
holistiko sa halip ng pahalang o pahiga,” 5) sentripetal, “ginagamit ang sariling pagkatao
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.12
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
Aggregative rather than analytic, with ideas clustered on cliches and

maxims to aid memory
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
Homeostatic, with cultures living in a kind of permanent present, sloughing

off the old that does serve the here and now but retaining what is useful
Concrete in its processing of the lifeworld because the only way to test
knowledge claims in nonabstract ways is referentiality
kongkreto sa halip na abstrakto

Situational rather than abstract, for oral language users cannot keep in
mind abstractions that can be recorded on paper because memory is largely
concrete
personal sa halip na impersonal, kung kayat kalimitan ay subhetibo

at sikolohikal
Emphatic and Participatory rather than objectively distanced
sentripetal, “ginagamit ang sariling pagkatao bilang sentro o
pamantayan o sukatan ng pagpapasyang moral
Conservative or traditionalist, with the culture’s primary commitments maka-Diyos kaysa maka-agham
frozen in narratives
1 and aphorisms
11
Quito, “Pilosopiyang Filipino,” p. 190-191.
1
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.” 13
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.14
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.
In face of this immense cultural obstacle, I still have to suggest a non-defeatist

program of action. Concretely and directly speaking, we are powerless to purge the
traces of residual orality from our collective consciousness. But we, as philosophy
professors, wield enough power to re-engineer the cultural mindset of our students–the
future Filipino philosophers, that is–by immersing them thoroughly and systematically in
print and literate culture. This can be done by a systematic and rigorous regimen of
1
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.
1
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
reading. The very minimal measure of success for a philosophy program in the
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.
FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY: A CRITIQUE

OF QUITO’S PROGNOSIS
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.
16
Habermas, Jurgen. (1996) “Philosophy as stand-in and interpreter.” Richard Keamey and Maria
Rainwater, eds. The Continental Philosophy Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 238-253.
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.
THOUGHT AND SOCIO-POLITICS:

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?. . .”
-F. Sionil Jose. Ermita: A Filipino Novel.
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.
FERNANDO NAKPIL-ZIALCITA’S MORPHOLOGY

18
According to Nakpil-Zialcita there are three forms of Filipino philosophy. He
wrote:
Maaring maging Pilipino ang pilosopiya sa pamamaraan o kalamnan. Ang kalamnan ay

maaaring maging isang pagsusuri sa pananaw ng Pilipino sa daigdig o dili kaya’y isang
pagsusuri sa mga saligan sa pulitika at sa ekonomiya ng bansa. Kayat masasabing tatlo
ang maaaring maging anyo ng pilosopiyang Pilipino: 1) Isang pamamaraan Pilipino sa
pilosopiya; 2) Isang pagsusuri sa mga saligan ng pulitika at ekonomiya ng lipunang
Pilipino; at 3) Isang interpretasyon ng pananaw-sa-mundo ng Pilipino.1
Graphically, what he asserted is represented by the following figure.
Filipino Methodology for

Philosophizing
Filipino Philosophy
Critique of the Political and
Economic Structures of
Philippine Society
Filipino Content
Interpretation of the Filipino

World-view
Nakpil-Zialcita’s Morphololgy of Filipino Philosophy
For him, Filipino philosophy as a methodology could be a promising hallmark of what

Filipino philosophy should be. Unfortunately owing to the relative youth of such a
collective discourse, this form of Filipino philosophy is yet an undelineated and protean
mass. “Dahil wala pa ni kalahating dantaon ang ating tradisyon sa pilosopiya, hindi pa
lumilitaw ang pamamaraang ito. Ngunit ito’y tiyak na lilitaw gaya na sa pintura at
eskultura, sa musika at sa sayaw.”2 Filipino philosophy as a critique of the political and
economic structures of Philippine society can be traced back as early as the
enlightenment-style critical activities of the propaganda movement, and finds its fullest
manifestation during the advent of Marxist inspired critical theory spawned by the
socialist movements. However, this second form of Filipino philosophy, as thoroughly
dependent on the imported philosophies of Karl Marx (1818-1883), Vladimir Ilich Lenin
(1870-1924), and Mao Zedong (1893-1976) among others, attracted the radical
question of its being Filipino in the first place. Hence, whereas the first form of Filipino
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
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
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.
It is interesting to note from Nakpil-Zialcita’s analysis, is that the content of

Filipino philosophy (that is, the second and third forms) is totally devoted to ideological
study and criticism. According John Thompson, a respected ideological theorist, there
are at least two meanings for the word ideology.
On the one hand, 'ideology' is employed by many authors as if it were a purely

descriptive term: one speaks of 'systems' of thought', or 'systems of belief' of 'symbolic
practices' which pertain to social action or political projects. . . . There is, however,
another sense of 'ideology' which is evident in the current literature. In the writings of
some authors, ideology is essentially linked to the process of sustaining asymmetrical
relations of power-that is the process of maintaining domination.6
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
philosophy is an ideological study in its critical conception, while his third form of Filipino
philosophy is an ideological study in its neutral conception.
ROMUALDO ABULAD’S EVOLUTIONARY SCHEMA

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
3
Nakpil-Zialcita, p. 323.
4
5
6
John Thompson, Studies in the Theory of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984), p. 4.
20
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:
First Colonial Phase Unchallenged Predominance of Thomism
Influx of Contemporary Philosophical

Second Colonial Theories brought home by Filipino
Phase Academicians from Western Universities
Filipino Philosophy
The question on the existence and
Early progress of Filipino Philosophy, and
Indigenization Description of the Filipino Identity
Beginnings of Late Filipino Academicians distantiation from

Indigenization the Agenda of the Early indigenization
Abulad’s Evolutionary Schema of Filipino Philosophy
A COMPARATIVE READING OF NAKPIL-ZIALCITA

AND ABULAD’S CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
The most obvious difference between Nakpil-Zialcita’s morphology and Abulad’s

evolutionary scheme is that the former is synchronic in its approach—that is, Nakpil-
Zialcita froze time, and took a slice of it for analysis—while the latter is diachronic—that
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
21
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.
Abulad’s Scheme Nakpil-Zialcita’s Scheme
First Colonial Phase
Second Colonial
Phase
Critique of the Political and

Economic Structures of
Philippine Society
Filipino Methodology for
Philosophizing
Filipino Philosophy Early Interpretation of the Filipino

Indigenization World-view
Beginnings of Late
Indigenization
Filipino Content
22
Superimposition of Abulad’s Evolutionary Scheme

Over Nakpil-Zialcita’s Morphology
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.
A BIBLIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE TRACES

OF CRITICAL FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
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
7
Rolando Gripaldo, Filipino philosophy: A Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997 (Manila: De La Salle
University Press, 2000).
23
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%
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
The Percentage of Critical Philosophical Works from 1965 to 1992

Critical philosophical publications constituted 8% of the delineated works from
1965-1968. These increased in Gripaldo’s
to 13% in Bibliography
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
24
philosophy is placed side by side with the other trends. The following table shows the
periodized percentages of the classifications of Filipino philosophy.
Percentages of the Different Trends of Filipino Philosophy

from 1965 to 1992
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
Critical 8% 13% 13% 8% 7% 16% 11%

Existential/Continental 33% 23% 19% 18% 18% 12% 19%
Logical Positivist 6% 3% 5% 8% 4% 6% 2%
Oriental 2% 5% 13% 17% 14% 13% 7%
Scholastic 10% 13% 15% 12% 4% 3% 6%
Filipino Worldview 10% 7% 16% 22% 35% 28% 25%
Modern Western 0% 10% 3% 1% 1% 3% 4%
Unclassifiable 31% 26% 16% 14% 19% 19% 26%
The comparative trends of critical philosophy, existential/continental philosophy, logical

positivist/linguistic philosophy, oriental philosophy, scholastic philosophy and those
dealing with the Filipino worldview, are presented in the following bar graph. Due to
limited space, the trend for modern western philosophy as well as the unclassifiable
entries are not presented below.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
Legend: Critical Logical Positivist/Linguistics Scholastic

Existential/Continental Oriental Filipino Worldview
25
Percentages of the Different Trends of Filipino Philosophy
from 1965 to 1992 in Gripaldo’s Bibliography
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
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.
26
RECALLING THE EARLY 1970s AND THE LATE 1980s
If we superimpose the first bar graph on a timeline of our country’s political

history, things will become clearer. It will be surprising to learn that the surge, the
plateau, the drop, and the resurge of critical Filipino philosophy all happened to the
rhythmic beatings of the political drum. The following chart juxtaposes the first bar
graph that shows the trend of critical Filipino philosophy with a timeline that shows the
most significant political events that transpired from 1965 to 1992.
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
1970: Filipino troops 1972: Declaration of 1983: Assassination

sent to Vietnam War Presidential Decree # 1081 of Benigno Aquino
1969: Marcos won (Martial Law)
his second term
1981: Lifting of Martial

1968: Establishment of 1970-71: Height of Law. But Marcos’
the Communist Party Student & Youth 1986: EDSA
extralegal powers were
of the Philippines Activism Revolution
retained.
20%
15%
10%
5%
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
Juxtaposition of the Trend of Critical Filipino Philosophy and the

Timeline of Philippine Political History
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,
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
27
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.
The finding from the combined bibliographic and politico-historical analyses is

certainly controversial. When the theme of this paper was first delivered during the
closing ceremonies of the 2001 philosophy week celebrations at San Beda College, it
attracted fiery reactions from the participating professors and students. The reflex
speculation on the effects of the Martial Law on philosophy seems to contradict the
finding. It is too logical and ideal to speculate that the abuses and evils of the dictatorial
regime would have fanned the embers of critical spirit. It is too logical and ideal to
assert that philosophy is all about ideas and that nobody can repress ideas. It is too
logical and ideal to envision that philosophers have already fathomed the depths of our
historicity as well as soared to the loftiest heights of human wisdom making them
insensitive to the threatening presence of armed thugs. The sociologist Randolf David
shares more or less this same line of thinking:
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
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:
8
Interview with Randolf David by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 15 February 2002.
28
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:
Richard Sanchez: Pero naramdaman talaga yong pagkasagabal ng Martial Law sa

pilosopiyang kritikal?
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.
Richard Sanchez: Sumulat siya ng mga ano? Yong anti-Marcos?
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
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.
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.
11
Interview with Romualdo Abulad by Richard Sanchez, Quezon City, 20 February 2002.
29
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
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:
12
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.
14
30
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
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:
15
16
31
Spanish Colonization
First Colonial Phase
American Colonization
Second Colonial Phase
Early Critique of the Political

Filipino Methodology
Interpretation of the
for Philosophizing
Indigenization and Economic

Filipino
Structures of
World-view
Philippine Society
Beginnings of Late Martial

Indigenization Law
Traumatic Transitions in the History of Filipino Philosophy
With a history that is generously laced with traumatic ruptures, it would no longer be a
surprise why we have at hand a pathologically underdeveloped Filipino philosophy. A
traumatic rupture is not even comparable with a Hegelian dialectic nor with a Thomas
Kuhnian revolution, where discontinuities are mediated by a dialogue, no matter how
hostile such a dialogue may go. A traumatic rupture is all about a violent end and an
equally violent beginning. In the history of Filipino philosophy the only smooth
transitions, represented by arrows in the chart above, are from the second colonial
phase to the period of neutral and critical ideological studies (that is, Abulad’s early
indigenization, and Nakpil-Zialcita’s interpretation of worldview and critique of political
and economic structures), and from Abulad’s early indigenization to his beginnings of
the late indigenization. However, these smooth transitions can be quite tricky. The
movement from the early indigenous phase to the late indigenous phase is actually not
an evolutionary movement but a devolutionary one. By distantiating themselves from
the agenda of the early indigenous phase, many Filipino philosophers slid back to the
concerns of the second colonial phase, where they took the easy way again of
32
preoccupying themselves with the purposeless expounding of one foreign philosophy
after another. The transition from the early indigenization to the beginnings of the late
indigenization is a transition motivated by the intellectual boredom resulting from the
over-saturation of works on early indigenous philosophy. 17 Hence, the next time we
raise the question why we have at hand a pathologically underdeveloped Filipino
philosophy that characteristically shirks away from the political, the social, the historical,
and the economic, a look at its history, which is virtually a parade of traumas and
boredom, will answer everything.
THE SINS OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
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
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.
The Inadequacy of the First Colonial Phase
The first colonial phase of Abulad, constituted by the unchallenged

predominance of Thomism, is not as promising. Philippine Thomism started not
because of a conscious intellectual choice, but out of a historical accident of a colonial
authority’s need to prepare some students for Catholic theology. Since it
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
17
The table Percentages of the Different Trends of Filipino Philosophy from 1965 to 1992 presented
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.
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.
33
with itself. Our bibliographic analysis based on Gripaldo’s work reveals the following
downward trend.
Trend of Scholastic Philosophy from 1965 to 1992

1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
10% 13% 15% 12% 4% 3% 6%
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.
The Inadequacy of the Second Colonial Phase
The second colonial phase of Abulad, constituted by the influx of western

theories, and by the localized trends of existential/continental philosophy at the Ateneo
de Manila University and logical positivism/linguistic philosophy at the University of the
Philippines, is also not as promising as critical philosophy. In their dramatic novelty
and exotic foreignness it became very easy for the Filipino philosophy professor to be
lost in their profundity, forgetting in the process that philosophy is ought to be a
theoretical engagement with reality. Graphically, this is the functional concept of
philosophy.19
P
A
R
A
Reality D Question Search Answer
I
G
M
Theories
TRADITION
Functional Diagram of the Structure of Philosophy
19
Demeterio, “Rereading Emerita Quito's Thoughts Concerning the Underdevelopment of
Filipino Philosophy.”
34
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
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.
The Inadequacy of Filipino Philosophy

as Interpretation of the Filipino Worldview
The phase of early indigenization of Abulad, which is equivalent to the

interpretation of the Filipino worldview of Nakpil-Zialcita, is also not as promising as
critical philosophy. Our bibliographic analysis based on Gripaldo’s work reveals the
following robust growth:
20
21
22
35
Trend of Filipino Philosophy as Interpretation of
Filipino Worldview from 1965 to 1992
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
10% 7% 16% 22% 35% 28% 25%
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:
36
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
Legend: Critical Filipino Worldview
Comparative Percentages Between Critical Filipino Philosophy and the

Interpretation of Filipino Worldview from 1965 to 1992 in Gripaldo’s Bibliography
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.
37
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.
The Inadequacy of the Late Indigenous Phase
The phase of the late indigenization of Filipino philosophy is also not as

promising as critical philosophy. We have stated earlier that the movement from the
early indigenous phase to the late indigenous phase is actually not an evolutionary
movement but a devolutionary one. By distantiating themselves from the agenda of the
early indigenous phase, many Filipino philosophers slid back to the concerns of the
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
23
F. Sionil Jose, Ben Singko (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001) p. 184.
38
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
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
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.
Boor, David. "Sociology of Knowledge." Jonathan Dancy & Ernest Sosa. A Companion to epistemology:
Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
Bourdieu, Pierre, "Structures, Habitus, Power: Basis for a Theory of Symbolic Power." Ed. Nicholas Dirks,
et al. Culture/Power/History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994. Pp. 155-199.
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. “Cognitive Anthropology and the Unfinished Agenda of the Early Indigenous Phase of
Filipino Philosophy.” 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.
Gripaldo, Rolando. Filipino philosophy: A Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997. Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 2000.
Hodge, Robert & Kress, Gunther. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge, 1993.
Jose, F. Sionil. Ben Singkol. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001.
Jose, F. Sionil. Ermita: A Filipino Novel. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1989.
Kearney, Richard. "Between Tradition and Utopia: The Hermeneutical Problem of Myth." David Wood, Ed.
On Paul Ricoeur: Narrative and Interpretation. London: Routledge, 1991.
Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, Louis Wirth &
Edward Shills, Trans. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991.
39
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.
Quito, Emerita. Ed. “Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Ensayklopidiya ng Pilosopiya. Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 1993.
Quito, Emerita. The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 1983.
Ricoeur, Paul. Ricoeur, Paul.: Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. John Thompson, Ed., Trans.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
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.
Seliger, Martin. Ideology and Politics. New York: Free Press, 1976.
Thompson, John. Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jurgen Habermas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Thompson, John. Ideology and Modern Culture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1990.
Thompson, John. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
Timbreza, Florentino. Philosophy Professor at De La Salle Univesity, Manila. Interview with Richard
Sanchez, 31 January 2002.
Williams, Raymond. The Sociology of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
40
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
F.P.A. Demeterio III
This paper compares and contrast the taxonomies and periodizations of

Filipino philosophy undertaken by six Filipino scholars, Zialcita, Quito,
Abulad, Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao, in order to determine the various
philosophical discourses that are present in the country, and in order to
pin point which of these discourses offers higher developmental potentials
for Filipino philosophy. For each taxonomy/periodization, this paper looks
into: 1) the period covered; 2) the inclusivity or exclusivity of the
classification/configuration; 3) the taxonomizer/periodizer utilized; 4) the
implied structure of the classification/configuration; 5) the problematic
classes/periods suggested by the classification/configuration; and 7) the
promising classes/periods suggested by the classification/configuration.
This paper concludes with an attempt to synthesize the thoughts of these
six scholars in a comprehensive taxonomy of Filipino philosophies, and
commented on the specific philosophies’ strengths, weaknesses and
overall assessment.
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,
41
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:
 Fernando Zialcita, an anthropologist, cultural critic and cultural historian

at the Ateneo De Manila University;
 Emerita Quito, a professor emeritus of philosophy at De La Salle

University, and formerly at the University of Santo Tomas;
 Romualdo Abulad, a philosophy professor at the University of San

Carlos, and formerly at De La Salle University;
 Rolando Gripaldo, a retired philosophy professor from the De La Salle

University;
 Dr. Alfredo Co, a philosophy professor and Sinologist at the University of

Santo Tomas; and
 Dr. Napoleon Mabaquiao, a philosophy professor at De La Salle

University, and formerly at the University of the Philippines-Diliman.
In this paper, “taxonomy” is taken as the synchronic, in the Saussurian sense of

the word, classification of philosophical discourses; and “periodization” as the
diachronic, or chronological, configuration of the same discourses. For each of the
taxonomy/periodization of these six intellectuals, this paper looked into: 1) the period
covered; 2) the inclusivity or exclusivity of the classification/configuration; 3) the
taxonomizer/periodizer utilized; 4) the implied structure of the
classification/configuration; 5) the problematic classes/periods suggested by the
classification/configuration; and 7) the promising classes/periods suggested by the
classification/configuration. For its conclusion, this paper attempted to synthesize the
thoughts of these six scholars in a comprehensive taxonomy of Filipino philosophies,
and commented on the specific philosophies’ strengths, weaknesses and overall
assessment.
42
THE TAXONOMY OF ZIALCITA
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
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:
43
(1) Method- Philosophy
Filipino
Philosophy (2) Critique of Political &
Economic Structures
(a) Content
(3) Interpretation of
Filipino Worldview
Figure 1: Zialcita’s Taxonomy

of Filipino Philosophy
Since Zialcita presented a two-leveled taxonomy, he used two sets of

taxonomizers. A “taxonomizer” is a category or principle that is utilized by the
taxonomer in breaking a given class into distinct but smaller classes.
 First Level Taxonomizer: Zialcita’s first level taxonomizer is the binary

“content/method” (see letter a and number 1 in figure 1), that divided
Filipino philosophy into content-based discourses and method-based
discourses (Zialcita, 318).
 Second Level Taxonomizer: For his second taxonomic level, Zialcita

did not break further his method-based discourses; but he divided further
his content-based discourses, using as his taxonomizer the phenomena
that appeared to him in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the main
concerns of Filipino philosophy (Zialcita, 318).
In effect he talked about three types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
 Filipino Philosophy as a Method (see number 1 in figure 1): this is

something that is yet non-existent and Zialcita hoped to emerge from the
writings of Filipino philosophers. He explained: “dahil wala pa ni
kalahating daang taon an gating tradisyon sa pilosopiya, hindi pa
lumitaw ang pamamaraang ito, ngunit ito’y tiyak na lilinaw gaya ng
nangyari sa pintura at eskultura, sa musika at sa sayaw” (Zialcita, 321).
It is something that can be grasped inductively after reading the
accumulated writings of the serious Filipino philosophers of the future.
 Filipino Philosophy as Critique of Political and Economic

Structures (see number 2 in figure 1): this is a content-based
philosophy that examines the political and economic structures of
44
Philippine society and culture. It emerged during the late 19 th century
propaganda movement from the critical atmosphere of European
Enlightenment and acquired more powerful frameworks from the
thoughts of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong during the 1960s.
Being European, German, Russian, and Chinese inspired, many
doubted its “Filipinoness.” But Zialcita justified this kind of Filipino
philosophy: “natural lamang na humiram ang pantas ng mga teorya sa
mga dayuhan, tulad ng nangyari sa Pilipinas nitong ilang mga nakaraang
dekada. Ngunit kung igagalang niya ang kanyang bayang sinusuri,
isang pilosopiyang Pilipino rin ang lilitaw” (Zialcita, 323).
 Filipino Philosophy as Interpretation of Filipino Worldview (see

number 3 in figure 1): this is a content-based philosophy that addresses
such questions as “who is the Filipino,” “what is the Filipino worldview,”
and “what are the Filipino values.” This kind of philosophy followed the
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
(1) Strict Sense
discourses to silence.
(2) Scholasticism/
THE TAXONOMY OF QUITO Thomism
(a) Academic (3) Phenomenology/

The next Filipino scholar who problematized the existence
(e) Exposition
and mode of
Existentialism
existence of Filipino philosophy seems to be Quito, who in 1983 published the
(4) Logical Analysis
monograph entitled The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Her synchronic
taxonomy covered what appeared (c) toLoose
her Sense
in the 1980s as contemporary philosophical
activities. Her research was inclusivist, in the sense that it(5) Oriental encompassed
Philosophies all
Filipino
philosophical
Philosophy discourses in the country. The implied structure of her taxonomy, the
most complex and detailed among the six taxonomies/periodizations studied in this
(6) Application
paper, is as follows:
(7) Unarticulated Folk

Spirit
(b) Grassroots/
Popular 45 (8) Description of Folk
Spirit
(d) Articulated
(9) Appropriation of Folk
Spirit
Figure 2: Quito’s Taxonomy
Since Quito presented a four-leveled taxonomy, she used four sets of

taxonomizers.
 First Level Taxonomizer: Her first level taxonomizer is the binary

“academic/grassroots” (see letters a & b in figure 2), that divided Filipino
philosophy into academic philosophy and grassroots, or popular,
philosophy (Quito, 9).
 Second Level Taxonomizers: For her second taxonomic level, Quito

broke further academic philosophy using as her taxonomizer the binary
“strict/loose” (see letter c and number 1 in figure 2) into strict academic
philosophy and loose academic philosophy. She also broke further
grassroots, or popular, philosophy using as her implied taxonomizer the
binary “articulated/unarticulated” (see letter d & number 7 in figure 2) into
unarticulated folk spirit and articulated discourses on the folk spirit
(Quito, 9-10).
 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.
46
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.
In effect she talked about nine types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
 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
works would be comparable to how philosophy is usually done and
practiced in Western universities.
 Filipino Philosophy as Exposition of Scholasticism/Thomism (see

number 2 in figure 2): this is an expository discourse on
Scholasticism/Thomism that has the University of Santo Tomas as its
geographic center (Quito, 9 & 34). Quito wrote: “This school considers
as gospel truth the writings of the Catholic saint (Thomas Aquinas).
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” (Quito, 38).
 Filipino Philosophy as Exposition of Phenomenology and

Existentialism (see number 3 in figure 2): this is an expository
discourse on phenomenology and existentialism that has the Ateneo De
Manila University as its geographic center (Quito, 34). These
philosophical systems were apparently brought home by Filipino
professors who studied in Europe and the United States.
 Filipino Philosophy as Exposition of Logical Analysis (see number 4

in figure 2): this is an expository discourse on logical analysis that has
the University of the Philippine-Diliman as its geographic center (Quito,
34). This philosophical system was brought home by Filipino professors
who studied in the United States and the United Kingdom. Quito stated:
this “school reduces all arguments into mathematical language, and
rejects all philosophies that cannot be so reduced. . . It considers
philosophy as a precise, scientific discipline with a quasi-mathematical
language. It highly reveres Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, and
the Anglo-American school of formal logicians” (Quito, 38).
 Filipino Philosophy as Exposition of Oriental Philosophies (see

number 5 in figure 2): this is an expository discourse on the philosophies
47
of India, China and Japan (Quito, p. 34). Quito mentioned a professor
named Benito Reyes of Far Eastern University as probably the earliest
proponent of this type of Filipino philosophy (Quito, p. 35).
 Filipino Philosophy as Application of Other Philosophies (see

number 6 in figure 2): This philosophical discourse goes deeper that
sheer exposition of foreign theories, in the sense that it seeks to
investigate local realities using these foreign theories as its theoretical
framework. Quito explained that the representatives of this kind of
Filipino philosophy “believe that philosophy is not totally exempted from
a humane utilitarianism that aims to generate happiness among men.
Philosophy, for them, should descend from the ivory tower to be able to
interact with contemporary problems of war, famine, terrorism, tyranny,
etc. They believe that behind every moment—be it political or literary—
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).
 Filipino Philosophy as Unarticulated Folk Spirit (see number 7 in

figure 2): this discourse refers to the worldview of the Filipino people.
Quito elaborated: “This collective mind, this general attitude towards life,
this concerted effort to acquire wisdom which is manifest on the popular
or grassroots level constitutes the folk spirit (Volksgeist) of the Filipino”
(Quito, 10).
 Filipino Philosophy as Description of Folk Spirit (see number 8 in

figure 2): this philosophical discourse corresponds with Zialcita’s Filipino
philosophy as the interpretation of Filipino worldview (see number 3 in
figure 1).
 Filipino Philosophy as the Appropriation of Folk Spirit (see number

9 in figure 2): If Zialcita defended Filipino Philosophy as the description
of the Filipino folk spirit or worldview based on nationalistic and political
premises, Quito saw an epistemological significance in such an exercise
in the sense that a thorough research on the folk spirit and worldview
would give the Filipino researchers folk concepts, categories, theories
and methods that they may appropriate and use in formally and
academically constructing a manifestation of Filipino philosophy in the
strict sense. 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 the project of ushering in the emergence of a strong Filipino

philosophy, Quito tended to be unsympathetic to the concerns of expository
philosophies (numbers 2, 3, 4 & 5 in figure 2), and even to those of applied philosophy
(see number 6 in figure 2). She expected more from the grassroots (see numbers 7, 8
48
& 9 in figure 2). Quito’s holy grail of Filipino philosophy is the actualization of Filipino
philosophy in the strict sense of the word (see number 1 in figure 2).
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
not as inclusive as that of Quito. The implied structure of his periodization/taxonomy is
as follows:
(1) First Colonial Phase
(2) Phenomenology /
Existentialism
(a) Second Colonial (3) Logical Analysis

Phase
Filipino (4) Other Foreign

Philosophy Philosophies
(5) Anthropological
Philosophy
(b) Early Indigenous
Phase
(6) Application of
Philosophical Methods
(7) Late Indigenous

Phase
Figure 3: Abulad’s Periodization/Taxonomy

If we understood “taxonomizer” as “a category or principle that is utilized by the

taxonomer in breaking a given class into distinct but smaller classes,” we take
“periodizer” to mean the historical or chronological markers that are utilized by the
historian to separate a temporal expanse into discrete periods or phases. Since
Abulad’s two-level schema is both a periodization and a taxonomy, he used periodizers
for his first level schematization, and taxonomizers for his second level schematization.
 First Level Periodizers: Abulad laid out his chronological account of

Filipino philosophy using as his periodizers the transplantation of
Scholasticism/Thomism on Philippine soil, the arrival of a multitude of
49
more up to date philosophical system in the 1960s, the movement to
indigenize Filipino philosophy, and the realization that the “Filipinoness”
of given discourses need not be problematized by Filipino philosophers
(see letters a & b, & numbers 1 & 7 in figure 3). These periodizers gave
him his four periods: the first and second colonial phases, and the early
and late indigenous phases.
 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.
In effect he talked about seven types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
 First Colonial Phase of Filipino Philosophy (see number 1 in figure

3): this philosophical discourse corresponds with Quito’s Filipino
philosophy as exposition of Scholasticism/Thomism (see number 2 in
figure 2), which is characterized by the more three hundred years of
dominance of the Scholastic/Thomistic way of doing philosophy.
 Filipino Philosophy as Discourse on Phenomenology and

Existentialism (see number 2 in figure 3): this kind of philosophizing
also corresponds with the Filipino philosophy as exposition of
phenomenology and existentialism mentioned by Quito (see number 3 in
figure 2).
 Filipino Philosophy as Discourse on Logical Analysis (see number 3

in figure 3): this kind of philosophizing also corresponds with the Filipino
philosophy as exposition of logical analysis mentioned by Quito (see
number 4 in figure 2).
 Filipino Philosophy as Discourse on Other Foreign Theories (see

number 4 in figure 3): as phenomenology and existentialism, and logical
positivism are geographically centered in Ateneo de Manila University
and University of the Philippines at Diliman, respectively, Abulad thought
of Filipino philosophy as discourse on other foreign theories as
something similar to what was happening at the De La Salle University
during the 1980s in which all sorts of philosophies, other than
Scholasticism/Thomism, were seriously discussed (Abulad, 54-55).
 Filipino Philosophy as Anthropological Philosophy (see number 5 in

figure 3): this philosophical discourse corresponds with the Filipino
philosophy as interpretation of Filipino worldview of Zialcita (see number
50
3 in figure 1), as well as with the Filipino philosophy as description of folk
spirit of Quito (see number 8 in figure 2).
 Filipino Philosophy as Application of Foreign Theories (see number

6 in figure 3): this philosophical discourse corresponds with the Filipino
philosophy as application of other philosophies mentioned by Quito (see
number 6 in figure 2). Abulad cited the applied philosophical writings of
Claro Ceniza, Roque Ferriols, and Quito as the prime examples of this
way of philosophizing (Abulad, 59).
 Late Indigenous Phase of Filipino Philosophy (see number 7 in figure

3): this philosophical discourse is vaguely characterized as the Filipino
academicians turning away from the agenda of the early indigenous
phase. Abulad wrote: “I submit that we are now entering the second
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).
Abulad tended to be unsympathetic towards the concerns of the first colonial

stage. He emphasized: “The students of the early sixties were suffering from what I
would call Scholastic suffocation and were beginning to reach out for new modes of
thinking” (Abulad, 54). He tends to be sympathetic towards the concerns of the other
six modes of Filipino philosophy, and he seemed to base his greatest hope for the
further development of Filipino philosophy on its late indigenous phase.
THE TAXONOMY OF GRIPALDO
In 2003, Gripaldo presented a paper, entitled “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?,” in

the 21st World Congress of Philosophy in Istanbul, Turkey. This makes him the next
Filipino scholar who problematized the existence and mode of existence of Filipino
philosophy. Gripaldo’s synchronic taxonomy covered all the manifestations of
philosophical discourses in the country. His research is as inclusivist as that of Quito.
The implied structure of his taxonomy is as follows:
(1) Traditional Sense
(2) Folk Philosophy
(a) Cultural
Sense
(3) Description of Folk
Filipino
Philosophy
Philosophy
(4) Expository Writing
51
(b) Geographical (5) Breakthrough
Sense Writing
(6) Appropriative Writing

Figure 4: Gripaldo’s Taxonomy
Since Gripaldo presented a two-leveled taxonomy, he used two sets of

taxonomizers.
 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.
 Second Level Taxonomizers: Gripaldo did not break further Filipino

philosophy in the traditional sense. But he implicitly broke further Filipino
philosophy in the cultural sense using as his implied taxonomizer the
binary “input/output.” He likewise broke further Filipino philosophy in the
geographical sense using as his taxonomizer what he saw in the same
decade as the dominant ways of doing such kind of philosophy.
In effect he talked about six types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
 Filipino Philosophy in the Traditional Sense (see number 1 in figure

4): In the mind of Gripaldo this type of Filipino philosophy is something
that is comparable with the quality and standards of philosophy as done
and practiced in the west. In this sense, this type of philosophy
corresponds with Quito’s Filipino philosophy in the strict sense (see
number 1 in figure 2). However, when Gripaldo mentioned his examples
for this type of Filipino philosophy he started to talk about Jose Rizal, M.
H. Del Pilar, Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, prompting us to think
that this type of Filipino philosophy according to Gripaldo’s in fact
corresponds with the early stages of Zialcita’s Filipino philosophy as
critique of political and economic structures (see number 2 in figure 1;
Gripaldo, 2005, 227). In his essay “The Making of a Filipino
Philosopher,” Gripaldo clarified: “In the traditional approach, our first
52
philosophers were Enlightenment thinkers in that they were influenced
by the European Enlightenment. The Enlightenment movement of the
18th century in Central Europe traveled to Spain and reached the
Philippines in the second of the 19th century” (Gripaldo, 2009, 64).
 Filipino Philosophy as Folk Philosophy (see number 2 in figure 4):

this discourse corresponds with Quito’s Filipino philosophy as
unarticulated folk philosophy (see number 6 in figure 2; Gripaldo, 2005,
227).
 Filipino Philosophy as Description of Folk Philosophy (see number

3 in figure 4): this philosophical discourse corresponds with Zialcita’s
Filipino philosophy as search for Filipino identity and worldview (see
number 3 in figure 1), with Quito’s Filipino philosophy as description of
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).
 Filipino Philosophy as Expository Writing (see number 4 in figure 4):

this philosophical discourse refers to the Filipino scholars’ textual
discussion of any of the Oriental and Western philosophies. Quito (see
numbers 2, 3, 4 & 5 in figure 2) and Abulad (see numbers 1, 2, 3 & 4 in
figure 3) mentioned something analogous to this type of philosophizing.
But Gripaldo was more specific in the sense that he was referring only to
written discourses, while Quito and Abulad talked about expository
philosophizing both in the oral and textual forms. Gripaldo even justified
the “Filipinoness” of this kind of venture: “A native Filipino grounded in
his own culture and language (Filipino, or Filipino English for that matter)
carries with him/her a microcosmic culture that generally reflects the
culture-at-large. As such, his/her interpretation of text will necessarily be
colored by his/her own cultural horizon as it merges with the inherent
cultural horizon of the text” (Gripaldo, 2005, 229).
 Filipino Philosophy as Breakthrough Writing (see number 5 in figure

4): It must be made clear that the term “breakthrough writing” is just a
category used by this paper to refer to that nameless kind of doing
philosophy that Gripaldo implied when he wrote:, e.g., simply a Kantian,
but becomes a neo-Kantian” “to depart from just being an expert or a
scholar in the first sense, but to modify those ideas in such a uniquely
original way such that one ceases to (Gripaldo, 2005, 228). Gripaldo did
53
not find Filipino philosophy as expository writing (see number 4 in figure
4) very negative, because he saw this as a starting point for a deeper
mode of philosophizing that would lead to some breakthrough.
However, Filipino philosophy as breakthrough writing is still a
hypothetical type of Filipino philosophy that Gripaldo hoped to emerge in
the near future. In his essay “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher,” he
offered some details on how to effect such a breakthrough: “(1) we can
innovate (from Kantian to neo-Kantian), (2) we can reject an old
philosophical thought and create a new path to philosophizing, and (3)
we can review old philosophical questions and offer a new insight or
philosophical reflection” (Gripaldo, 2009, 66).
 Filipino Philosophy as Appropriative Writing (see number 6 in figure

4): this philosophical discourse corresponds with Quito’s Filipino
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).
Aside from Filipino philosophy as Folk philosophy, which Gripaldo considered

only as the starting point for Filipino philosophy as its description, Gripaldo tended to
consider all the other five types of Filipino philosophies as legitimate avenues for the
development of Filipino philosophy.
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:
(1) Iberian Scholasticism
(a) Untextualized
(2) Foreign Theories
Filipino
Philosophy (3) Early Filipino
Scholars
54
(b) Textualized (4) Description of the
Filipino Mind
(5) Second Wave of

Filipino Scholars
Figure 5: Co’s Periodization/Taxonomy
Since Co’s two-level schema is both a periodization and a taxonomy, he used a

taxonomizer for his first level schematization, and periodizers for his second level
schematization.
 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.
 Second Level Periodizers: Co laid out his chronological account of

Filipino philosophy using as his periodizers the transplantation of
Scholasticism/Thomism on Philippine soil, the arrival of a multitude of
more up to date philosophical system in the 1950s, the emergence of the
scholarly trend of philosophical writing, the emergency of the trend of
problematizing the Filipino identity and worldview, and the rise of the
second wave of Filipino scholars which he claimed to have started in the
year 1986.
In effect he talked about five types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
 Filipino Philosophy as Untextualized Discourse on Iberian

Scholasticism (see number 1 in figure 5): From a cursory view, this
philosophical discourse might appear similar to the
Scholasticism/Thomism mentioned by Quito (see number 2 in figure 2)
as well as to the first colonial phase mentioned by Abulad (see number 1
in figure 3). It is important to note, however, that Co had a different
emphasis from Quito and Abulad. Whereas, Co was stressing the
untextualized nature of his Iberian Scholasticism, Quito and Abulad were
highlighting the expository nature of their analogous discourses. Co
dated this period as stretching from 1611 to 1950 (Co, 52-53).
 Filipino Philosophy as Untextualized Discourse on Foreign

Theories (see number 2 in figure 5): If Abulad dated the arrival of the
other foreign theories that challenged the dominance of
Scholasticism/Thomism to the 1960s, Co dated this same phenomenon
to the 1950s (Co, 54). Co, moreover noted an important thing, when the
first batches of Filipino scholars who studied abroad came home, they
more or less continued the Iberian Scholasticism’s practice of
55
philosophizing in the oral way. Hence, this paper’s reconstruction of
Co’s periodization/taxonomy creates a distinction between the
untextualized and textualized discourses on foreign theories.
 Filipino Philosophy as Textualized Discourse on Foreign Theories

(see number 3 in figure 5): Co made his point very clear that as the
Filipino scholars who studied abroad came home, they gradually
introduced the more rigorous practice of philosophical research. He
said: “These Filipino scholars did not only gift the academe with new
thoughts from abroad, but they also changed the life-world of philosophy
in the country. For, they did not just emerge to become competent
philosophy teachers who commanded respect, but most of them also
diligently wrote and animated the philosophical publication in the
country” (Co, 55).
 Filipino Philosophy as Description of the Filipino Mind (see number

4 in figure 5): For all practical considerations, this philosophical
discourse corresponds with Zialcita’s Filipino philosophy as interpretation
of the Filipino worldview (see number 3 in figure 1), with Quito’s Filipino
philosophy as description of the folk spirit (see number 8 in figure 2),
with Abulad’s Filipino philosophy as anthropological philosophy (see
number 5 of figure 3), and with Gripaldo’s Filipino philosophy as
description of the folk philosophy (see number 3 in figure 4). Co wrote:
“Somewhere along this historical timeline (1950-1985) came the search
for indigenous thought with a view to discovering a Filipino philosophy”
(Co, 56).
 Filipino Philosophy as Second Wave of Textualized Discourse (see

number 5 in figure 5): For un-explicated reasons, Co identified the year
1986 as the beginning of the emergence of this philosophical discourse.
He stated: “A second wave of scholars includes those who finished their
Ph.D. from 1986 onward, and who continued the legacy of the first wave
of Filipino philosophers” (Co, 60). This paper can only surmise that Co
used as his periodizer the end of the repressive Marcos regime and the
beginning of a much more liberal academic atmosphere.
Co tended to be unsympathetic to the concerns of Iberian Scholasticism, the

untextualized discourses on foreign theories and on the description of the Filipino
identity and worldview. He looked favorably at the first wave of Filipino scholars: “If
there is anything we can call Filipino philosophy, this can only be the product of the hard
work of Filipino philosophers and scholars. We seem to have forgotten that Filipino
scholars have already made their contribution to philosophy through their publications,
which now make a new philosophical landscape in the Southeast Asia” (Co, 58). Co
placed all his hopes on the second wave of Filipino scholars. He addressed them:
“What then is the task of the next fifty years? It has now become your challenge to be
56
equal at least to what the first wave of Filipino scholars have done—you either duplicate
what they have accomplished or, better yet, surpass them through an even greater
diligence. For we must all be partners in clearing the frontiers of philosophy and
pushing it to greater heights” (Co, 62).
THE TAXONOMY OF MABAQUIAO
Using the exacting framework of logical analysis, Mabaquiao is currently

preparing a manuscript, for publication in the Malay Journal, entitled “Isang Paglilinaw
sa Kahulugan at Kairalan ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” In trying to pin down the
appropriate referent of what for him was a nebulous term “Filipino philosophy,”
Mabaquiao generated a number of forms of Filipino philosophies. Although his
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:
(1) Folk Philosophy
(c) Untextualized
(2) Philosophical
(a) Loose Lectures
(3) Textualized Pseudo

Philosophies
Filipino
Philosophy
(4) Discourse on Local
Themes
(b) Strict &
Textualized
(5) Discourse on Foreign
& Universal Themes
Figure 6: Mabaquiao’s Taxonomy

Since Mabaquiao presented a three-leveled taxonomy, he used three sets of

taxonomizers.
 First Level Taxonomizer: Mabaquiao’s first level taxonomizer is the

binary “strict/loose” (istrikto/di-istrikto) (see letters a & b in figure 6), that
divided Filipino philosophy into strictly philosophical and loosely
philosophical discourses. Mabaquiao was more explicit than Quito in
stressing that a strict philosophical discourse must simultaneously be: 1)
dealing with philosophical themes, 2) using philosophical methods, and
3) proffering philosophical arguments to prove its points (Mabaquiao, 8).
It must be made clear at this point that owing to the logico-analytic point
of view of Mabaquiao’s study, the loosely philosophical discourses are
57
mentioned in order to sharpen the distinction between what is the
appropriate and inappropriate referent of the term “Filipino philosophy.”
 Second Level Taxonomizers: One of Mabaquiao’s second level

taxonomizers is the binary “textualized/untextualized” that divided
loosely philosophical discourses into untextualized loosely philosophical
discourses and loosely textualized philosophical discourses (see letter c
& number 3 in figure 6). He clarified: “Una, bagamat sa istriktong pag-
unawa ang sinasabing pilosopikal ay mga produkto ng kamalayan o pag-
iisip tulad ng mga kaisipan, ideya, paniniwala, at pananaw, ang
konkretong manipestasyon ng mga ito ay mga akda—ang mga naisulat
na mga produkto ng kamalayan o pag-iisip” (Mabaquiao, 6). Since he
identified strict philosophy as something that is already textualized, our
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.
 Third Level Taxonomizer: The only discourse that Mabaquiao further

divided in the third level of his taxonomy is the untextualized loosely
philosophical discourse using as his implied taxonomizer the binary
“academic/non-academic.”
In effect he talked about five types of Filipino philosophies, namely:
 Filipino Philosophy as Folk Philosophy (see number 1 in figure 6):

this discourse corresponds with Quito’s unarticulated folk spirit (see
number 7 in figure 2), as well as with the same concept mentioned by
Gripaldo (see number 2 in figure 4). Mabaquiao is explicit in identifying
this discourse as one of the inappropriate referents of the term “Filipino
philosophy (Mabaquiao, 10).
 Filipino Philosophy as Philosophical Lectures (see number 2 in

figure 6): this philosophical discourse corresponds with Co’s
untextualized discourse on Iberian Scholasticism (see number 1 in figure
5) and untextualized discourse on other foreign theories (see number 2
in figure 5). Although Mabaquiao did not deny the possibility of having a
truly philosophical lecture, he strategically bracketed oral discourses
because their ephemeral nature could hardly physically contribute to the
accumulation of that body of works which we can correctly call “Filipino
philosophy” (Mabaquiao, 6).
 Filipino Philosophy as Pseudo Philosophies (see number 3 in figure

6): this textualized discourse either claims to be or is regarded as
58
philosophical, but owing to the fact that it fails to satisfy at least one of
the three criteria set by Mabaquiao to determine the philosophical nature
of any given discourse, such is deemed to be a pseudo philosophy.
Mabaquiao explained that in this context the word “philosophy” is merely
used as a synonym for “‘ideya’, ‘pananaw’, ‘paniniwala’, ‘tip’, ‘dahilan’,
‘prinsipyo’, at iba pang mga katulad nito” (Mabaquiao, 4).
 Filipino Philosophy as Textualized Discourse on Local Themes (see

number 4 in figure 6): after eliminating folk philosophy, philosophical
lectures, and textualized pseudo philosophies as appropriate referents of
the term “Filipino philosophy,” Mabaquiao identified philosophical
discourse on Philippine themes as one of the appropriate referents of the
said term. Mabaquiao elaborated: “ito ay tumatalakay sa mga bagay-
bagay na may kinalaman sa bansang Pilipinas (halimbawa, mga
paksang may kinalaman sa pulitika at kultura ng bansang Pilipinas)”
(Mabaquiao, 13).
 Filipino Philosophy as Textualized Discourse on Foreign and

Universal Themes (see number 5 in figure 6): aside from the
textualized philosophical discourses on local themes, Mabaquiao also
proffered textualized discourses on foreign themes written by Filipinos as
another appropriate referent of the term “Filipino philosophy”
(Mabaquiao, 13).
As already mentioned, Mabaquiao looked down on folk philosophy, philosophical

lectures and pseudo philosophies, and looked up on Filipino philosophy as textualized
discourses on local themes, as well as on Filipino philosophy as textualized discourses
on foreign themes.
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.
One cannot obviously construct a comprehensive schema that would subsume

all of the six taxonomies and periodizations by merely superimposing one
taxonomy/periodization over the others, nor by connecting one to the others. But by
isolating the taxonomizers/periodizers and by harmonizing the forms of Filipino
philosophy mentioned by the six schema, there is a possibility of coming up with a
grand synthesis.
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.
59
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
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)
Non-Academic (4) Critical Philosophy

Filipino
Philosophy
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Method (7) Critical Philosophy
(8) Appropriation of
Foreign Theories

Philosophy
Academic
(10) Exposition of
Foreign Systems
(11) Breakthrough
Writing
Content (12) Interpretation of

Filipino Worldview
60
Themes
(14) Discourse on Universal

& Foreign Themes
Figure 7: Grand Synthesis of the Taxonomies and Periodizations
of Zialcita, Quito, Abulad, Gripaldo, Co and Mabaquiao
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.
After creating a comprehensives schema that reasonably subsumed all the

substantial forms of Filipino philosophy mentioned by the six studies, we are left with the
ultimate task of commenting on each of the fourteen forms strengths, weaknesses and
overall developmental potential. To make such a task more concise, we present these
specific comments in the following table:
Taxonomy Strengths Weaknesses Overall Assessment

Grassroots/Folk It should be placed in its correct
A good subject matter Not strictly
Philosophy (Quito, place as a promising subject
for Filipino philosophy. philosophical.
Gripaldo & Mabaquiao) matter for philosophical studies.
Lecture on A good training ground Filipinos are getting This form of Filipino philosophy
Scholasticism/Thomism for philosophy. A rich bored with this. Its has a low developmental
(Co & Mabaquiao) starting point for ethics dogmatism is a usefulness.
and metaphysics. hindrance against
61
philosophical
development. Its
untextualized nature is
a hindrance against the
growth of philosophical
corpus.
Its expository nature is
not very
developmentally
Lecture on Other Foreign A useful discourse in This form of Filipino philosophy
promising.
Systems (Co & diluting the hegemony has a low developmental
Its untextualized nature
Mabaquiao) of Scholasticism. usefulness.
is a hindrance against
the growth of
philosophical corpus.
A useful and relevant
This form of Filipino philosophy
discourse in the context
Critical Philosophy as has a high developmental
of a semi-feudal, neo- It thrived more outside
Non-Academic Discourse usefulness. Academic
colonial and the academe.
(Zialcita & Gripaldo) philosophy should try to
bureaucrat-capitalist
mainstream this discourse.
state.
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 geographic
original texts. discourses. center, the University of the
Philippines.
Powerful methods in
philosophizing. Their Based on mostly
has a high developmental
openness for subjective French and German
Phenomenology/ usefulness. This should not
interpretations could original texts that are
Hermeneutics (Abulad) remain confined at its geographic
allow many not accessible to most
center, the Ateneo de Manila
philosophical Filipino scholars.
University.
discourses to flourish.
discourse in the context
of a semi-feudal, neo-
colonial and The declaration of the
usefulness. Filipino
bureaucrat-capitalist Martial Law drastically
Critical Philosophy as an academicians should try to use
state. Powerful method decreased the number
Academic Method this philosophical method. This
in philosophizing. Its of researches that
(Zialcita) can be enriched further by the
openness for subjective utilized critical
discourses of the Frankfurt
interpretations could philosophy.
School and the postmodern
allow many
thinkers.
philosophical
discourses to flourish.
discourse. It creates an This form of Filipino philosophy
occasion for an Very few Filipino has a high developmental
Appropriation of Foreign
intellectual dialogue scholars ventured into usefulness. More Filipino
Theories (Quito &
between foreign this kind of academicians should engage
Gripaldo)
philosophical theories philosophical discourse. themselves with this mode of
and local realities and philosophizing.
situations.
This venture is tied to
the unresolved issue of This form of Filipino philosophy
Filipino national has a high developmental
discourse in the sense
Appropriation of Folk language. There are usefulness. More Filipino
that it would enrich
Philosophy (Quito) still a number of Filipino academicians should engage
philosophy with local
scholars who are not themselves with this mode of
concepts and theories.
comfortable in using the philosophizing.
Filipino language.
Textual Exposition of A good starting point for Its expository nature is This form of Filipino philosophy
62
not very
developmentally
the appropriation of
promising. Most Filipino
foreign theories and for
scholars have access
Foreign Systems breakthrough writing. has a moderate developmental
only to English original
(Gripaldo & Co) An opportunity for usefulness.
texts and have no
contextually discussing
access to the archives
these foreign systems.
of particular
philosophers.
Very few Filipino
This discourse could scholars ventured into
lead to the this kind of
establishment of certain philosophical research.
Breakthrough Writing philosophies that can Most Filipino scholars
(Gripaldo) easily be recognized have access only to
usefulness.
and discussed by the English original texts
international and have no access to
community. the archives of
particular philosophers.
The bulk of Filipino
philosophical
Interpretation of Filipino Many failed to usefulness. Filipino
publications belong to
Worldview (Zialcita, Quito, understand the sense academicians should be guided
this form of philosophy.
Abulad, Gripaldo, Co & and direction of this by Zialcita and Quito’s thoughts
There are many gurus
Mabaquiao) mode of philosophizing. concerning the sense and
in this philosophical
directions of this mode of
discourse.
philosophizing.
This will make
philosophy more
relevant. This will Very few Filipino
Discourse on Local enrich the intellectual scholars ventured into
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 certain Very few Filipino
Discourse on Universal This form of Filipino philosophy
philosophies that can scholars ventured into
and Foreign Themes has a high developmental
easily be recognized this kind of
(Mabaquiao) usefulness.
and discussed by the philosophical research.
international
community.
Table 1: Strengths, Weaknesses and Overall Assessments

of the Fourteen Forms of Filipino Philosophy
To conclude, this paper has established that out of the fourteen forms of Filipino
philosophy:
 One should no longer be referred to as a philosophical discourse,

namely folk/grassroots philosophy;
 Two have low developmental usefulness, namely lectures on

Scholasticism/Thomism, and on other foreign theories;
63
 One has a medium developmental usefulness, namely textual
expositions on foreign systems; and
 Ten have high developmental usefulness, namely the non-academic

critical philosophy, logical analysis, Phenomenology/Hermeneutics, the
academic method of critical philosophy, the appropriation of foreign
theories, the appropriation of folk philosophy, breakthrough writing, the
interpretation of Filipino worldview, discourse on local themes, and
discourse on universal and foreign themes.
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

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
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.
Mabaquiao, Napoleon. “Isang Paglilinaw sa Kahulugan at Kairalan ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Submitted
for Review to Malay Journal.
64
ASSESSING THE DEVELOPMENTAL
POTENTIALS OF SOME TWELVE DISCOURSES
Dr. F.P.A. Demeterio III
Abstract: This paper continues the analysis presented in an earlier

paper of the author entitled “Status and Directions for ‘Filipino
Philosophy’ in Zialcita, Timbreza, Quito, Abulad, Mabaquiao, Gripaldo
and Co,” in which sixteen discourses of Filipino philosophy were
catalogued, namely: Filipino philosophy as 1) grassroots/folk philosophy;
2) lecture on scholasticism/Thomism; 3) lecture on other foreign systems;
4) critical philosophy as non-academic discourse; 5) logical analysis; 6)
phenomenology/existentialism/hermeneutics; 7) critical philosophy as an
academic method; 8) appropriation of foreign theories; 9) appropriation of
65
folk philosophy; 10) philosophizing with the use of the Filipino language;
11) textual exposition of foreign systems; 12) revisionist writing; 13)
interpretation of Filipino worldview; 14) research on Filipino values and
ethics; 15) identification of the presuppositions and implications of the
Filipino worldview; and 16) study on the Filipino philosophical luminaries.
By eliminating the first four discourses due to their non-textual and non-
academic nature, this paper focused on the remaining twelve discourses.
By using a rubric that looked into the twelve discourses “Filipinoness,”
cognitive levels, inherent emotional energies, impacts, and
sustainabilities, this paper identified which among these discourses hold
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.
Keywords: Filipino philosophy, kinds/discourses of Filipino philosophy,

underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy, development of Filipino
philosophy
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.
A more proactive alternative to such a defeatist project is to empower our Filipino

professors of philosophy to heroically philosophize and produce philosophical texts
despite the ten reasons of Quito. Such an alternative should start with a re-examination
of the philosophical discourses that have continued or started to germinate on Philippine
66
soil since Quito’s landmark analysis, with the intention of identifying which of these
discourses hold the greatest developmental potential so that the Filipino professors of
philosophy can have a some more specific parameters where they can invest their
limited time, resources and other capitals. Hence, instead of retrogressing into the past
and blaming unfavorable yet stubborn contexts, we can just take a look at what we have
at present and start shaping the future of Filipino philosophy. Who knows that in the
process of strengthening Filipino philosophy we can contribute something to the
strengthening of the bigger Philippine society and culture that in due time would impact
into the alleviation and even eradication of the ten reasons of Quito?
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:
(1) Grassroots/Folk Philosophy
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/Thomism (Lecture)
Academic
(3) Other Foreign Systems (Lecture)

Filipino
Philosophy
(6) Phenomenology/Existentialism/
(Hermeneutics)
(7) Critical Philosophy

Textualized
Method
(8) Appropriation of Foreign Theories
(9) Appropriation of Folk Philosophy
(10) Philosophizing Using the Filipino

Academic Language
(11) Exposition of Foreign Systems
(12) Revisionist Writing
(13) Interpretation of Filipino Worldview

Content
(14) Research on Filipino Values & Ethics
(15) Identification of the Presuppositions &

Implications of the Filipino Worldview
67
(16) Study on the Filipino Philosophical
Luminaries
First Level Second Level Third Level Fourth Level

Taxonomy Taxonomy Taxonomy Taxonomy
Figure 1: Sixteen Discourses of Filipino Philosophy
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.
Since analyzing each of these twelve discourses of Filipino philosophy

necessarily means talking about their main proponents as well as their representative
texts, there is a need for a strategy in identifying who these main proponents and what
there representative texts are? As the numbers of main proponents and representative
texts are anticipated to be huge, there is a subsequent need for a delimiting strategy. In
68
my paper “Thought and Socio-Politics: an Account of the Late Twentieth Century
Filipino Philosophy” that I wrote more than ten years ago, where I made a diachronic
comparison of the textual productions of Filipino philosophy as academic critical
analysis and Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview, I made
use of Gripaldo’s Filipino Philosophy: a Critical Bibliography, 1774-1997 as my source
of names and titles. Although the book has a supplementary and updated volume,
Filipino Philosophy: a Critical Bibliography, 1998-2002, the whole bibliographic
collection is clearly more than a decade old, and does not contain any information which
among its numerous entries are used and cited by other philosophical writers.
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
69
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
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
Table 1: Leading Filipino Philosophers and Writers/Scholars

of Philosophy, with their Corresponding Institutional Affiliation, and Number
of Works and Total Number of Citations as Recorded in Google Scholar
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.
Filipino Philosophy as the Exposition of Foreign Systems (Cf. number 11 of

figure 1): This came out in the studies of Quito, Abulad, Gripaldo and Co, and it was Co
who vividly narrated that as the Filipino scholars who studied abroad came back, they
gradually introduced the more rigorous practice of philosophical research in
contradistinction to the older cohorts of scholars who merely talked and lectured about
philosophy (Cf. Co, “Doing Philosophy in the Philippines” 55). However, the earliest and
most common form of philosophical research and publication that happened in the
country was limited to the exposition of foreign philosophical systems. In as far as our
leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, 46% of
them produce this kind of Filipino philosophy and the top four producers are Manuel Dy
of Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU), Quito of DLSU, Eduardo Babor of Holy Name
University-Tagbilaran (HNU), and Roque Ferriols of ADMU. As one of the most common
manifestations of Filipino philosophy, it is reasonable to assume that this discourse has
no clear and specific geographic center in the country and is present wherever there are
texts published by Filipino writers/scholars of philosophy.
Filipino Philosophy as the Application of Logical Analysis (Cf. number 5 of

figure 1): This came out in the studies of Quito and Abulad. In an email sent to me by
Mabaquiao, he explained that it was Ricardo Pascual of the University of the
70
Philippines-Diliman (UP-D) who started this manifestation of Filipino Philosophy as he
had been a student of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) during his doctoral studies. In as
far as our leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are
concerned, only Armando Bonifacio and Zosimo Lee, both of UP-D, are recorded to
have practiced this kind of doing philosophy, and they represent only 8% of our
delineated population. Both in terms of reputation and of the affiliation of these two
practitioners, it is safe to assume that this manifestation of Filipino philosophy is
geographically centered at UP-D.
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.
Filipino Philosophy as the Appropriation of Foreign Theories (Cf. number 8

of figure 1): This came out in the studies of Timbreza, Quito, Abulad and Gripaldo, and
it was Gripaldo who made a clear explanation about the nature of this discourse:
“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, “Is there a Filipino Philosophy 5). In as far as our leading Filipino
philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, 85% of them produce
this kind of Filipino philosophy and the top four producers are Benito Reyes of Far
Eastern University (FEU), Leonardo De Castro of UP-D, Abulad of DLSU and University
of San Carlos (USC) and Quito. If Filipino philosophy as the exposition of foreign
systems is thought to be the most common practice of philosophical research and
writing in the country, Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of foreign theories proved
to be the one of the two most common discourses in as far as our delineated population
is concerned. This means that we also cannot point to a clear and specific geographic
center for this form of philosophizing as this is present wherever our leading Filipino
philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are doing philosophy. Nevertheless,
there is tangible concentration of this kind of philosophizing in DLSU and ADMU.
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist Writing (Cf. number 12 of figure 1): This

came out in the studies of Gripaldo. As a result of his dissatisfaction with Filipino
71
philosophy as exposition of foreign systems, he urged his readers to break away from
the shadows of the foreign masters by becoming revisionist experts of foreign
philosophies: “(1) we can innovate (from Kantian to neo-Kantian), (2) we can reject an
old philosophical thought and create a new path to philosophizing, and (3) we can
review old philosophical questions and offer a new insight or philosophical reflection”
(Gripaldo, “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher” 66). It is unfortunate that in as far as
our leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned no
one is recorded to have practiced this kind of philosophizing. This means that our
delineated population could not give us any hint on where the geographic center of this
kind of doing philosophy is located.
Filipino Philosophy as Academic Critical Analysis (Cf. number 7 of figure 1):

This came out in the studies of Zialcita, Timbreza, Quito, Mabaquiao and Gripaldo. This
discourse examines the political and economic structures of the Philippine society and
culture and takes inspiration from the late 19 th century propaganda movement as well as
from the more powerful frameworks based on the thoughts of Karl Marx (1818-1883),
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and Mao Zedong (1893-1976). In as far as our leading
Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, 85% of them
produce this kind of Filipino philosophy and the top four producers are Agustin Martin
Rodriguez of ADMU, Mananzan, Vitaliano Gorospe of ADMU and Lee. As the other
most common discourse in as far as our delineated population is concerned, we also
cannot point to a clear and specific geographic center for this form of philosophizing as
this is present wherever our leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars are doing
philosophy. Nevertheless, there is tangible concentration of this kind of philosophizing
in ADMU and UP-D.
Filipino Philosophy as the Interpretation of the Filipino Worldview (Cf.

number 13 of figure 1): This came out in the studies of Zialcita, Timbreza, Quito,
Abulad, Mabaquiao, Gripaldo and Co. This discourse addresses such questions as
“who is the Filipino” and “what is the Filipino worldview.” 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 (Cf. Zialcita 324). In as far as our leading
Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, 27% of them
produce this kind of Filipino philosophy and the top four producers are Francisco
Demetrio of Xavier University (XU), Leonardo Mercado of the Society of the Divine
Word (SVD), Hornedo and Qutio. The affiliations of the practitioners of this
manifestation of Filipino philosophy do not conclusively point to its definite geographic
center.
Filipino Philosophy as Research on Filipino Ethics and Values (Cf. number

14 of figure 1): This came out in the study of Mabaquiao as he emphasized the
distinction between the interpretation of the Filipino worldview in general and the more
specific study of Filipino ethics and values (Cf. Mabaquiao 1998, 208). The latter
discourse is constructed from an inductive and extractive study of folk sayings and
everyday statements of Filipinos and is geared towards the formalization and
72
explicitation of the otherwise unexplored Filipino moral, ethical and axiological mind
frame. In as far as our leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy
are concerned, 42% of them produce this kind of Filipino philosophy and the top four
producers are Gorospe, Jaime Bulatao of ADMU, Hornedo and Demetrio. The
affiliations of the practitioners of this manifestation of Filipino philosophy suggest that its
geographic center is located at ADMU.
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.
Filipino Philosophy as the Study on the Presuppositions and Implications

of the Filipino Worldview (Cf. number 15 of figure 1): This came out in the studies of
Zialcita & Gripaldo. Again this is a reaction to the widespread objection concerning the
purpose and philosophical nature of Filipino philosophy as interpretation of Filipino
worldview. Hence, Zialcita adviced that beyond the mere interpretation of such
worldview, the Filipino thinkers should look at the implications of the said worldview:
“Sinuri rin niya (pantas) 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). Gripaldo added: “A distinction
must be made between philosophizing by reading/interpreting the spirit of the people or
of the times (and offering solutions to its philosophical problems) from philosophizing by
extracting the philosophical presuppositions of languages, folktales folk sayings, etc.”
(Gripaldo, “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?” 4). It is unfortunate that in as far as our
leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned no one is
recorded to have practiced this kind of philosophizing. This means that our delineated
population could not give us any hint on where the geographic center of this kind of
doing philosophy is located.
Filipino Philosophy as the Study of the Filipino Philosophical Luminaries

(Cf. number 16 of figure 1): This came out in the studies of Timbreza and Gripaldo.
Timbreza acknowledged that there are already pioneering individuals who pushed
further and further the frontiers of Filipino philosophy. Studying their thoughts would
73
constitute a distinct form of Filipino philosophy. In his essay “Mga Tagapaghawan ng
Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino,” he enumerated some of these individuals: Ramon
Reyes of ADMU, Quito, Mercado, Dy and Abulad of DLSU (Cf. Timbreza, “Mga
Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino” 24-33). In as far as our leading
Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy are concerned, only 23% of
them produce this kind of Filipino philosophy and the top two producers are Gripaldo
and Pascual. The affiliations of the practitioners of this manifestation of Filipino
philosophy do not conclusively point to its definite geographic center.
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Language (Cf. number 10 of figure 1):

Mabaquiao explained that the use of Filipino language in philosophizing is not just about
the option of selecting one linguistic medium over another, for more so it is a methodic
strategy that could develop Filipino philosophy. He wrote: “May kinalaman sa relasyon
ng wika at ng ng identidad ang kamalayan. Sinasabi na malaki ang nagagawa ng wika
sa paghubog ng identidad ng isang kamalayan, dahil nakapalook sa wika ang isang
mundo ng tradisyon, o kaya ay ang wika ay isang depositoryo ng kultura” (Mabaquiao
1998, 210). In as far as our leading Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of
philosophy are concerned, Timbreza, Ibana, Ferriols and Bonifacio are recorded to have
practiced this kind of doing philosophy, and they represent only 15% of our delineated
population. The affiliations of the practitioners of this manifestation of Filipino
philosophy do not conclusively point to its definite geographic center.
RUBRICS OF ASSESSMENT
In the absence of an established measuring instrument that can evaluate the

development potentials of each of these twelve philosophical discourses, we are left
without a choice but to construct our own rubrics of assessment. Such rubrics shall
explore five aspects of the said philosophical discourses, namely: 1) their “Filipinoness,”
2) their cognitive levels, 3) their inherent emotional energies, 4) their impacts, and 5)
their sustainabilities. The following paragraphs will briefly explain each of these five
crucial aspects. Each aspect, including their underlying components, shall be rated
either “high” (with numeric equivalent of 3), or “medium” (with numeric equivalent of 2),
or “low” (with numeric equivalent of 1).
“Filipinoness” of the Discourse: The “Filipinoness” of a philosophical

discourse may be ascertained by first breaking such a discourse into its components,
the most significant of which are: 1) the question or the problem that started such
discourse, which roughly corresponds to the Aristotelian final cause; 2) the textual input
or the data that constitute such discourse, which roughly corresponds to the Aristotelian
material cause; 3) the cognitive process involved in building such discourse, which may
be further broken into the theories and concepts used, roughly corresponding to the
Aristotelian formal cause, and the agent who is undertaking the cognitive process,
roughly corresponding to the Aristotelian efficient cause. These components are
represented in the following figure:
Question/
Problem Cognitive Process
Textual Output
74 (Method)
Theory & Concepts
(Discourse)
Agent
Textual Input
(Data)
Figure 2: Components of a Philosophical Discourse
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).
Cognitive Level of the Discourse: The cognitive level involved in the

construction of a given philosophical discourse is a significant aspect to be examined in
this paper in the sense that our twelve discourses of Filipino philosophy are based on
different cognitive levels and some of them are even questioned whether they are
philosophical at all. In determining the cognitive levels of these discourses we have to
depend on Benjamin Bloom’s (1913-1999) learning taxonomy in the cognitive domain
which was developed in 1956, and revised by his student Lorin Anderson in 2001 to
make it more attuned to the concerns of the twenty-first century. The cognitive levels, in
the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, from lowest to highest are: 1) remembering, 2)
understanding, 3) applying, 4) analyzing, 5) evaluating, and 6) creating. In order to fit
this taxonomy into our three-point scoring the highest level (creating) shall be assigned
with the numeric value of 3, while the lowest level shall be pegged at understanding
which shall be assigned with the numeric value of 1. In this manner the levels of the
revised taxonomy shall have the following numeric values: understanding, 1.00;
applying, 1.50; analyzing, 2.00; evaluating, 2.50; and creating, 3.00.
Inherent Emotional Energy of the Discourse: The inherent emotional energy

of a discourse is a significant aspect to be examined in this paper in the sense that this
is what will drive the Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy to produce
texts despite the unfavorable reasons mentioned by Quito. In this paper, this complex
category that is the inherent emotional energy of a discourse may be unbundled into
three elements: 1) the clarity of the philosophical problem, 2) the relevance of the
discourse, and 3) the presence of a community of writers and scholars that can
collectively energize and sustain the passion and willpower of the individual members to
philosophize.
In the first rubric, we have already identified the philosophical question or

problem as the equivalent of the Aristotelian final cause, but we have only touched this
in the context of its being Filipino or foreign. In this third rubric, this question or problem
shall be analyzed in terms of its clarity, because clear philosophical questions can
certainly unsettle potentially productive minds and goad them into philosophizing.
Discourses with underlying philosophical questions or problems that are unclear or non-
75
existent shall be rated “low” (with numeric equivalent of 1.00), while those with clear and
crisp questions or problems shall be rated “high” (with numeric equivalent of 3.00), while
those with intermediary clarity shall be rated “medium” (with numeric equivalent of 2.00).
Another powerful emotional motivation that will drive potential minds to

philosophize is the relevance of the topic at hand. Writing philosophical texts for the
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:
76
Collegial
Bond
Rivalrous Bond
Percentage of
Practitioners
Practitioners
Discourse of Filipino Master-Student Bond
Geographic
(Number)
Philosophy (Number)
(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
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, Quito-Timbreza, Quito- 42% ADMU None (0)
Demetrio, Dy, Gorospe, Hornedo, Ramon Reyes- (1)
Research on Filipino
Ethics and Values Hornedo, Mananzan, Dy, & Ramon Reyes-
77
Palma-Angeles, Quito,
Ramon Reyes & Palma-Angeles (4)
Timbreza (11) (42%)
None
Appropriation of Folk Miranda (1) (4%) None (0) 4% (0)
None (0)
Spirit
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%)
Table 2: Twelve Discourses of Filipino Philosophy

and their Correponding Practitioners, Master-Student Bonds,
Collegial Bonds, and Rivalrous Bonds
The column on practitioners is based on the information taken from Appendix A.

The column on master-student bond is filled up by identifying the pairs of teachers and
their corresponding students from the data provided by the column on practitioners. In
order to convert values of the number of master-student bonds to our three-point
scoring system, its highest figure of 16 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 3.00,
while its middle figure of 8 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 2.00, and its
lowest figure of 0 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 1.00. The column on
collegial bond is a composite of the column on percentage of practitioners, which is
again based on the column on practitioners, and the column on the presence of a
geographic center, which is based on the descriptions of the twelve discourses found in
the introductory section of this paper. In order to convert values of the percentage of
practitioners to our three-point scoring system, its highest figure of 85% shall be
assigned with the numeric value of 3.00, while its middle figure of 42.5% shall be
assigned with the numeric value of 2.00, and its lowest figure of 0 shall be assigned with
the numeric value of 1.00. In order to convert values of the presence of a geographic
center to our scoring, its highest figure of 2 shall be assigned with the numeric value of
3.00, while its middle figure of 1 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 2.00, and
its lowest figure of 0 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 1.00. Lastly, the
column on rivalrous bond is is filled up by identifying the rivalrous pairs from the data
provided by the column on practitioners. In order to convert values of the presence of
rivalrous bond to our scoring, its highest figure of 1 shall be assigned with the numeric
value of 3.00, while its lowest figure of 0 shall be assigned with the numeric value of
1.00.
Impact of the Discourse: The impact of a discourse pertains to its reception by

the general public. There are three crucial numbers that are monitored in figuring out
78
such impact. The first one is the total number of works that are recorded for a given
discourse, as this would reveal the potential spread of a given discourse based on the
rather simplistic thought that the more works there are the greater the possibility of
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
52 58 1.12
Exposition of Foreign Systems
4 4 1.00
Application of Logical Analysis
Application of Phenomenology and 3 14 4.67
Hermeneutics
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
Interpretation of the Filipino 43 273 6.35
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research
37 317 8.57
on Filipino Ethics and Values
79
2 6 3.00
Appropriation of Folk Spirit
Filipino Philosophy as the Study
on the Presuppositions and
0 0 0.00
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
Table 3: Twelve Discourses of Filipino Philosophy and their Corresponding

Total Number of Works, Total Number of Citations,
and Average Number of Citations per Work
In order to convert values of the number of works to our three-point scoring

system, its highest figure of 96 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 3.00, while
its middle figure of 48 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 2.00, and its lowest
figure of 0 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 1.00. Similarly, in order to convert
the values of the total number of citations to our three-point scoring system, its highest
figure of 317 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 3.00, while its middle figure of
158.5 shall be assigned with the numeric value of 2.00, and while its lowest figure of 0
shall be assigned with the numeric value of 1.00. Lastly, in order to convert the values
of the average number of citations per work, its highest figure of 8.57 shall be assigned
with the numeric value of 3.00, while its middle figure of 4.29 shall be assigned with the
numeric value of 2.00, while its lowest figure of 0 shall be assigned with the numeric
value of 1.00.
Sustainability of the Discourse: A discourse’s sustainability pertains to its

ability to continue in its current mode of textual production without showing signs of
stress and fatigue brought about by overproduction. In the qualitative analysis of this
aspect, the possible pathways of reinvention shall also be examined.
ANALYSES ON THE TWELVE DISCOURSES
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:
 The “Filipinoness” of the Discourse

 Question/Problem
 Textual Input
 Cognitive Process
o Theories and Concepts
o Agent
 The Cognitive Level of the Discourse
80
 The Inherent Emotional Energy of the Discourse
 Clarity of the Philosophical Question/Problem
 Relevance of the Discourse
 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
In this section, instead of individually examining each of the twelve discourses,

generating in the process twelve sub-sections, it would be simpler and less tedious to
simultaneously examine all of the twelve discourses per aspect, as this would only
generate five sub-sections, namely: 1) On the “Filipinoness” of the Discourses, 2) On
the Cognitive Levels of the Discourses, 3) On the Inherent Emotional Energies of the
Discourses, 4) On the Impact of the Discourses, and 5) On the Sustainability of the
Discourses.
On the “Filipinoness” of the Discourses
As already mentioned, the aspect of the “Filipinoness” of a given discourse is

unbundled into analyses concerning the “Filipinoness” of its philosophical question or
problem, textual input, theories and concepts, and agent. The following table details the
results of our examination of the “Filipinoness” of the twelve aforementioned discourses:
Assessment on
“Filipinoness”*
Textual Input
Theories and
Discourse of Filipino
Question/
Concepts
Philosophy
Problem
Overall
Agent
Filipino Philosophy as the Low Low Low High Low

Exposition of Foreign Systems (1) (1) (1) (3) (1.50)
Filipino Philosophy as the High High Low High High
Application of Logical Analysis (3) (3) (1) (3) (2.50)
High High Low High High
Application of Phenomenology (3) (3) (1) (3) (2.50)
and Hermeneutics
Filipino Philosophy as the High High Low High High
Appropriation of Foreign Theories (3) (3) (1) (3) (2.50)
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist Medium Medium Low High Medium
Writing (2) (2) (1) (3) (2.00)
81
Filipino Philosophy as Academic High High Low High High
Critical Analysis (3) (3) (1) (3) (2.50)
High High Medium High High
Interpretation of the Filipino (3) (3) (2) (3) (2.75)
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)
on the Presuppositions and High High High High High
Implications of the Filipino (3) (3) (3) (3) (3.00)
Worldview
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.
Table 4: Analyses on the “Filipinoness” of the Questions/Problems,

Textual Inputs, Theories and Concepts, and Agents
of the Twelve Discourses of Filipino Philosophy
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
82
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.
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).
On the Cognitive Levels of the Discourses
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
Filipino Philosophy as the Low

Understanding
Exposition of Foreign Systems (1.00)
Filipino Philosophy as the Medium
Applying & Analyzing
Application of Logical Analysis (2.00)
Medium
Application of Phenomenology and Applying & Analyzing
(2.00)
Hermeneutics
Filipino Philosophy as the High
Analyzing & Evaluating
Appropriation of Foreign Theories (2.50)
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist High
Evaluating & Creating
Writing (3.00)
Filipino Philosophy as Academic High
Analyzing & Evaluating
Critical Analysis (2.50)
Medium
Interpretation of the Filipino Analyzing
(2.00)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research on Medium
Analyzing
Filipino Ethics and Values (2.00)
Filipino Philosophy as the High
Evaluating & Creating
Appropriation of Folk Spirit (3.00)
Filipino Philosophy as the Study on Evaluating & Creating High
the Presuppositions and (3.00)
83
Worldview
Low
the Filipino Philosophical Understanding
(1.00)
Luminaries
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Undeter-
Undeterminable minable
Language
Table 5: Analyses on the Cognitive Levels

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).
On the Inherent Emotional Energies of the Discourses
As already mentioned, the aspect of the inherent emotional energy of a given

discourse is unbundled into analyses concerning the clarity of its philosophical question
or problem, its relevance as a discourse, and the presence of its own community of
philosophers and writers/scholars. It was also already mentioned that the presence of a
discourse’s own community of philosophers and writers/scholars is further unbundled
into the presence of master-student vertical bonds, collegial horizontal bonds, and
rivalrous horizontal bonds. The following table details the results of our examination on
the inherent emotional energies of the aforementioned twelve discourses:
Discourse of Filipino Presence of a Community of

ve
ra
el
O
R
Philosophy Philosophers and Writers/Scholars
84
Presence of
Collegial
Presence of Rivalrous
Clarity of the Problem
Horizontal Bonds
Presence of Master-
Inherent Emotional
Horizontal Bonds
ll Assessment on
Student Bonds
Percentage of
evance of the
Practitioners
Geographic
Discourse
Energy*
Center
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)
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)
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)
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
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
Table 6: Analyses on the Inherent Emotional Energies

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
85
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
(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.
The composite column for the presence of a community of philosophers and

writers/scholars is entirely based on table 2, entitled “Twelve Discourses of Filipino
Philosophy and their Correponding Practitioners, Master-Student Bonds, Collegial
Bonds, and Rivalrous Bonds,” the values of which were converted to our three-point
scoring system following the procedures mentioned in the section “Rubrics of
Assessment.”
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).
On the Impact of the Discourses
As already mentioned, the aspect of the impact of a given discourse shall be

unbundled into analyses of its number of works recorded in Google Scholar, its total
number of citations, and its average number of citations per work. Using the systems of
conversion in the section “Rubrics of Assessment” the figures from table 3, entitled
“Twelve Discourses of Filipino Philosophy and their Corresponding Total Number of
Works, Total Number of Citations, and Average Number of Citations per Work,” are
processed in the following table:
Average Citations
Average Citations
Number of Works
Number of Works
Assessment on
Assessment on
Assessment on
Assessment on
Number of
Number of
Discourse of Filipino Philosophy

per Work
per Work
Citations
Citations
Impact*
Overall
Filipino Philosophy as the Medium Low Low Low

52 58 1.12 (2.08) (1.37) (1.26) (1.57)
Exposition of Foreign Systems
86
Filipino Philosophy as the Low Low Low Low
4 4 1.00 (1.08) (1.03) (1.23) (1.11)
Application of Logical Analysis
Low Low Medium Low
Application of Phenomenology and 3 14 4.67 (1.06) (1.09) (2.09) (1.41)
Hermeneutics
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
Medium High High High
Interpretation of the Filipino 43 273 6.35 (1.90) (2.72) (2.48) (2.37)
Worldview
Filipino Philosophy as Research on Medium High High High
37 317 8.57 (1.77) (3.00) (3.00) (2.59)
Filipino Ethics and Values
Filipino Philosophy as the Low Low Medium Low
2 6 3.00 (1.04) (1.04) (1.70) (1.26)
Appropriation of Folk Spirit
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)
Worldview
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
Table 7: Analyses on the Impact of the

Twelve Discourses of Filipino Philosophy
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.
On the Sustainability of the Discourses
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.
Filipino Philosophy as the Exposition of Foreign Systems: In its current

state, this manifestation of Filipino philosophy, although the most common, is being
more and more looked down upon, for its generalist scope and tendency to repeat what
other foreign commentators have already written about specific foreign thinkers. One
viable option for this discourse is to adapt the use of the Filipino language and help in
87
the Filipinization of philosophy and in the process merge with the discourse of Filipino
philosophy in the Filipino language. Another possible option for this manifestation of
Filipino philosophy is to adapt the more rigorous exegetical and hermeneutical methods
practiced in the west for their specialized expositions of particular thinkers. But this
second option, of course, will require substantial research grants for travels to foreign
libraries and archives and expertise in foreign languages. As it is, Filipino philosophy as
the exposition of foreign systems has low sustainability.
Filipino Philosophy as the Application of Logical Analysis: This

manifestation of Filipino philosophy has high sustainability. It can contribute to the
Filipinization of philosophy by applying its time-tested methodologies in the clarification
of local concepts and phenomena. This discourse should not remain bound to its
present geographic center at UP-D.
Filipino Philosophy as the Application of Phenomenology and

Hermeneutics: Just like Filipino philosophy as the application of logical analysis,
Filipino philosophy as the application of phenomenology and hermeneutics also has
high sustainability. Similarly, it can contribute to the Filipinization of philosophy by
applying its time-tested methodologies in the interpretation of local concepts and
phenomena. Its edge over Filipino philosophy as the application of logical analysis, is
that there are more specialists in cultural studies, humanities, and even qualitative
social sciences who are at home with the use of phenomenology and hermeneutics.
Filipino philosophy as the application of phenomenology and hermeneutics can also
dovetail rather easily with the more current methodologies spawned by postmodernism
and post-structuralism.
Filipino Philosophy as the Appropriation of Foreign Theories: In many ways

Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of foreign theories is very similar to Filipino
philosophy as the application of logical analysis as well as to Filipino philosophy as the
application of phenomenology and hermeneutics. This discourse also has high
sustainability, especially in the sense that its parameters is much wider compared the
more specific parameters of the two other aforementioned discourses.
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist Writing: The sustainability, or to be more

blunt the possibility, of this discourse is dependent on the Filipino writers/scholars full
mastery of some foreign theories, as innovation can only logically happen after a clear
grasp on the nature and imperfections of such foreign theories. This means that Filipino
writers/scholars who may be interested with this discourse has to undergo the tedious,
and expensive, process of exegetical and hermeneutical studies of some foreign
philosophical systems. For this reason, Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing has low
sustainability.
Filipino Philosophy as Academic Critical Analysis: In many ways, Filipino

philosophy as academic critical analysis is also very similar to Filipino philosophy as the
application of logical analysis, to Filipino philosophy as the application of
phenomenology and hermeneutics, and even to Filipino philosophy as the appropriation
88
of foreign theories. But it is closest to Filipino philosophy as the application of
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.
Filipino Philosophy as the Interpretation of the Filipino Worldview: Both

Abulad and Co had already detected signs of overproduction stress and fatigue in this
discourse (Cf. Abulad, “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy” 60; & Co, “Doing Philosophy
in the Philippines” 60), and Co questioned the philosophical nature of this discourse and
even voiced out the alternative that this should better be relegated to the more
systematic hands of the sociologists and anthropologists (Cf. Co, “Doing Philosophy in
the Philippines” __). This discourse can only maintain its philosophical standing if this
will transition to Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of the folk spirit, as suggested
by Quito (Cf. Quito 10), or to Filipino philosophy as the as the study on the
presuppositions and implications of the Filipino worldview, as suggested by Zialcita and
Gripaldo (Cf. Zialcita 324; & Gripaldo, “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?” 4). As it is,
Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview has low sustainability.
Filipino Philosophy as Research on Filipino Ethics and Values: This

discourse is very similar to Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino
worldview. Logically, it should have the same sustainability rating as its related
discourse, if not for the fact that Filipino philosophy as research on Filipino ethics and
values is not as exhaustively explored as its related discourse. For this consideration,
this discourse has medium sustainability.
Filipino Philosophy as the Appropriation of Folk Spirit: This manifestation of

Filipino philosophy has high sustainability. It is still insufficiently explored by the leading
Filipino philosophers and writers/scholars of philosophy. More importantly, it stands as
one of the logical goals of Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino
worldview.
Filipino Philosophy as the Study on the Presuppositions and Implications

of the Filipino Worldview: This manifestation of Filipino philosophy has high
sustainability. Like Filipino philosophy as the appropriation of the folk spirit, this
discourse is also still insufficiently explored and stands as the one of the logical goals of
Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview.
Filipino Philosophy as the Study of the Filipino Philosophical Luminaries:

This discourse is the local counterpart of Filipino philosophy as the exposition of foreign
theories. Logically, it should have the same sustainability rating as its related discourse,
if not for at least three facts. First, this discourse is still insufficiently explored, and as
Filipinos we have the responsibility in leading the study and teaching of the thoughts of
89
our own philosophical luminaries. Second, this discourse is necessary for the
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.
Filipino Philosophy in the Filipino Language: In theory, this manifestation of

Filipino philosophy is supposed to be a methodic strategy to connect philosophy more
closely to Filipino consciousness and realities. In practice, however, this discourse
turned out to be a motley of other discourses that happened to be expressed in the
Filipino language. Nevertheless, since philosophizing in the Filipino language is a
marginalized discourse and holds much potential in the Filipinization of philosophy, this
discourse has high sustainability.
In this sub-section, therefore, we have established that the discourses of Filipino

philosophy have high sustainability, except: Filipino philosophy as the exposition of
foreign theories (rated “low”); Filipino philosophy as revisionist writing (rated “low);
Filipino philosophy as the interpretation of the Filipino worldview (rated “low”); and
Filipino philosophy as research on Filipino ethics and values (rated “medium”).
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 of Filipino Overall

Discourse
Discourse
Philosophy Assessment*
Filipino Philosophy as the Low Low Low Low Low Low

Exposition of Foreign Systems (1.50) (1.00) (1.14) (1.57) (1.00) (1.24)
Filipino Philosophy as the High Medium High Low High Medium
Application of Logical Analysis (2.50) (2.00) (2.41) (1.11) (3.00) (2.20)
High Medium Medium Low High Medium
Application of Phenomenology (2.50) (2.00) (2.35) (1.41) (3.00) (2.25)
and Hermeneutics
Filipino Philosophy as the High High High Medium High High
Appropriation of Foreign Theories (2.50) (2.50) (2.78) (1.94) (3.00) (2.54)
Filipino Philosophy as Revisionist Medium High Medium Low Low Medium
Writing (2.00) (3.00) (2.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.80)
Filipino Philosophy as Academic High High High Medium High High
(2.50) (2.50) (2.72) (2.33) (3.00) (2.61)
90
Critical Analysis
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)
on the Presuppositions and High High Medium Low High High
Developmental Potentials of the Twelve Discourses

Implications of the Filipino (3.00) (3.00) (2.00) (1.00) (3.00) (2.40)
Worldview
Figure 3: Overall Assessments on the

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 Filipino Low High
Undeter- Undeter- Undeter-
Undeterminable
Language minable minable minable (1.21) (3.00)
Table 8: Overall Assessments on the

Developmental Potentials of the Twelve Discourses
The values from this table are visually and comparatively shown in the following figure:
Sustainability of the Discourse

Impact of the Discourse
Overall Average
Inherent Emotional Energy of the Discourse
Philosophy in the
Cognitive Level of the Discourse
“Filipinoness” of the Discourse
Filipino Language
Study on the Filipino

Philosophical
Luminaries
Study on the
Presuppositions and
Implications of the
Filipino Worldview
Legend:
Appropriation of Folk
Spirit
91
Research on Filipino
Ethics and Values
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
92
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.
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
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.
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.
93
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling Wika: mga Problema at Solusyon.” Sariling Wika at
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.
THOMISM AND FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

IN THE NOVELS OF JOSE RIZAL: RETHINKING
THE TRAJECTORY OF FILIPINO THOMISM
Prof. Dr. F.P.A. Demeterio III
He (Thomas Aquinas) was the world’s flower and glory, and has rendered superfluous
the writings of Doctors who shall come after him.
-Attributed to Albert of Cologne.
“It’s hopeless,” he (Nicholas of Morimondo) went on. “We no longer have

the learning of the ancients, the age of giants is past!”. . . “We are
dwarfs,” William (ofBaskerville) admitted, “but dwarfs who stand on the
94
shoulders of those giants, and small though we are, we sometimes
manage to see farther on the horizon than they.”
-Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose.
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.
13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st

Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century
Leo XIII’s Contemporary
Reformation Scientific Revival Neo-Thomism
Revolution
Renaissance French Post-
Revolution modernity
European Thomism Influx of

‘Western
Theories
Leo XIII’s Post-

Revival modernity
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
95
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
According to Fernando Nakpil-Zialcita, in his essay “Mga Anyo Pilosopiyang Pilipino,”

critical Filipino philosophy emerged during the propaganda movement. Rizal’s novels,
as pioneering works of this second variant of Filipino philosophy, offer a very interesting
perspective in critiquing Filipino Thomism after it’s almost three centuries of existence.
The second thing that this paper will do is to stretch Rizal’s analysis of Filipino Thomism
for another century, into the late 20th century, with the assistance of the analytic lens
96
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.
IMAGES AND FIGURES OF PHILOSOPHERS

IN THE TWO NOVELS
The novel Noli me Tangere, written in Spanish and published in Berlin in 1887, is
a narrative about a young Filipino intellectual, Crisostomo Ibarra, who has just returned
from his studies in Spain to marry his childhood sweetheart Maria Clara de los Santos
and settle in the country. But just a short while after his arrival, Ibarra discovers the
story behind his father’s death in prison, how the old man was framed up and
abandoned by his friends. Instead of avenging the fate of his father, Ibarra decides to
transcend all hatred and devote his time and wealth instead to the service of the country
by initially establishing a school. But after hearing how the powerful Padre Damaso
Verdolagas insulted the name of his father, Ibarra’s repressed passions erupt and he
almost murders the Friar. The event complicates his engagement with Maria Clara, as
she turns out to be the illegitimate daughter Padre Damaso. To prevent the marriage,
the friar and his ilk frame up Ibarra by implicating him in a puny rebellion. Maria Clara
begs the friar to allow her to become a nun rather than marry a Spaniard whom the
latter has already selected. From captivity, Ibarra escapes through the help of the
mysterious boatman, Elias, who literally takes the Spanish bullets on the former’s
behalf.
The novel El Filibusterismo, written in Spanish and published in Ghent in 1891, is

a sequel to the first novel. Ibarra, after enriching himself in the Spanish Americas and
in the Spanish capital for ten years, returns to the country, disguised as a wealthy
jeweler, Simoun. The former liberal and peace-loving Ibarra has now transformed into a
radical and bitter Simoun, whose heart is consumed with vengeance, desire for
revolution, and passion to rescue Maria Clara from cloisters of the nunnery. Through
double-dealing, Simoun encourages the Spanish authorities to intensify their abuses on
one hand, and incites the Filipinos to rebellion on the other hand. At the eve of his
organized revolution, Simoun learns of Maria Clara’s death, looses heart and allows the
intended uprising to fizzle out. After learning of the personal transformation of a former
town mate, Basilio, from a self centered liberal into a nationalist radical, Simoun
organizes another uprising. But his second try bungles again. Wounded and hounded
by the Spanish authorities, Simoun seeks refuge in the hut of a native priest, Padre
Florentino. After poisoning himself, Simoun reveals his life to the baffled priest.
97
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.
98
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.
Don Anastacio, or Filosofo Tasio, is an Indio who was schooled to become a

priest, but was pressured by his rich mother to get married instead and abandon his
aspirations for higher studies, as she was convinced that knowledge would only make a
person a heretic, if not an atheist. But after the death of his mother and wife, Tasio
pursued his love for studies independently from the university. Though trained in the
theoretical master-narrative of scholasticism, Tasio broadens his horizon by speculating
in the spheres of the both the theoretical and the praxiological criticism of society,
politics and culture. His philosophical method is a combination of both keen analysis
and the study of classics. In his discourse on the concept of purgatory, for example,
Tasio cites such texts and thinkers as the holy bible, Dante, St. Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, St. Ireneus, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory the Great. His agenda is the
propagation of secular humanism, and his political ideology is liberal. From the point of
view of Gramsci’s typology, Tasio would turn out to be an anomaly, for devoid of an
institution to prop him up or an audience to work with, he is neither a traditional
intellectual nor an organic intellectual. The people misunderstood him and branded him
as insane. Tasio comforts himself with the thought that in the future some people would
find enlightenment and inspiration from his writings which he conceals through the use
of ciphers and hieroglyphs. Rizal makes him say: “I do not write for this generation; I
write for other ages. If the present age could read me, it would burn my books, the work
of a lifetime” (Noli me Tangere, p. 184).
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.
99
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:
Master- Philosophical Philosophical Political Gramscian

Figure/Image Race
Narrative Approach Agenda Ideology Typology
Metaphysics
Dominican Logic Religious Traditional
Ethics Conservative Spanish
Thomists Rhetoric Humanism Intellectual
(Theoretical)
Socio-Politico-
Socio-Politico- Organic
Crisostomo Cultural Good
Cultural Liberal Intellectual to Mestizo
Ibarra Criticism Governance
Analysis the Elite Class
(Praxiological)
Socio-Politico- Socio-Politico-
Cultural Cultural Neither
Don Secular
Criticism Analysis and the Liberal Traditional Nor Indio
Anastacio Humanism
(Theoretical & Study of Organic
Praxiological) Classics
Socio-Politico- Organic
Socio-Politico- Liberation from
Cultural Intellectual to
Elias Criticism
Cultural Spanish Radical
the Lower
Indio
Analysis Domination
(Praxiological) Classes
Socio-Politico-
Socio-Politico- Liberation from Organic
Cultural
Simoun Criticism
Cultural Spanish Radical Intellectual to Mestizo
Analysis Domination the Elite Class
(Praxiological)
Metaphysics Socio-Politico-
Padre Religious Traditional
Ethics Cultural Liberal Indio
Florentino Humanism Intellectual
(Theoretical) Analysis
100
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
101
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.
Dominican Thomists Don Anastacio

Socio-Politico-Cultural
Master- Metaphysics Ethics
Criticism (Theoretical &
Narrative (Theoretical)
Praxiological)
Socio-Politico-Cultural
Philosophical Logic
Analysis and the Study of
Approach Rhetoric
Classics
Philosophical
Religious Humanism Secular Humanism
Agenda
Political
Conservative Liberal
Ideology
Gramscian Neither Traditional Nor
Traditional Intellectual
Typology Organic
Race Spanish Indio
Structurally speaking, Filosofo Tasio is the counter-image of the Dominican Thomists.

With regard to their philosophical debate, on one side, Filosofo Tasio describes Filipino
102
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
Filosofo Tasio that mixes theory and praxis and transcends class boundaries. But the
103
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.
RIZAL’S CRITIQUE OF FILIPINO THOMISM
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
104
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.
105
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
106
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.
107
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%
1965-1968 1969-1972 1973-1976 1977-1980 1981-1984 1985-1988 1989-1992
Legend: Critical Logical Positivist/Linguistics Scholastic

Existential/Continental Oriental Filipino Worldview
24
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. My essay “Thought and Socio-Politics’” time frame of
1965 to 1992, delimited the entries down to 3,202 works. A closer look at the listing, however, would
reveal a wider spectrum of works that spreads over the Philippine social sciences, humanities and
language. These works were then trimmed off from the list. The list was further delimited by trimming
off those authors who published less than five times, to eliminate those isolated publications by isolated
individuals. Finally, a streamlined list of 928 entries came out. 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.
108
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).
Due to the immensity of Thomas Aquinas’ intellectual accomplishment that is reputed as

one of the few great peaks in the history of philosophy, those who are under his shadow
are left with barely two choices: either to humbly follow him, or to totally deviate from
him and tread on an entirely different direction. From Quito’s perspective, the Filipino
Thomism’s option to bask under his shadow has doomed it to repeat “with more or less
109
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.
Abulad his essay “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy,” narrates:
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 RIZAL’S Thomism’s CRITIQUE 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
Filipino Thomism’s Over-Reliance on
and commentaries on Thomas Aquinas, instead
Hair-Splitting of emphasizing the study of the latter’s
Rhetoric and Perverted
Use of Language
texts. This method pulled Filipino Thomism away from the spirit, thought and style of its
Filipino Thomism’s Implication in the
great master. Process of Colonization
THE PROBLEMS OF FILIPINO THOMISM Filipino Thomism’s

Failure to Engage
with Relevant
The internal conditions that explain the ironic situation that Filipino Thomism
Problems
retains the status of being the most significant variant of Filipino philosophy in terms of
Filipino Thomism’s
Arrogant Closed
the number of adherents without producing the most significant number of philosophical
Mindedness
output are summed upFailure
in the following Venn diagram.
to Process
the Negative Impact
of the Greatness of Filipino Thomism’s
Thomas Aquinas Over-Reliance on
Manualism
Subservience to
Catholic Theology
110
QUITO’S CRITIQUE ABULAD’S CRITIQUE

Rizal, Quito and Abulad are one in critiquing the Filipino Thomism’s arrogant closed-
mindedness. Rizal and Abulad both critique the Filipino Thomism’s failure to engage
with relevant problems. Rizal has two exclusive critiques of his own: first, against the
Filipino Thomism’s over-reliance on hair-splitting rhetoric and perverted use of
language; and second, against the Filipino Thomism’s implication in the process of
colonization. Quito has two exclusive critiques of her own: first against the Filipino
Thomism’s failure to process the negative impact of the greatness of Thomas Aquinas;
and second, against the Filipino Thomism’s subservience to catholic theology. Lastly,
Abulad has a single critique of his own: the Filipino Thomism’s over-reliance on
manualism.
GOING BACK TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL

ETHOS OF THOMAS AQUINAS
With Rizal, Quito and Abulad’s harrowing diagnoses of the internal troubles of
Filipino Thomism, what factor can possibly rehabilitate this tottering variant of Filipino
Philosophy? Following one of the metaphors of the German philosopher Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976), Filipino Thomism may be pictured as something that is falling
away from its own self. And just as Heidegger resorted once to the wisdom uttered by
the mad German lyric poet Friedrich Holderlin (1770-1843), “where danger lies at its
greatest, there springs the deliverer,” we follow him again in seeking deliverance by
going back to the uncorrupted source of this philosophical movement, Thomas Aquinas
himself. The teachings and the way of doing philosophy of the great master, could be
the only salvation for Filipino Thomism.
111
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).
112
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.
The Filipino Thomism’s reliance on hair-splitting rhetoric and perverted use of

language has already mellowed down by the spread of the more egalitarian English and
Filipino languages in philosophizing. Yet Filipino Thomism could benefit from the study
of the masterful simplicity of Thomas Aquinas’ expression, synthesis, organization,
consensus building. The great master is never known for embellishing inferior
thoughts with florid rhetoric, nor for using language to exclude, threaten or intimidate
others. The moral and social philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in his 1988 Gifford
Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, on the contrary explains “that Aquinas’
approach. . . provide a stand point that is coherent, comprehensive, and resourceful in
its ability to deal critically and creatively with opposing views” (Cessario).
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).
The Filipino Thomism’s subservience to Catholic theology may be addressed by

recalling two historical facts. First, that Thomas Aquinas’ peculiar positioning within the
master-narrative of metaphysics and theology, which in return is within the catholic
dogmatism is a result of his being first and foremost a catholic theologian. Thus, a
philosopher who opts to follow Thomas Aquinas may not necessarily follow the great
master’s peculiar positioning.
Catholic
Dogmatism
Aristotle’s Pagan & Thomas

Secular Metaphysics Aquinas
Metaphysical
& Theological
Master-Narrative
113
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)
2) Alternative Point of Catholic

Filipino Thomism
Thomism (Inside Catholic Dogmatism but
Outside the Metaphysical and
Theological Master-Narrative)
Metaphysical
& Theological
Master-Narrative 3) Alternative Point of Catholic
Thomism
(Inside the Metaphysical and
Theological Master-Narrative)
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.
The Filipino Thomism’s over-reliance on textbooks, manuals and commentaries

on Thomas Aquinas, instead of emphasizing the study of the latter’s texts should take
inspiration from the great master’s meticulous approach to primary documents, which is
even characterized by his preference for the best available translation of foreign texts.
If Filipino Thomism’s manualism is borne out of our intellectual lethargy, the more we
should take inspiration from the great master’s dedication to the intellectual task of
philosophizing. Thomas Aquinas starts his day very early with two masses, then goes
to his lectures, then moves on to his studies, writings and dictations. After taking his
meals, he prays while the other friars are taking their siesta, then goes back to his
studies, writings and dictations, and then ends his very long day with prayer. Maritain
tells us:
114
The Master worked incessantly, manifesting a tremendous power of understanding, and
a tenacious and calm activity (witnesses report that he not only dictated to three or even
four secretaries at a time on different subjects, but also managed when he lay down to
rest in the midst of the dictation to continue to dictate while sleeping). He spent himself
without counting the cost; he knew well that while contemplation is beyond time, action,
which takes place in time out to move with the speed and do violence to the malice of the
moment (Maritain).
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.
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
115
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
Abulad, Romualdo. “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy.” In Karunungan/Sophia, Vol 5 (1988): 1-13.

Bernad, Miguel. “The Schoolmaster’s Predicament: Rizal’s Dialogue on Education.” In Budhi: A Journal
of Ideas and Culture, Vol. 4, No. 2& 3 (2000): 221-230.
Bonoan, Raul. “Jose Rizal and the Asian Renaissance.” In Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture, Vol. 2,
No. 1 (1998): 105-118.
Cessario, Romanus, OP. “Thomas Aquinas: A Doctor for the Ages.” In the Webpage First Things, at
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9903/ cessario.html. Date Accessed, 14 July 2004.
Chesterton, G.K. Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox. New York: Image Books, Doubleday,
1956.
Philosophy.” In the Webpage Diwatao, at http://www
.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm. Date Accessed, 14 July 2004.
Sciences.” In the Webpage Diwatao, at http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
Date Accessed, 14 July 2004.
Demeterio, F. P. A. “Cognitive Anthropology and the Unfinished Agenda of the Early Indigenous Phase of
Filipino Philosophy.” In the Webpage Diwatao, at http://www
.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm. Date Accessed, 14 July 2004.
Demeterio, F.P.A. “Thought and Socio-Politics: An Account of the Late Twentieth Century Filipino
Philosophy.” In Hingowa:The Holy Rosary Seminary Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2 (March 2003): 45-73.
Durrant, Will. The Age of Faith, Volume 4 of The Story of Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980.
Eco, Umberto. The Name of the Rose. New York: Harcourt, 1983.
Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. New York: Random House, 1956.
Press, 2000.
Kennedy, D.J. “Thomas Aquinas.” In Webpage Jacques Maritain Center, at
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/stthomas.htm. Date Accessed, 14 July 2004.
Knasas, John. “The Style of the Catholic Intellectual and the Church’s Recommendation of Aquinas.” In
Philippiana Sacra, Vol. 32, No. 96 (September to December 1997): 451-459.
Maritain, Jacques. “St. Thomas Aquinas.” In Webpage Jacques Maritain Center, at
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/stthomas.htm. Date Accessed, 14 July 2004.
Nakpil-Zialcita, Fernando. “Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino.” Nicanor Tiongson, Trans. In Virgilio
Enriquez, Ed. Mga Babasahin sa Pilosopiya: Epistemolohiya, Lohika, Wika at Pilosopiyang
Pilipino. Manila: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House, 1983.
Quito, Emerita. Ed. “Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Ensayklopidiya ng Pilosopiya. Manila: De La Salle University
Press, 1993.
Rizal, Jose. Noli me Tangere, Jorge Bocobo, Trans. Quezon City: R. Martinez and Sons, 1956.
Rizal, Jose. El Filibusterismo, Charles Derbyshire, Trans. Manila: Philippine Education, 1956.
Rosario, Tomas. “Thomism in the Next Millenium.” In Unitas, Vol 72, No. 4 (December 1999): 463-492.
Said, Edward W. Representations of the Intellectual. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.
Villaroel, Fidel, OP. “The University of Santo Tomas of Manila (1611-1987): A Synthesis of its Four-
Century History.” Unitas, Vol 62, No. 31, Sept 1989, pp. 192-232.
Weisheipl, James, OP. Friar Thomas D’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Work. New York:
Doubleday and Company, 1974.
116
OUR PREMODERNITY AND THEIR TOKENS OF
POSTMODERNITY: REFLECTIONS
ON THE PHILIPPINE CONDITION
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.
-Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
117
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
We can start contextualizing premodernity, modernity and postmodernity in an

anecdote presented by our famous fictionist F. Sionil Jose in his novel Ermita. In this
story, the protagonist Ermita Rojo, a high-class prostitute who managed to become very
rich and eventually married an American, took a course in developmental studies in the
United States under a renown professor named Hoffer. Jose writes:
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
118
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.
George de Schrijver, in his essay Postmodernity and Theology, enumerates what

he calls the five pillars of modernity, and they are “confidence in science-based
techonology, the sovereignty of nation-state, bureaucratic rationalism, profit
maximization and the belief in steady progress.”26 On these pillars we may add the
cultural critic Frederic Jameson’s finding that industrialization, exemplified by the use of
electricity and internal combustion engines, is what fueled the accumulation of wealth of
modernity.
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
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.
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.
119
Added to the foundational and cultural aspects of modernity is another stratum,
which is the theory and philosophy of modernity. This stratum of modernity, exemplified
and led by the thoughts of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, 1762-1814 (on idealist morality and
German nationalist consciousness), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831 (on the
grand evolution of culture and human consciousness), and Karl Marx, 1818-1883 (on
the class struggle to attain a humane society), is concerned with the legitimation and
further expansion of modernity with emphasis on control and power.
Modernity may have brought about order, system, efficiency and prosperity, but it
also has a dark side. Its ideal of putting order and rationality into human life and society
resulted into individual and social neurosis. Its emphasis on individuality resulted into
the fragmentation of the family, community, morality, psychology and society. Its
confidence in science gave us the seemingly uncontrollable and limitless technological
advancements that now meddle with genetic engineering, churn out weapons of mass
destruction, and conjure irreversible environmental damage. It is this dark side of
modernity coupled with a new phase of economic development gave rise to
postmodernity.
Postmodernity is, therefore, both a reaction to and a logical development from

modernity. In postmodernity, confidence in science-based technology is tempered with
Jean-Francois Lyotard’s realization that science is also founded on a meta-narrative,
and is therefore no different from the epics and religions of old which are all founded on
narratives. In this period, science is no longer the measure of truth, but a truth among
many other truths. In postmodernity, the sovereignty of the nation-state is shaken by
the same realization that nationalism is likewise a grand-narrative, a truth among many
other truths, and at the same time shaken by the actual collapse of cultural boundaries
as consequence of the advancement of electronic communication, commerce and
intercontinental transit. Mary Klages, in her article Postmodernism, explains that the
rejection of the grand-narratives means the affirmation of the mini-narratives, or the
“stories that explain small practices, local events, rather than large scale universal or
global concepts.”27 Unlike grand-narratives, mini-narratives “are always situational,
provisional, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universal truth, reason, or
stability.”28 In postmodernity, bureaucratic rationalization and centralization is replaced
by decentralization and stratified transformations using computer generated and tested
managemental designs, with intra-organizational interaction that is more and more
dependent on information and communication technology. In postmodernity, the
primacy of the capitalist maximization of profit is injected with creativity and heightened
attention to human and environmental relations and development. In postmodernism,
“belief in steady progress is getting diversified and tempered by functional
29
pragmatism.” According to Jameson, in postmodernity, modernity’s reliance on an
Mary
27
Klages, “Postmodernism,” Online Article from
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENG2012Klages/pomo.html.
28
Klages.
29
?
Schrijver, p. 440.
120
industry exemplified by electricity and internal combustion engines is replaced with a
more advanced industrialization exemplified by nuclear power and electronics.
Upon these reactions against the foundations of modernity, likewise sprouted

some of the cultural manifestations of postmodernity. In postmodernity, the modern
construction of the self as a self-conscious rational individual that is free and capable of
charting his/her own destiny, is replaced with a more complex and decentered individual
with accepted limitations and who brazenly abandons his/her worries about destiny and
indulges instead in playfulness and laughter. The sober, calculating, and scheming
modern man is replaced by a postmodern child. In postmodernity, the modern restraint
and frugality with regards to pleasure and consumption are replaced with hedonism and
pervasive consumerism, or what Lyotard calls the “valorized individual enjoyment of
goods and services.”30 If modernity focused on production, postmodernity is concerned
with intensified consumption. This foregrounds the thought that postmodernity is in fact
subsisting on the cream and fat of modernism’s accumulated prosperity. In
postmodernity, art takes a different form, the simplicity and functionality of modern art
has been transmuted into complexity and flare for eclectic embellishments. Unlike the
ego-centered nature of modern art, postmodern art is id-centered, where the dreamlike
images, colors and sounds of the unconscious are unleashed. In architecture this is
exemplified by the complex structure with profuse embellishments eclectically retrieved
from the past, where the distinctions between function and style, interior and exterior
are consciously erased. I cited the Greenbelt 2 and 3 as an example of this, but you
will see smaller scale examples in plush subdivisions where houses bloom with
elaborate concrete cornices and moldings, classical columns and pediments, gables,
Spanish tile roofing (real ceramic tiles or otherwise), and filigreed iron grills. In literature
and film this is exemplified by the hazy narrative structures, the undefined point of view,
the profusion of pastiche and collage, and the presence of almost schizophrenic
characters. In painting, postmodernism appears as playful eclecticism from the styles of
the past as well as a fascination for dreamlike themes derived from the unconscious.
Postmodern art is a celebration of figures, colors, and surfaces and the best example
for this is the music television, where meaningless images swirl endlessly. Moreover, in
postmodern art the traditional distinction between high and low art, preserved by
modernity, is finally dissolved.
Added to the foundational and cultural manifestations of postmodernity is another

stratum, the theory and philosophy of postmodernity. This stratum of postmodernity,
exemplified and led by the thoughts of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900 (assault
on traditional values and culture), Martin Heidegger, 1889-1976 (on the existential
rootedness of human consciousness), Jacques Derrida, 1930 (on deconstruction),
Michel Foucault, 1926-1984 (on critique of power), and Jean-Francois Lyotard, 1925-
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.
30
?
Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1984) p. 108.
121
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.
FOUNDATIONS
ASPECTS MODERNITY POSTMODERNITY

Attitude towards Science Confidence in Science-Based Incredulity to Science as Founded
& Technology Technologies on Meta-Narratives
Attitude towards the Sovereignty of the Nation-State Nationalism as a Grand Narrative
Nation-State
Organizational Bureaucratic Rationalism and Decentralized, Stratified,
Management Centralization of Power Computer Design
Economic Mode Capitalism Late Capitalism (Multinational
CULTURAL
(Monopoly Capitalism) Consumer Capitalism)

Attitude to Progress Faith in Progress Diverse Progress Tempered with
Functional Pragmatism
Industrialization (Electricity and Advanced Industrialization
State of Industry Internal Combustion Engines) (Nuclear Power and Electronics)
Free, Self-Conscious, Rational, Complex, Decentered, With

Self Capable of Charting his/her own Limitations, Playful
Destiny
Attitude towards Restraint and the Protestant Hedonism, Pervasive
Pleasure and Ethic of Frugality (Focus on Consumerism (Focus on
Consumption Production) Consumption)
Simple, Functional, Ego- Complex, Stylistic, Id-Centered
Centered (the Heroic Individual), (Dreamlike), Dissolution of the
Distinction between High and Disctinction between High and
Art
THEORY
Low Low
122
Theory and Philosophy Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida,
Legitimation and Expansion of Foucault, Lyotard, Critique of
Modernity Modernity
The characteristics of premodernity are not tackled yet, but these will be obliquely
studied as the Philippine condition is examined in the following section.
DEFINING THE PHILIPPINE CONDITION
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.
We focus our attention first on the foundational aspects of modernity and

postmodernity. The first foundational aspect will ascertain the Filipino attitude towards
science and technology. While it is undeniable that the metropolis is replete with
technological advancements, this pattern may not hold true to the whole country.
Michael L. Tan, in his essay Developing People’s Science and Technology, remarks
that “life goes on, in many of our remote villages, much as it has 50 years ago, the only
signs of “modernization” being Coca-Cola, imitation brand-name jeans and an
occasional transistor radio which can only pick up government stations.” 31 Worse than
this, the science and technology that have become part of our metropolitan lives are not
our own systems but mostly directly imported from abroad. Our endogenous science
and technology, Tan asserts, are “mainly replicative, described by one scientist as
“atsara-making and pottery-making.”32 Consequently, we cannot claim that there is
progress in our endogenous science and technology and much less expect that these
can have positive impact on the lives of our fellow Filipinos. In as far as our confidence
in our own science and technology is concerned, this paper is inclined to argue that we
have not even reached the threshold of modernity. We are premodern in this regard.
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
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,
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.
123
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 third foundational aspect will ascertain the Filipino organizational

management. In the private business sector, bureaucratic rationalism may already be
flourishing among the predominantly family owned establishments. But in the more
widespread and crucial sector of government management, the bureaucratic system
left behind by the colonial powers have deteriorated into an institution riddled with
inefficiency and chronic graft and corruption. The general sentiments of the Filipinos is
that the Philippines has enough natural wealth and the widespread poverty is caused by
bureaucratic mismanagement. In as far as bureaucratic rationalism is concerned, it
may be debatable whether we have breached the modern notch, but the most that we
can say is that we have currently a deformed modern system of bureaucracy.
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
If modernism is fueled by capitalism and industry based on electricity and internal

combustion engine, then again we fell short of this modernist notch. It will be very
difficult for a society to sustain a modern culture with a premodern economic
infrastructure, and it will be crazy for a society to venture into postmodern culture while
its economic infrastructure is left in the caves of premodernity.
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
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.
33
?
Tan, p. 39.
124
We focus our attention next on the cultural manifestations of modernity and
postmodernity. The first cultural manifestation will ascertain the Filipino construction of
the self. Whereas the modern self is free, self-conscious, rational, capable of charting
his/her own destiny, the Filipino image of the self cannot measure up to this modernist
ideal. Our Filipinologists suggest that the Filipino self is not fully individuated from
his/her family or kin, it does not have penchant for rationality, and it does not have the
fierce independence to chart his/her own destiny. F. Sionil Jose’s political novel Viajero
mentions the despair of an old Huk rebel Leo Mercado, who speculates:
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.
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
34
F. Sionil Jose, Viajero: a Filipino Novel (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1993) p. 278.
35
Jose, Viajero: a Filipino Novel , p. 241-242.
125
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.
Lastly we focus our attention on the theoretical and philosophical stratum of

modernity and postmodernity? Because this aspect of modernity and postmodernity is
immaterial in nature and does not need any elaborate infrastructure, modernist and
FOUNDATIONS
postmodernist theories and philosophies were easily transported into our country
through books, journals, the internet, and the very few scholars who happened to be
trained abroad. As a general observation, the tune of the academic theorizing,
especially in the metropolitan universities, is largely colored with modernist and
postmodernist theories and philosophies.
ASPECTS PHILIPPINE CONDITION PERIODIZATION
SoAttitude
far, this section
towards Sciencehas exploredEndogenous
Undeveloped the Philippine condition,
Science and and examined each
Premodern
& Technology
and every aspect as to Technology
whether it belongs to premodernity, modernity and
Attitude towards
postmodernity. Below theis a table
Incipient
thatNationalism
summarizes the points made. Premodern
Nation-State
Organizational Incipient Bureaucracy Riddled with Graft and Deformed Modern
Management Corruption
Economic Mode Pre-Capitalism Premodern
(Feudalism)
CULTURAL
Attitude to Progress Sinking Feelings, Despair Premodern
State of Industry Agricultural Premodern
Not Fully Individuated, No penchant for

Self Rationality, No Fierce Independence to Chart Premodern
Destiny
36 Attitude towards Premodern
F. Sionil Jose, Ben Singkol Ostentatious
(Manila: Solidaridad
Consumption,Publishing
ProfligacyHouse, 2001) p. 98.
Pleasure and
Consumption
Art Traditional Complexity,
126 Stylization, Un- Premodern
THEOR
Centeredness, Pastiche
Y
Theory and Philosophy Presence of both Modern and Postmodern Modern and
Theoretical and Philosophical Frames Postmodern
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 TENSION BETWEEN OUR PREMODERNITY

AND THEIR TOKENS OF POSTMODERNITY
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.
Tan’s essay, Developing People’s Science and Technology, exemplifies our

intellectual’s hope that someday our endogenous science will mature into a modern
one. Our intellectual’s recurrent denunciation of our collective lack of nationalism is a
sigh of their dream to rebuild our sense of nationhood. Graft and corruption and our
government’s systemic inefficiency that are constantly lambasted by our newspapers,
radio and television programs, tell of our common desire to attain a more rationalized
bureaucracy. The political protests concerning land reform and the dismantling of
bureaucrat and crony capitalism clearly suggest the aspiration for a more functional
capitalism. Our intellectuals’ analysis that the reason why our industry is weak is the
fact that our industry is controlled by the same people who control the feudal system
and the fact that we have been constructed into an extension of the imperialist market of
the United States hint of a dream to truly industrialize our country. Even our American-
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
127
man. The bulk of our intellectuals’ brooding flows towards a common direction which is
to modernize the foundational stratum of Philippine society and culture.
But the flourishing theoretical stratum of postmodernism threatens to deconstruct

the collective efforts of our intellectuals, because postmodernism is antithetical to
modernism and therefore antithetical also to our intellectuals’ vision of Philippine
modernization.
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 first recommendation is that postmodern theories and philosophies may be

advantageously appropriated by Filipinos to thoroughly critique our country’s
pretensions for modernism and postmodernism, to remind us all that modern and
postmodern cultures are only possible and sustainable if the economic infrastructural
elements of our society are at least strongly modern. Ours is a premodern feudal
economy, and it will be scandalous for our people and youth to lead lives as if they were
inhabitants of a maturely industrialized and capitalist society.
The second recommendation is that postmodern theories and philosophies be

advantageously appropriated as critical tools in examining the structural deformities of
our country, so as to facilitate the long awaited dawn of modernity. By structural
deformities, we are referring to feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism and neo-colonialism.
The Palestinian cultural critic Edward Said is a proof that postmodern theories and
philosophies are viable tools for post-colonial studies. Even if our country is largely
premodern, because of imperialism and neo-colonialism, the spindles of modernity
together with its dark side are not absent on our soil. These almost invisible spindles of
imperialist and neo-colonial modernity could be the subject of critique and analysis
using postmodern theories and philosophies.
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
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
128
the dark side of modernity, and postmodern theories and philosophies and on their side
for this new intellectual enterprise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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. 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
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.
129
DEFINING THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD FOR RADICAL INTRA-STATE
PEACE STUDIES IN FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
Sa loob at labas ng bayan kong sawi

kaliluha’y siyang nangyayaring hari,
kalinga’t bait ay nalulugami,
ininis sa hukay ng dusa’t pighati.
-Francisco Baltazar, Mahiganting Langit.
AN ANATOMY OF INTRA-STATE PEACE
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
130
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.
Soliman Santos, in his book Peace Advocate, presents a conceptual scheme on

the types of peace and their counter-types of violence by creatively using the
international symbol for peace movement.39
Structural Violence
Repressive Violence
Revolutionary Violence
Substantive Processual
Peace Peace
(Heart) (Mind)
Personal Peace
37
Quoted in Rose-Marie Salazar-Clemena, “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
Personal (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2000) p. 4.
Violence
38
Virgilio G. Enriquez, From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience (Manila: De
La Salle University Press, 1994) p. 55.
39
Soliman M. Santos, Peace Advocate (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2002) p. 3.
131
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
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
From this theoretically upper-hand perspective it would appear that it is structural

violence that pervasively threatens the three types of peace, for without it there will be
40
Santos, p. 5.
41
Santos, p. 6.
42
Santos, p. 6.
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.
132
no oppression, no conflicts and revolutions, and the suffering and anarchy in the
personal level would be greatly alleviated. The more fashionable and flashy idea of
conflict resolution may only prevent or manage revolutionary violence and instate a very
shaky processual peace. For this procedure does not necessarily address the
infrastructural causes of chaos, violence and warfare. The same is true when we stoop
down to the level of counseling, rehabilitation and individual or group processing to the
address the problem of personal violence and instate personal peace. Yet, by enforcing
peace without confronting the real matters causing personal violence would be no
different from making a suffering patient dependent on painkillers without necessarily
treating his or her ailment. If an advocate or scholar is indeed interested on attainable
and lasting peace, then he or she could not avoid confronting and analyzing the binary
substantive peace/structural violence.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF INTRA-STATE

CHAOS, VIOLENCE AND WARFARE
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
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
44
Garcia, p. 27.
133
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.
Feudalism, as a medieval European politico-economic configuration, can be

basically understood as a system of administration, jurisdiction and land tenure founded
on the relationship between a landlord and a tenant within which land is granted in
exchange for homage, military service and other duties. A crude copy of this
configuration was established by the Spaniards as they ladled out land-based power to
the few native elites and newly arrived aristocratic Spaniards in exchange for pacifying,
Christianizing and governing the natives. When colonial subjugation changed hands
from Spanish to American, the feudal order remained substantially intact, if not fortified
with the Torrens title. F. Sionil Jose, in his novel My Brother, My Executioner, a fictive
account of a landlord who happened to have a half-brother who is a Hukbalahap
commander, makes his protagonist reminisce:
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
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
45
F. Sionil Jose, My Brother, My Executioner (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1988) p. 14.
134
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.
If feudalism is an anti-thesis to economic development, as its power spills from

the confines of land-based production into the sphere of a half-hearted commerce and
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
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.
49
Ferrer, p. 12.
135
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.
The combined effects of these three grotesque structural deformations is the

continuance of the colonial politics of exclusion and exploitation that produce and
reproduce our scandalously unequal distribution of wealth and power. An idealist
advocate or scholar of peace could only dream of a drastic redistributive measures as
the utopian pathway to lasting peace. Joseph Lim, for instance in his essay Our
Economic Crisis: A Historical Perspective, points out that “land reform in the rural areas
and the much needed rise in the real wages in the urban areas—will develop dynamic
rural and urban markets and spur production in both areas.” 50 But the tired demand for
authentic land reform and humane wages is just a utopian sigh, for in a congress
peopled by feudal lords, bureaucrat capitalists and their cohorts who would be there to
facilitate legislative measures that would run contrary to the interests of the elite class?
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.
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.
51
San Juan, p. 25.
136
THE ENORMOUS TASK OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY
With our society being undermined by a structural violence and repressive

violence spawned by the colonial politics of exclusion and exploitation, it would be
immoral for Filipino philosophy to assume the role of a spectator. Filipino philosophy
has the ethical burden of spearheading the inter-disciplinary project of the theory and
praxis of critique and counter-critique. But the enormity and monstrosity the deformities
we are facing can be daunting especially if we consider the pathetic status of Filipino
philosophy with its characteristic tendency of shirking away from the political, the social,
the historical, and the economic. Indeed, Filipino philosophy can be easily pictured as 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. We have to raise the very important question: is Filipino philosophy
ready to thrust itself into the maelstrom radical intra-state peace studies, understood as
the theory and praxis of critique and counter-critique, and does it have a solid tradition
where it can bank on in its struggle for lasting peace? This paper is actually about
identifying a solid tradition in Filipino philosophy where radical intra-state peace studies
may stand ready to undertake its daunting task, and this paper assumes that there is
one such tradition that has been forgotten and, therefore, has to be retrieved.
Filipino philosophy has a number of separate traditions. Romualdo Abulad, in his

essay Contemporary Filipino Philosophy, identifies at least three clear traditions: 1)
scholasticism, 2) the influx of western philosophical theories, and 3) Filipino philosophy
as interpretation of Filipino identity and world-view. Fernando Nakpi-Zialcita, in a much
earlier essay Mga Anyo ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino, identifies at least two clear traditions:
1) Filipino philosophy as interpretation of Filipino identity and world-view, and 2) Filipino
philosophy as critique of the Philippine social and economic structures. In my paper
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
137
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.
It is by retrieving the forgotten tradition of Filipino philosophy as critique of the

Philippine social and economic structures, that Filipino philosophy can have a an
appropriate and solid tradition of its daunting task of radical intra-state peace studies.
Scholasticism could not provide an appropriate tradition because scholasticism in first
place emerged prior to the Durkheimian discovery of society and the Marxist formulation
of structural analysis. The influx of western philosophical theories could also not
provide an appropriate tradition, because it is not even a single tradition in itself but a
collection of some purposeless expounding of one foreign philosophy after another.
This tradition of Filipino philosophy is too preoccupied with orthodoxy of interpretations
and could easily get lost in the radical peace studies’ need for orthopraxis. Lastly,
Filipino philosophy as interpretation of Filipino identity and world-view could also not
provide an appropriate tradition because of its descriptive ethnographic concerns which
is different from the diagnostic and prescriptive concerns of radical peace studies.
Hence, by identifying Filipino philosophy as critique of the Philippine social and
economic structures as the appropriate tradition for radical intra-state peace studies, the
Herculean task of critiquing and counter-critiquing the enormous and monstrous
structural deformities of the Philippine society would no longer be a daunting task.
Filipino philosophy has a solid tradition where it can bank on in its struggle for lasting
peace.
CONCRETE PROGRAM OF ACTION
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
52
F. Sionil Jose, Ben Singkol (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 2001) p. 189.
138
Perhaps it is our experience of syncopated revolutions—our revolution against Spain
that was muddled by the Americans, our revolution against America that was cruelly
crushed even by our own people, our fabulous EDSA revolution that was travestied by
the same elite and privileged few—that make us all shudder at the thought of another
revolution. What is left for us is a democratic transformation of our society through
critique and counter-critique. There are some concrete pathways for Filipino philosophy
to spear-head the project of democratically attaining lasting peace.
One concrete move for Filipino philosophy is to dedicate its commitment to

critique our deformed social structure. If we have time to indulge with the eternal
verities of Aristotlean logic and scholastic ethics, as well as with the aestheticism and
exoticism of the philosophy of the human person, it is a scandal if we cannot find time to
examine the very same society we are living in. Radical criticism will strip the present
social order with its mystification, prestige and symbolic power and subsequently
expose its purely economic and corporate existence, making us all see the real causes
of structural violence.
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.
Filipino philosophy remained silent during the Spanish subjugation, it remained

silent during the American subjugation, and it again remained silent during the Marcos
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. 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.
Philosophy.” Online Article from http://www .geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/index.htm.
139
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.
Press, 2000.
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.
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.
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.
140
QUITO, CENIZA, TIMBREZA,
GRIPALDO AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Feorillo A. Demeterio III
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
(Part I of Three Parts)
Include abulad ang mabaquiao in this book project:
INTRODUCTION
The Philosophy Department of De La Salle University, Manila, has acquired the

reputation of being eclectic in as far as the systems of thought that are taught,
expounded and researched on by its professors. Such reputation was built through the
years in contradistinction with the reputations of the other three leading universities in
the Philippines: the University of Santo Tomas with its Thomism and Scholasticism; the
Ateneo De Manila University with its Continental philosophies and Phenomenology; and
the University of the Philippines-Diliman with its Anglo-American linguistic philosophy
and logical positivism. Amidst the perceived eclecticism of De La Salle University,
141
however, there exists a solid tradition, dating back to the 1970s, that reflectively and
substantively works on the enrichment and development of Filipino philosophy.
The term “Filipino philosophy,” unfortunately, has become a contentious phrase

among Filipino academicians who desired to inscribe on it a definitive meaning. In my
paper entitled “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,” I unearthed fourteen meanings of “Filipino philosophy”
that are contained in the writings of these six leading scholars who problematized the
meaning of the aforementioned phrase, namely Fernando Zialciata of Ateneo De Manila
University, Emerita Quito of De La Salle University, Romualdo Abulad of San Carlos
University, Rolando Gripaldo of De La Salle University, Alfredo Co of the University of
Santo Tomas and Napoleon Mabaquiao of De La Salle University.
These meaning of “Filipino philosophy” are: 1) the grassroots or folk philosophies

of Filipinos; 2) the lectures of some Filipino academicians on Scholasticism and
Thomism; 3) the lectures of some Filipino academicians on other foreign philosophical
systems; 4) critical philosophy as practiced by some intellectuals outside the group of
Filipino academicians in philosophy; 5) the practice of logical analysis; 6) the practice of
phenomenological and hermeneutical reflection; 7) critical philosophy as practiced by
some Filipino academicians in philosophy; 8) the appropriation of foreign philosophical
theories; 9) the appropriation of folk philosophies, 10) the textualized/written exposition
of foreign philosophical systems; 11) breakthrough writings, or researches that make
original contributions by going beyond the thoughts of certain established foreign
philosophers; 12) the interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview, 13) the discourse
on local themes, and 14) the discourse on universal and foreign themes. These
meanings are schematized in the following diagram:
142
(1) Grassroots/Folk
Philosophy
Untextualized
(2) Scholasticism/
Academic Thomism (Lecture)
(3) Other Foreign

Systems (Lecture)

Filipino
Philosophy
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Foreign Theories

Philosophy
Academic
(10) Exposition of
Foreign Systems
(11) Breakthrough
Writing

Filipino Worldview

Themes

& Foreign Themes

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-
143
academic practice of critical philosophy, for the reason that we are talking here about
the academic philosophical practices from De La Salle University.
With these preliminary eliminations, we are left with meanings number 5 to

number 14. From these remaining meanings, there is still a need to eliminate “Filipino
philosophy” as the mere textualized/written expositions of foreign philosophical systems,
for the reason that these discourses are lacking in originality and Filipinoness.
Therefore, for this paper, the sense of “Filipino philosophy” are limited only to: the
practice of logical analysis (number 5), the practice of phenomenological and
hermeneutical reflection (number 6), critical philosophy as practiced by some Filipino
academicians in philosophy (number 7), the appropriation of foreign philosophical
theories (number 8), the appropriation of folk philosophies (number 9), breakthrough
certain established foreign philosophers (number 11), the interpretation of Filipino
identity and worldview (number 12), the discourse on local themes (number 13), and the
discourse on universal and foreign themes (number 14).
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.
A BRIEF HISTORY
OF THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT
OF DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY
De La Salle University was founded in 1911 as De La Salle College. Philosophy

in this institution started in the Catholic tradition of Scholasticism and Thomism. In its
Pre-World War II and Post-World War II days, philosophizing here was dominated by
the figure of Ariston Estrada, Sr., and his famous lectures in logic and Thomism. After
the war, its degree programs required all of its students to undergo four courses in
philosophy along these aforementioned philosophical systems (Cf. Quito, The State of
Philosophy in the Philippines 26). Estrada became a Professor Emeritus in 1971, the
same year when Quito joined the institution as a full time faculty member. This marked
the end of the old way and the beginning of the new way of philosophizing in this
institution.
144
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
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
145
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.
Quito is the person who charted the course of philosophizing in De La Salle

University away from its original fixation with Scholasticism and Thomism. In 1990,
Abulad wrote about her as “the most important philosopher in the Philippines. . . . She
will most likely be remembered in the future as the Filipino Socrates. Standing at a
crucial threshold, she marks the end of the infantile gropings of earlier philosophers and
provides ample direction to future thinkers” (Abulad, iii). She retired from this university
as a full professor and professor emeritus in 1993.
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
146
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
Critique of Colonial
Mentality
Critique of Philippine Critique of Language

Quito’s Contributions to
Culture and Politics
Filipino Philosophy
Critique of Education
Substantive Work on Critique of the Status of

Filipino Philosophy the Filipina
Preliminary Construction
of Filipino Identity
Figure 2: Conceptual Map of Quito’s Contributions

to the Development of Filipino Philosophy
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.
Quito’s Reflective Thoughts on Filipino Philosophy
Quito’s reflective thoughts on Filipino philosophy are found in the introductory

section of her book Ang Pilosopiya sa Diwang Pilipino and her essay “Teaching and
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
147
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:
Colonization and Authoritarianism: Lack

of Freedom of Thought
Political and Cultural
Climate
(2) Philosophy’s Pejorative
Connotation
(3) Academic Career as an

Non-Lucrative Prospect
(4) Too much Teaching Load

in the Academe
Institutional and
Quito’s Reasons for the Structural Shortcomings
Underdevelopment of Filipino (5) Lack of Research
Philosophy Infrastructure in the Academe
(6) Lack of Professional

Pressure and Incentive System for
Research
(7) High Cost of Pursuing a
Graduate Degree Abroad
(8) Inbreeding in the Local

Centers for Graduate Studies
Professional Capacities
of Philosophy Professors
(9) Shortcoming in terms of
International Languages
(10)Shortcoming in terms of our

National Language
Figure 3: Conceptual Scheme of Quito’s Reasons

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
148
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
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’
149
communication among themselves as well as with the other Filipinos (Cf. number 10 of
figure 3; Quito, “Ang Pilosopiya sa Diwang Pilipino” 200).
Quito’s Critique of Philippine Culture and Politics
In the essay “Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” Quito

mentioned three clusters of philosophizing that have managed to produce some
researches and publications despite the overwhelming political, cultural, institutional
structural and professional barriers that abound in the country. These are Scholastic
and Thomistic discourses that locate their epicenter at the University of Santo Tomas,
the logical analyses that locate their epicenter at the University of the Philippines-
Diliman, and the dispersed and centerless endeavors of applying philosophical systems
in critiquing and understanding the Philippine realities and contexts (Cf. Quito,
“Teaching and Research of Philosophy in the Philippines” 706-707). Quito initially
belonged to the first cluster, but eventually got fed up with its tenacious dogmatism.
Being trained in continental Europe, she was uncomfortable with the Anglo-American
inspired way of doing philosophy at the University of the Philippines-Diliman. Hence,
among these three clusters, she finds herself more productive in the more pragmatic
discourses of applied and critical philosophy. As shown in figure 2, her critique of
Philippine culture and politics are focused on politics, colonial mentality, language,
education, and the standing of the Filipina.
Philippine Politics
Quito is now remembered as a great humanist and Orientalist thinker and

mentor, but there was a stage in her life as a young professor, where political criticism
was a pronounced aspect of her philosophizing. First and foremost, her dissertation,
written in French, was about the idea of freedom from a rather lesser known philosopher
Louis Lavelle. In 1970, she delivered her Thomas Moore lecture at the Graduate
School of the University of Santo Tomas entitled “Herbert Marcuse and the
Contemporary Society.” In the United States of America at that time, Marcuse was one
of the favorite thinkers of the young activists and student protesters. According to
Marjorie Evasco, in her introduction to the 1965 to 1970 section of the Festschrift, Quito
became some sort of an intellectual icon in her university (Cf. Evasco 3). At the height
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
150
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
In the Festschrift, Quito’s take on our colonial mentality is substantially found in

the 1984 article “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos.” She framed her analysis of our
colonial malady in terms of our collective psychological development as a people. She
mentioned that our experiences from the political and cultural subjugation under the
Spaniards and Americans had wrecked our soul. Through the more than three-hundred
years of subservience we ended up denigrating our own culture and selves while
valorizing the culture and selves of our foreign masters (Cf. Quito, “Philosophy of
Education for Filipinos” 762).
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
151
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
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
152
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
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.
153
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.
Nationalist philosophy of education for Quito meant an education that assures

that Filipinos know their culture and history and instills on their minds and hearts the
pride of their being Filipinos. He lauded the contributions of Renato Constantino that
seeks to rewrite the history of country from the point of view of Filipinos. Quito invited
us to thoroughly critique our history and cleanse it from its Hispano-Americancentrism.
She said “foreign intervention, no matter how salutary to the nation, must be de-
emphasized, if not totally eliminated” (Quito, “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos”
764). For her, history is an important field for her project of shattering the colonial mind.
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
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.
154
The transformational aspect of Quito’s proposed educational philosophy is still
focused on the Filipino. Unlike the other nationalistic intellectuals who are too eager in
defending the Filipino from the unfavorable remarks about his character, Quito was
ready to admit his shortcomings, only to have a clear starting point for a
transformational education. “Efforts must be expended to transform the Filipino from
the selfish, indolent, grasping, uncaring man into the independent, hard-working and
concerned man” (Quito, “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos” 764). Transformation for
Quito is premised on a thorough diagnosis of the current weaknesses and shortcomings
of the Filipino character and the subsequent correction and fortification of such
character to make it fit and functional in the contemporary Philippine society.
The ethical nature of Quito’s proposed educational philosophy is not limited to

the thorough study and application of ethics and morality, but more so to the intensive
understanding of Filipino axiology in order to make them the foundations of a more
contextualized ethics and morality. “Teachers ought to study these Filipino values so
that they can direct them towards salutary ends. It is not enough to know these values;
what is important is that teachers know how to make use of our existing scale of values
for proper motivation” (Quito, “Philosophy of Education for Filipinos” 765).
Quito was convinced that having a nationalistic, contextualized and relevant,

transformational, and ethical philosophy education would make the Filipinos more
capable of moving out from the cavern of their colonial mentality and become powerful
movers of the cultural, political and economic development of our country.
Status of the Filipina
Although Quito is not known to be feminist, during the International Decade of

Women that was proclaimed by the United Nations Organization from 1975 to 1985, she
came up with two works on women: the “The Role of the University in Changing
Women’s Consciousness” which was publish around the middle of the said decade, and
the book Three Women Philosophers which was published at the close of the said
decade and was about the thoughts of Hannah Arendt, Simone de Beauvoir and Ayn
Rand. Only the essay however is part of her Festschrift and it contains her short
critique on the status of the Filipina.
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. . .
155
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).
Quito’s Preliminary Construction of the Filipino Identity
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
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
156
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
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
157
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
Figure 4: Conceptual Scheme of Quito’s Reasons

for the Underdevelopment of Filipino Philosophy
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
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.
Assessment and Critique of Quito’s

Contributions to Filipino Philosophy
Quito tended to consider herself as a professor of philosophy instead of a full-

fledged philosopher. This is because a huge portion of her academic career and
publications had been devoted to the expositions of foreign theories. Our examination
158
of her contributions to Filipino philosophy, however, revealed a number of non-
expository efforts and original ideas and insights that could merit her the honor of being
referred to as a true philosopher. Furthermore, if we contextualize her expository labors
within her project of eroding the hegemony of Scholasticism and Thomism in the
country, such expositions of foreign theories would acquire the added value of being
purposive speculations that are actually intended to make a clearing where Filipino
philosophy would eventually germinate and bloom.
Her diagnosis of on the causes of the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy is

incisive and was able to pinpoint the root causes of such a negative condition.
Universities, colleges, philosophy departments and philosophy professors who are
hopeful that a stronger philosophical tradition can finally emerge in our country should
read and understand this diagnosis in order for them to design effective remedies and
interventions. What is true to Filipino philosophy could also be true to the other
disciplines that are dependent on sound research infrastructure and drastically
improved research productivity of its academe-based advocates. Hence, professors
from the other disciplines could benefit as well from Quito’s diagnosis.
As to the substantive aspect of her philosophizing, Quito, although she veered

away from direct and open political criticism due to the dangers posed by the Marcos
regime, had laid down a viable parameter for a highly nationalistic cultural criticism.
Filipino philosophy professors could further enrich, widen and deepen this parameter
with the infusion of more explicit postcolonial philosophical theories. These professors
could even revisit and pursue further the initial political criticisms that Quito undertook
prior to the declaration of Martial Law.
Her other substantive contribution to Filipino philosophy consisted of her analysis

of the data on the Filipino identity that were previously culled by both Filipino and
foreign sociologists, anthropologists and axiologists. Her innovation consisted of seeing
a pattern through this mass of data by asserting that the values, attitudes, behavioral
patterns uncovered so far could be founded on just two basic qualities and
characteristics. Whether she arrived at a brilliant philosophical insight by claiming this
or she committed a subtle reduction and oversimplification, this remains to be
established by future Filipino philosophers who would more keenly review her data and
line of reasoning.
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
159
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.
Ceniza served as president of the Philosophy of Education Society of the

Philippines as well as of the Philosophy Circle of the Philippines and the Association of
Professors of the Philosophy of Logic, Epistemology and Sciences. He was the
convener of the Drury College and Southwest Missouri State University Philosophy and
Religion Conference in Springfield, Missouri. At De La Salle University, he was the
holder of the Lucian Athanasius Professorial Chair in Philosophy and Letters.
Ceniza is known for his expertise in logic, metaphysics, epistemology and

philosophy of science. Aware of his intellectual isolation from his colleagues who
preferred the less abstract areas of philosophy, he wrote a rather doleful poem that
talked about his plight. “He was called a metaphysician because. . . well he got himself
busy with things beyond this world. People of this world did not understand him. To
them he was a greater being whom they loved but did not try so hard to comprehend.
He read books and wrote books and didn’t like too much travelling. He didn’t go to too
many parties, either, because although he was an intelligent person, he was shy. He
stayed at home and spent time thinking about space and time and propositional
calculus” (Quoted by Garcia 38). He retired from this university as a full professor in
1991 and was made professor emeritus in 1993. He died from cancer in 2001.
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
160
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:
Reflections on the Direction

of Filipino Philosophy Critique of Politics
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
Figure 5: Conceptual Map of Ceniza’s Contributions

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.
Ceniza’s Reflective Thoughts on Filipino Philosophy
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
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).
161
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).
However, Ceniza warned that while a nationalistic discourse is a necessary

developmental stage that Filipino philosophy should move into, such philosophy should
not remain shackled and fixated in such stage. He stressed: “We must graduate from
nationalism to a more global approach. . . . We must transcend nationalism. The next
great step is humanism: to think from the viewpoint of humanity” (Ceniza 1982, 24).
Once Filipino philosophy is fully developed it could stop problematizing its Filipinoness
and underdevelopment and just go on philosophizing about universal issues and
themes. Ceniza himself did this by focusing much of his philosophical production on
metaphysics, epistemology and logic.
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).
Ceniza’s Critique of Philippine Culture and Politics
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
162
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
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
163
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 believes that the politics of advantage is propagated, supported and

replicated by a number of phenomena that maligns Philippine politics, culture and
society. The first of these undesirable phenomena is the weakness of our government.
Ceniza explained: “those who are in power find it to their advantage to maintain a weak
government, a government that cannot and will not enforce its laws against them or
their cohorts, or the people the rich and powerful somehow identify with” (Ceniza 1988,
18). Secondly, we have this notorious imbalance of economic, educational, cultural
and political power that assures the first class that there will always be Filipinos from the
third and even the second classes who will look up to them as benevolent patrons,
instead of rapacious tricksters, or who will be loyally bound to them through the value of
debt of gratitude. Thirdly, we have a rather amoral people, which Ceniza strongly
referred to as the “immoral public,” that either fails to see or tolerates the immorality of
our elected and appointed officials (Cf. Ceniza 1988, 19). Ceniza explained: “the
powerful, having no one to check their greed and lust, feel safe in their immorality as
long as the general population is immoral. Even our media, the supposed guardian of
public morality, has been accused of irresponsibility” (Ceniza 1988, 19). Fourthly,
Ceniza pinpointed our low sense of nationalism as one of the factors that propagated,
supported, and replicated the so called politics of advantage. In 1987, an American
journalist by the name of James Fallows wrote an article “A Damaged Culture” in The
Atlantic Monthly, in which the rather deficient Filipino nationalism, among other things,
was blamed as one of the causes of our underdevelopment. This controversial article
that angered many Filipinos made Ceniza said: “This has to be admitted. A nation
characterized by a feudal culture cannot have a strong sense of national unity” (Ceniza
1988, 20). Without a strong nationalism, the Filipinos’ notion of justice and common
good will be compromised by his less inclusive affiliations to their ethnic groups,
provinces, municipalities or families.
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
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
164
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).
Because nationalism is a dynamic process of committing and becoming it is in

fact a very vulnerable phenomenon that can be subject to disruptions, either during its
initial stage or during its later stages. Hence in some cases the phenomenon of
nationalism can actually fail to emerge, while in other cases it can initially emerge but
fail to fully develop. Ceniza argued that the root cause of the development,
underdevelopment and even non-emergence of nationalism is something psychological.
He stressed: “A man identifies himself with things he can be proud of and dissociates
himself from things which tend to give him shame, he tends to identify himself with
things he loves and puts psychological distance between himself and things he hates;
he tends to identify himself with things which increase his self-esteem and disconnects
himself from things that tend to embarrass him” (Ceniza 1982, 18). To drive his point
more clearly he used the figure of the Atlanta serial killer Wayne Williams who murdered
more than 20 black children in between 1979 to 1981. Ceniza explained that Williams
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
165
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
Family
Individual
166
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.
Occasional Reflections: Death Penalty and EDSA II
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.
167
Ceniza’s reflection on the controversial re-imposition of the death penalty for
heinous crimes provided a window into his moral and ethical philosophy. As a
metaphysician, he believed that at the ontological level there is no such thing as a
morally free action, because man has no absolute freedom from the influences of his
genetic make-up, background, environment and other complex circumstances. He
argued: “Man is essentially a product of chance events of which he has no prior control,
he is born into this world without his consent, into an environment which he did not
choose to be born into, and with physical, mental and emotional equipments which he
had no prior responsibility for” (Ceniza 2000, 2). At the ontological level, freedom, for
him, is just a myth that was used by societies, religions and states in order to legitimize
their various discourses on morality, ethics, sin, salvation, law, justice and punishment.
Ceniza deconstructed morality and ethics as we know them by pinpointing the mythical
nature of their foundational stone, freedom. He elaborated: “I believe that to judge
people ontologically blameworthy is unfair to those who are less fortunate than others in
this world, others who because of environmental and social circumstances, hereditary
misfortune, or physical and psychological makeup have been born with or have
acquired certain socially dysfunctional tendencies making them more prone to acts
which society regards as blameworthy or even criminal” (Ceniza 2000, 2).
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).
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
168
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).
Ceniza’s paper on EDSA II was written for a national conference of the

Philosophical Association of the Philippines sometime in April of 2001, at the Ateneo De
Manila University. Since Ceniza was already ill with cancer at that time and would die in
the same year, it is most probable that he was not able to incorporate further insights
from the so called EDSA III that happened just the following month after the said
conference. It is certain that he did not have the benefit of witnessing the unfolding of
the scandals of the Macapagal-Arroyo presidency that now made the EDSA II
Revolution an embarrassing episode of our history as a nation. Nevertheless, his
reflection on this phenomenon was hinged on its foundational controversy.
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
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
169
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 Reconstruction of Filipino Logic
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.
Third, Filipino reasoning tends to be personal and subjective instead of being

impersonal and objective (Cf. Timbreza, Ceniza & Gonzalez 95). Fourth, it tends to be
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).
Fifth, Filipino reasoning tends to be particular instead of being universal (Cf.

Timbreza, Ceniza & Gonzalez 95). This is again intimately related to the first and
second characteristics. Sixth, Filipino reasoning tends to be rhetorical and functional
instead of being logical and empirical (Cf. Timbreza, Ceniza & Gonzalez 95). This
170
particular characteristic was uncovered as a result of the team’s finding that most of the
Filipino maxims and sayings would turn out to be fallacious when subjected to an
Aristotelian logical criticism. But even if they are not entirely logical, in actual life they
serve to enhance the rhetorical aspect of Filipino argumentations. Seventh, Filipino
reasoning tends to be theological instead of being scientific (Cf. Timbreza, Ceniza &
Gonzalez 96). The team elaborated: “Filipinos are a very religious people. Their strong
faith in God makes them uncritical in their assumptions and makes their inferences
conclusive and unquestionable” (Timbreza, Ceniza & Gonzalez 96).
Assessment and Critique of Ceniza’s

Although Ceniza focused his philosophical career in the areas of metaphysics,

epistemology and logic, he was able to contribute a number of significant themes and
incisive insights for the enrichment of Filipino philosophy. It is unfortunate that due to
the personal limitations and intellectual background of the author this paper is unable to
explore his writings on these fields where he really specialized in order to identify his
contributions in the form of breakthrough writings (Cf. number 1, figure 1) and
discourses on universal and foreign themes (Cf. number 14, figure 1). This paper is
forced to reserve such endeavors to future Filipino philosophy scholars who are more
attuned to the rigors of these philosophical fields preferred by Ceniza.
His diagnosis of the causes of the underdevelopment of Filipino philosophy,

although not very comprehensive, due to the fact that he was just concerned about the
marginalization of philosophy as a discipline, is actually worth considering as it carries
some recommendations that are doable and definitely effective in addressing both the
marginalization and underdevelopment of philosophy in general and Filipino philosophy
in particular. His main contribution in this area of speculation is his caution for Filipino
philosophers not to be fixated with the project of Filipinizing philosophy, because in the
end philosophy is also a universal discourse. Ceniza is reminding us here that the
project of Filipinizing is a necessary developmental phase only because of the fact that
we as a people have experienced traumas during our colonial past. Once Filipino
philosophy can stand up on its own and gain strength, it can start forgetting about
Filipinoness and begin philosophizing on equal footing with the rest of the philosophers
in the world. Filipino intellectuals in the fields of history, psychology, social sciences
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.
As to the substantive aspect of his philosophizing on and for Filipino philosophy,

we have mentioned that Ceniza worked on the areas of the academic practice of critical
philosophy and on the interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview. His criticisms of
Philippine politics and culture, even though a product of his mild and congenial
understanding of philosophy and his lack of Marxist-inspired modern critical
frameworks, are incisive and manifested impressive intellectual creativity and
imagination in their conceptualizations. One cannot but notice that Ceniza only started
to philosophically explore politics and political issues after the end of the Marcos
171
regime. Scholars in Filipino philosophy could further enrich these discourses by infusing
them with more modern and more explicitly political theories. His occasional reflections
on two pressing political events are a proof that he is a thinker who is rooted in his own
world and history by demonstrating how philosophy can extract deeper meaning on the
otherwise opaque and chaotic events. Their brevity and hurriedness could be due to
the fact that he was already terminally ill when he wrote his two essays on death penalty
and EDSA II.
His other substantive contribution to Filipino philosophy, consisting of his

collaboration with Timbreza and Bro. Gonzalez in trying to understand deeper the
Filipino way of reasoning and thinking, remained in a very seminal stage. Perhaps his
expertise in Aristotelian logic and symbolic logic was not enough to effectively probe
into their intended mental phenomena. Nevertheless, he and his team had cleared a
pathway that later Filipino philosophy enthusiasts armed with better theoretical
frameworks and methodologies can pursue.
Ceniza might be remembered as a predominantly inaccessible sage in the

abstruse philosophical fields of metaphysics, epistemology and logic, but the vignettes
on and for Filipino philosophy that he left behind are certainly intriguing and worthy of
retelling to the younger Filipino students and scholars of philosophy.
(To be Continued in Part II of Three Parts)
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.
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.
172
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
Quito, Emerita. “Ang Pilosopiya: Batayan ng Pambansang Kultura.” A Life of Philosophy: Festschrift in
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
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
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.
173
(Part II of Three Parts)
INTRODUCTION FOR THE SECOND PART
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
174
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/
(3) Other Foreign

Systems (Lecture)

Filipino
Philosophy
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Foreign Theories

Philosophy
Academic
(10) Exposition of
Foreign Systems
(11) Breakthrough
Writing

Filipino Worldview

Themes

& Foreign Themes

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.
175
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.
As a new doctor of philosophy, he was promoted to full professor at the Trinity

College, Quezon City. In 1983, he left this college as Dean of Student Affairs and
joined the De La Salle University as a full time faculty member. From 1987 to 1988 he
was awarded a visiting fellowship at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian College, in North
Carolina, and at Pembroke State University, also in North Carolina. At the De La Salle
University, he was also the holder of the Lucian Athanasius Professorial Chair in
Philosophy and Letters.
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.
Timbreza’s manner of writing and publishing his philosophical works followed a

spiraling pattern, in which previously published texts and themes are used and
deepened again in succeeding books. Hence, the 82 listed published and unpublished
articles in the “Faculty Research and Creative Works” section of the online public
access catalogue of the De La Salle University Library would appear and re-appear in
his books. There are three books that compete as the most comprehensive receptacle
of Timbreza’s philosophical thoughts: his 1999 Intelektwalisasyon ng Pilosopiyang
Filipino, Alejandro Padilla’s 2004 The Florentino T. Timbreza Reader, and his 2008
Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. After thoroughly comparing the tables of contents
of these three books, this paper opted to use the third one as its window in probing into
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
176
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.
The contents of these 19 articles yielded a conceptual map that summarizes

Timbreza’s contributions to the development of Filipino philosophy:
Reflection on the Nature of
Filipino Philosophy
Critique of Filipino Traits
Culture and Politics Occasional Reflections: Death
Penalty, Coup d’état & Violence
Timbreza’s Contributions
to Filipino Philosophy
On the Poet Jose Corazon
de Jesus (Huseng Batute)
Discourse on Local
Themes
On the Jeepney
Substantive Work on Filipino
Philosophy
On Terrorism
Discourse on Universal
Themes
On Ecology
Filipino Self
Reconstruction of Filipino
Worldview & Identity
Filipino Philosophy of Life
Figure 7: Conceptual Map of Timbreza’s Contributions

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
177
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.
Timbreza’s Reflective Thoughts

on the Nature of Filipino Philosophy
Timbreza’s reflective thoughts on the nature of Filipino philosophy are found in

the following essays: “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino,” “Mga Tagapaghawan ng
Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino,” “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling Wika: mga Problema at
Solusyon,” and “Pilosopiya bilang Tagasuri ng Kulturang Pilipino.” These thoughts are
schematized in the following figure:
Critique of Philippine Culture
Literature
Writings of Filipino Intellectuals

Sources/Materials of
Filipino Philosophy
Field Work
Filipino Philosophy Reflective Thinking
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
Florentino Timbreza
Figure 8: Conceptual Scheme of Timbreza’s Reflection

on the Nature of Filipino Philosophy
Timbreza broadly conceptualized philosophy as either critical or constructive and

substantive discourse (Cf. Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 3). Critical
philosophy is necessary not only in clarifying ideas and systems of thought but also in
goading culture towards a better and more reasonable future. This is because
178
Timbreza considered culture as both a circumscribing context that creates man on the
one hand, and complex that man recreates as he lives on the other hand (Cf. Tibreza,
“Pilosopiya bilang Tagasuri ng Kulturang Filipino” 101). Thus, whereas other than
understanding we cannot do anything with culture as a creative circumscribing context,
there is much that we can do for culture as the recreated complex that in return would
become the creative circumscribing context for the next generations. This is the reason
why Timbreza believed that philosophy should be critic of Philippine culture in order to
rectify its shortcomings and negative tendencies and fortify it to become a positive factor
in our holistic development.
However, he argued that Filipino philosophy as a whole tends to focus on

philosophy as a constructive and substantive endeavor, instead of philosophy as a
critical discourse (Cf. Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 3). He wrote:
“this (Filipino philosophy) pertains to the philosophy of life of the common folks (taong-
bayan), of their worldview, reasoning (pagpapaliwanag), and search for meaning
(pagpapakahulugan) of the events in their universe (santinakpan)” (Timbreza, “Pag-
unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 3, author’s own translation). In order to construct, or
reconstruct, or substantiate, this otherwise implicit folk philosophy, Filipino
academicians have to extract them from the following sources and materials: 1) from
the oral and written literature of the Filipino people, including myths, legends, epics,
songs, folklore, riddles, rituals, dances, sayings, poetry, and the like; 2) from the writings
of Filipino intellectuals, such as Jose Rizal, Apolinario Mabini, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio
Jacinto, Benigno Aquino, Sr. and the other philosophy professors from the various
colleges and universities of the Philippines; and 3) from field research, specifically
interviews with the elderly and the native Filipinos (Cf. Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa
Pilosopiyang Filipino” 5).
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).
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
179
unarticulated Filipino spirit or worldview. To whichever side such a dialogue leans it
would end for the benefit of Filipino philosophy.
Fifth is the practice of Intellectualization, a concept that he most probably

borrowed from the linguists Bro. Gonzalez and Sibayan who advocated the
intellectualization of the Filipino language. Timbreza understood the process of
intellectualizing Filipino philosophy not necessarily as a linguistic intervention but a
conceptual one that is geared towards the “upliftment, widening, and deepening of
philosophical meanings from native thought and worldview through comparison with the
great ideas and teachings of the famous teachers and sages of the whole world”
(Timbreza, “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino” 6, author’s own translation). Sixth is
the practice of Filipinization, which is rooted in Timbreza’s advocacy of using the Filipino
language in philosophizing. It must be noted that although he was a native Ilokano
language speaker, a good majority of his essays and writings are in the Filipino
language. He did not only believe that the Filipino language will help Filipino philosophy
to develop, because he was more importantly convinced that because of the breadth
and foundationality of philosophy, using the Filipino language in philosophizing would
greatly help in the linguistic intellectualization of this language as proposed by Bro.
Gonzalez and Sibayan (Cf. Timbreza, “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling Wika” 39).
In the essay “Mga Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino,” Timbreza

mentioned the Filipino academicians whom he considered pioneers in the development
of Filipino philosophy. These are: 1) Ramon Reyes of the Ateneo De Manila University,
who worked on the framework based on the distinction between vital thought and
reflexive thought; 2) Quito of De La Salle University, whose thoughts were already
extensively explored in Part I of this paper; 3) Leonardo Mercado of the Society of the
Divine Word, who used the linguistic theories of Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir
in probing the folk philosophies of Tagalogs, Cebuanos and Ilokanos; 4) Manuel Dy of
Ateneo De Manila University who used the phenomenology of Martin Heidegger in
reconstructing Filipino philosophy; 5) Abulad of De La Salle University who proposed
that Filipino philosophy should be conceptualized as the sum total of the philosophical
texts written by Filipino academicians; and 6) Timbreza himself (Cf. Timbreza, “Mga
Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino” 24-33).
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
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,
180
and a certain C. Pua (Cf. Timbreza, “Mga Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang
Filipino”33-35).
Timbreza’s Critique of Philippine Culture and Politics
Although Timbreza believed that Filipino philosophy is more focused on

constructive and substantive discourses than on critical discourses, he managed to
produced some works within the latter’s parameters. As shown in figure 7, these are his
critiques of some Filipino negative traits, the reinstated death penalty for heinous
crimes, and the Oakwood mutiny of 2003 (Cf. figure 7).
Critique of Filipino Traits
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
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.
181
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 seventh of these negative traits is procrastination that is accompanied by

last minute rush and that usually results to topsy-turvy processes and inferior results.
Timbreza elaborated: “while there is enough time the citizens do not act. They will only
hastily converge at the BIR office on the last day of filing (their income tax returns) when
there is no more time. This is also true to students in the writing of their term papers”
(Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 78, author’s own translation).
The eighth of these negative traits is the Filipino’s impatience that motivates him to
crowd and elbow his way into buses, movie houses, and even churches. This could be
also intimately connected with his first negative trait. The ninth of these negative traits
is the Filipino’s childish and idle curiosity (usisero) that compels him to explore and
investigate even the insignificant events that occur along his way. The tenth of these
negative traits is the Filipino’s habit of spitting and urinating on public places, which
Timbreza thought of as a behavioral baggage from his provincial and rural ways of life
(Cf. Timbreza, “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino” 79).
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
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
182
traits is the Filipino’s tendency to bribe officials that is one of the roots of our deplorable
graft and corruption.
Occasional Reflections: Death Penalty, Coup d’état and Violence
Timbreza’s reflections on death penalty, the Oakwood mutiny, and violence 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 “Parusang Kamatayan” was published in the same volume of the
Karunungan journal where Ceniza published his essay “On the Death Penalty.” It seems
that the members of the elite Philippine Academy of Philosophical Research agreed to
dedicate this volume on the issue of the re-imposed death penalty. As already stated,
the said volume of Karunungan came out 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 2004 essay “Pilosopiya ng Kudeta: Sisteng Pinoy”
was published a year after the group of Army Captain Gerardo Gambala and Navy
Lieutenant Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV occupied the Oakwood apartment tower to
demonstrate their frustrations against the alleged corruption of the Macapagal-Arroyo
administration. The 2004 essay “Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan” is actually an
edited version of a lecture that Timbreza delivered in March of 1994, a year after a
series of violent crimes shocked the country, namely: the double murder of Allan Gomez
and Eileen Sarmenta by Calauan, Laguna, Mayor Antonio Sanchez and his group; the
murder of Alvin Vinculado by San Idelfonso, Bulacan, Mayor Honorato Galvez and his
bodyguard; the murder of Severino Aquino, Alfredo Esmeralda and Joel Melegrito by
Ramos, Tarlac, Mayor Arnulfo Natividad; the massacre of two families by Allacapan,
Cagayan, Mayor Delfil Agcaoili, Jr. and his bodyguards; the murder of Raul Tonog by
Lope de Vega, Northern Samar, Mayor Guillermo Palloc; and the murder of Elsa
Castillo by Apex General Manager Mark Whisenhunt.
Timbreza’s reflection on death penalty addressed the core controversy

concerning the legitimacy of this sanction. He rhetorically raised his concern: “is it
possible for us to say that the death sentence for a monstrous criminal, or a person who
committed a heinous crime, as stated by law, is something legitimate or illegitimate,
correct or incorrect, good or evil, reasonable or unreasonable?” (Timbreza, “Parusang
Kamatayan” 166). In trying to address this moral and political problem he surveyed the
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.
183
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
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.
184
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
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
185
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).
Timbreza’s Discourse on Local Themes
As shown in figure 7, Timbreza’s discourse on local themes focused on the

interpretation of the personal philosophy of the poet Jose Corazon de Jesus, who is
more known for his penname Huseng Batute, and on the famous or infamous Filipino
mode of transportation, the jeepney.
On the Poet Jose Corazon de Jesus
Timbreza’s discourse on de Jesus is found in his 1995 essay “Mga Sangkap ng

Pilosopiya ng Buhay ni Huseng Batute.” De Jesus is a great Filipino poet who is one of
the creators of the balagtasan genre and who penned the poem “Bayan Ko” that
eventually became the lyrics of doleful song of the same title that is currently reputed as
our second national anthem. Timbreza justified his project of extracting philosophy from
the poems of the De Jesus: “while you read his compositions, you will become more
impressed with his reflections on the mysteries of human existence (kariyanang-tao).
And while you follow him through the flows and rhythms of his thinking, as well as
through his attempts to fathom the ironies of life, you will perceive the elements of his
philosophy of life, based on his own perceptions and experiences” (Timbreza, ““Mga
Sangkap ng Pilosopiya ng Buhay ni Huseng Batute” 199, author’s own translation).
He then commented on De Jesus’ salient metaphors about human life: life as a

burning candle, life as a growing tree that the moment it reaches impressive heights is
exposed to dangers of the wind, the radical equality of human beings, life as an endless
struggle, life as a carnivalesque existence, the ironies of endurance in suppleness and
strength in weakness, and the lure of love as the eternal fountain of youth.
On the Jeepney
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).
186
Using his signature phenomenological reading, he examined the cryptic,
aphoristic and multi-intentional texts such as “Huwag magsisiksikan, tayo’y
magbigayan” (Let us not jam the traffic, let us be courteous); “Mag-ingat kay Mando
Rukot” (Beware of Mando Rukot, a pun of “mandurukot” or pickpocket); “God knows
Hudas not pay” (Judas is used as a pun for “who does”); “Driver na masipag, kumakain
sa oras; Driver na tamad, pangarap sa buhay ad di matutupad” (Industrious driver, eats
on time; Lazy driver, ambitions would not come true); “Kayod sa araw, Kayod sa gabi”
(Work hard during the day, Work hard during the night); “Cats, bawal manigarilyo;
Chicks, pwedeng manabako” (Gentleman may not smoke cigarettes, Ladies may smoke
cigars); and “Seksi, libre; Buntis, doble; Pangit, triple” (Sexy ladies, free fare; pregnant
ladies, double the fare; ugly ladies, triple the fare) (Timbreza, “Ang Pampasaherong
Dyipni at ang Ugaling Pinoy” 302-304, author’s own translation).
Based on his analysis, Timbreza concluded: “the Filipino is a practical person, a

diplomat, thoughtful, persevering and industrious, somebody with an excuse always,
has a double standard morality, discriminating, has a good sense of humor, an expert
lover, romantic or tender, trusting, and above all religious and God-centered. . . . the
Filipino character is chaotic but colorful, just like the colorful appearance of the
passenger jeepney” (Timbreza, (Timbreza, “Ang Pampasaherong Dyipni at ang Ugaling
Pinoy” 306, author’s own translation).
Timbreza’s Discourse on Universal Themes
As shown in figure 7, Timbreza’s discourse on universal themes focused on

terrorism and ecology. Although these thoughts may also be called “occasional
reflections,” these are separated from the sub-section on occasional reflections
mentioned above for the reason that they are not necessarily critiques of Philippine
politics and culture. These universal themes will be tackled in the following sub-
sections.
On Terrorism
The 2003 essay “Pilosopiya ng Terorismo” contains Timbreza’s reflections on the

terror attacks that occurred locally and internationally at the outset of the 21 st century,
including the infamous 11 September 2001 tragedy. He probed the nature of terrorism
using the thoughts of Karl Marx, Georg Wilhelm Hegel, Niccolo Machiavelli, as well as
of the character of Thrasymachus in Plato’s The Republic, as his philosophical
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).
187
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.
Although he supported the state’s, as well as the international community’s,

military efforts in combating both local and international terrorism, he went back to his
steadfast adherence to the principle of non-violence and stated that at the bottom line
the state and the international community should also address the foundational
problems that nurture the growth of the terrorists’ bitter ideologies. He wrote: “once we
set aside the root causes of terrorism, it is certain that bloody violence and wars that
currently shake and disrupt the whole world will worsen” (Timbreza, “Philosopiya ng
Terorismo” 227, author’s own translation). He claimed that one of the major root causes
of terrorism is the problem of widespread poverty.
On Ecology
The 2004 essay “Ekolohiya at ang Landasin ng Tao” contains Timbreza’s

reflections on ethics and metaphysics of ecology. Using the etymology of “ecology” as
his starting point, he presented the metaphor of the ecosystem as a home where the
members and the elements have their own contributions and roles is sustaining the
holistic existence of such household. He stated: “in the law of ecology there is no
strong or weak, there is no wild or meek, there is no rich or poor, because all who live in
this home are beneficial to the others. All help the others in order to survive” (Timbreza,
“Ekolohiya at ang Landasin ng Tao” 197, author’s own translation). In order to deepen
his arguments for man to protect this fragile ecosystem, he made use of the
philosophical thoughts of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.
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
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
188
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.
Timbreza’s Reconstruction of Filipino Worldview and Identity
As shown in figure 7, Timbreza’ work on the reconstruction of Filipino worldview

and identity is devoted to the profiling of the Filipino self and the articulation of the
Filipino philosophy of life. These concerns are founded on his agenda of probing and
articulating the Filipino folk philosophy. These themes will be tackled in the following
sub-sections.
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),
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
189
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.
Filipino Philosophy of Life
The 1990 essay “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino” contains Timbreza

attempt to articulate the Filipino philosophy of life. Still using his signature
phenomenological reading of selected folk sayings, he was able to explicitate five
philosophies of life according to the Filipino point of view. The first of these philosophies
is the law of karma (batas ng panunumbalik) that restrains Filipinos from engaging in
evil and violent deeds as these are thought to recur in the near or far future against
them or their loved ones (Cf. Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino” 134-
136). Second is the balance of nature that implies the divine wisdom in the design of
things, the teleological dimension of events and situations, and the divine justice in the
distribution of physical qualities and internal gifts to all men (Cf. Timbreza, “Pilosopiya
ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino” 136-137).
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
weapon against the trials of life (Cf. Timbreza, “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino”
141-143).
Assessment and Critique of Timbreza’s

Compared to Quito and Ceniza, Timbreza’s contribution to Filipino philosophy is

definitely more extensive. In fact, the bulk of his textual production is devoted to this
philosophy, and he was able to surpass Quito and Ceniza’s parameters of reflection on
190
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). Timbreza’s consistent method of phenomenologically reflecting on Philippine
sayings in various local languages and dialects brings him to the threshold of Filipino
philosophy as the appropriation of folk philosophy (Cf. number 9, figure 1).
His reflection on the nature of Filipino philosophy has an optimistic, programmatic

and affirmative outlook as it laid out a plan for the development of this philosophy, and
as it cited the pioneering figures of this philosophy that the succeeding generations of
scholars on this philosophy can revisit, emulate and eventually surpass. His discussion
on the process of indigenization, with his exogenous and indogenous patterns, sets a
functional field for a productive dialogue between foreign philosophies and our folk
philosophies. His proposal for the intellectualization of Filipino philosophy reveals his
infectious dedication for the further unfolding of this still youthful discourse. His
stipulation on the Filipinization of Filipino philosophy articulates both his nationalistic
support for the use of this language as well as his theoretical position that this
philosophy can only be fully expressed and effectively improved using our own tongue.
It must be admitted, however, that Timbreza’s plan for the development of Filipino
philosophy is limited by his rather narrow conceptualization of this philosophy as
predominantly composed of the interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview, the
discourse on local themes, and the discourse on universal themes using folk categories
and systems of thoughts (Cf. numbers 12, 13 & 14, figure 1).
Similar to that of Ceniza, Timbreza’s critique of Philippine culture and politics is

also devoid of Marxist-inspired modern critical frameworks, but his signature
phenomenological reading of some folk sayings was able to able to deliver a potent
punch in as far as his speculations of the Filipino negative traits is concerned, and was
able to sufficiently articulate the Filipino perception of what is the difference between a
legitimate and illegitimate coups d’état, as well as the in-acceptability of violence as a
way of life. His use of utilitarian ethics and deontological moral theory was able to
effectively put up a legitimate defense for the re-imposed death penalty. His critique of
the Filipino negative traits and his occasional reflections on three significant national
issues and problems are enough proofs that he is also a thinker who is rooted in his
own world and history by using philosophy as a functional lens to view reality as
something meaningful.
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
191
impressive armory of western theories, and Ceniza, with his logic and metaphysics, did
not dare to venture into this area of Filipino philosophy.
Timbreza as a Filipino philosopher is commonly thought of as someone who

focused his investigations on the interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview. Our
study, however, has shown that his work on the Filipino identity, Filipino mind and
Filipino philosophies of life were actually not that extensive. In fact we have uncovered
that his criticism of the Filipino negative traits was even more extensive and engaging
than his profiling of the Filipino positive traits. For the younger scholars of Filipino
philosophy who are convinced that this philosophy can effectively develop by threading
on pathway of appropriating our folk philosophy in dealing with the more conventional
philosophical problems should surpass Timbreza in the aspect of researching on the
Filipino identity and worldview. This aspect of Filipino philosophy is supposed to be the
field that will provide us with the indigenous concepts and systems of thought that can
be used as the building blocks of a stronger 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.
(To be Continued in Part III of Three Parts)
SOURCES
Timbreza, Florentino. “Ang Pampasaherong Dyipni at ang Ugaling Pinoy.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Timbreza, Florentino. “Diwang Filipino: Pangako at Pagkatao.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Ekolohiya at ang Landasin ng Tao.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon
City: C & E Publishing, 2008. Pp. 184-197.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Karahasan at Kawalang-Karahasan.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Maituturo ba ang Pagpapahalaga.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Hugis-Pag-iisip ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Negatibong Pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Sangkap ng Pilosopiya ng Buhay ni Huseng Batute.” Sariling Wika at
192
Timbreza, Florentino. “Mga Tagapaghawan ng Landas ng Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pagkataong Filipino: Kaalaman, Gamit at Etika.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pag-unawa sa Pilosopiyang Filipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pamimilosopiya sa Sariling Wika: mga Problema at Solusyon.” Sariling Wika at
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
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya ng Buhay ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Pilosopiya ng Kudeta: Sisteng Pinoy.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino.
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.
Timbreza, Florentino. “Tao: Sa Pananaw ng mga Pilipino.” Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon
193
(Part III of Three Parts)
INTRODUCTION FOR THE THIRD PART
194
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/
(3) Other Foreign

Systems (Lecture)

Filipino
Philosophy
(6) Phenomenology /
Hermeneutics
Textualized
Foreign Theories

Philosophy
Academic
(10) Exposition of
Foreign Systems
(11) Breakthrough
Writing

Filipino Worldview

Themes

& Foreign Themes

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
195
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.
Gripaldo was able to publish seven books, namely: 1) Circumstantialism of 1977,

2) Quezon-Winslow Correspondence and other Essays of 1994, 3) Filipino Philosophy:
a Critical Bibliography of 1995, 4) Love and Liberty: the Political and Ethical Philosophy
of Emilio Jacinto of 2001, 5) Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach, Part I, Section 1
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
196
other Essays. These three books more or less contain the ideas and themes
expounded in the other four books.
The book Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach, Part I, Section 1, contains 12

main essays, all of which are used by this paper. These are: 1) “Laurel: the Political
Philosopher and the Man” of 1982, 2) “Rizal’s Philosophy of Nonviolence” of 1986, 3)
“Bonifacio, the Translator: a Critique” of 1987, 4) “Quezon’s Political Philosophy” of
1992, 5) “Reflections of Bonifacio’s Philosophy of Revolution” of 1992, 6) “Social
Justice: Cornerstone of Quezon’s Social Thought” of 1994, 7) “Jacinto’s Libertarian
Philosophy of Revolution” of 1996, 8) “Rizal’s Utopian Society” of 1996, 9) “Bonifacio
and Jacinto: Two Philosophies of Revolution and their Sources” of 1997, 10) “Agnostic
Deism: Rizal’s Religious Philosophy” of 1998, 11) “Quezon’s Philosophy of Philippine
Education” of 1998, and 12) “Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism: a
Critique” of 1999.
The book Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach, Part I, Section 2, contains 11

main essays, nine of which are used by this paper. These are: 1) “He Could Have
Chosen Otherwise?” of 1977, 2) “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and Contemporary
Change: the Filipino Experience” of 2001, 3) “Freedom and Futurism in Art: a Critique of
Embuscado’s Aesthetics of Dissectionism” of 2001, 4) “The Ideal Poem as the Rubber
Tower: a Hermeneutical Analysis of Cirilo Bautista’s Theory on the Poem” of 2002, 5)
“Cultural Approach to Filipino Philosophy” of 2003, 6) “Freedom to Choose: An Essay
on Situational Determinism” of 2003, and 7) “Ceniza the Neo-Parmenidean: a Critique
of his Metaphysics” of 2004; 8) “Media Powerhouse: Challenges to Contemporary
Philosophers” of 2005; and 9) “Tourism and Heritage in a Global Society: the Philippine
Experience” of 2005.
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.
The contents of these 26 pertinent essays yielded a conceptual map that

summarizes Gripaldo’s contributions to the development of Filipino philosophy:
197
Hindrances for Filipino
Philosophy
Reflection on Filipino Critique of the Cultural

Philosophy Approach
Developmental Path of
Filipino Philosophy
Critique of Padrino System

& Philippine Governance
Culture and Politics Critique of Philippine Tourism
& Heritage Conservation
Gripaldo’s Contributions
to Filipino Philosophy
Jose Rizal
Andres Bonifacio
Emilio Jacinto
Manuel Quezon
Substantive Work on Filipino Discourse on Local Jose Laurel

Philosophy Themes
Renato Constantino
Restituto Embuscado
Cirilo Bautista
Claro Ceniza
On Mass Media
Discourse on Universal On Public Good

Themes
Circumstantialist Moral
Theory
Figure 9: Conceptual Map of Gripaldo’s Contributions

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
198
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.
Gripaldo’s Reflective Thoughts

on the Problems and Prospects of Filipino Philosophy
As shown in figure 9, Gripaldo’s reflective thoughts on the nature of Filipino

philosophy may be divided into his identification of the hindrances for the development
of Filipino philosophy, his critique of the cultural approach to Filipino philosophy, or that
mode of philosophizing that corresponds to number 9 and number 12 of figure 1, and
his proposed development path for Filipino philosophy.
Hindrances for Filipino Philosophy
Gripaldo’s identification of the elements and factors that hindered the

development of Filipino philosophy are primarily found in the 2006 and 2007 essays
“Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building,” and “The Making of a
Filipino Philosopher.” The first of these elements and factors is the widespread
misconception of Filipinos on what philosophy is. In the present set up where colleges
and universities are only required by the Commission on Higher Education to offer only
one philosophy course to students who are not specialized in philosophy, and where
this single philosophy course is usually devoted to logic, or philosophy of man, or ethics,
Filipino college graduates tend to narrowly define philosophy in accordance to that
single philosophy course that they took up (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western
Tradition, and Nation Building” 44). Those few Filipinos who majored in philosophy are
not necessarily better off because they would most probably be trained in a particular
philosophical tradition, such as Thomism/Scholasticism, Anglo-American linguistic
philosophy, or contemporary continental European philosophy, and would in the end
also narrowly define philosophy in accordance to that tradition where they get their
academic training (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation
Building” 45). Among these traditions, Thomism/Scholasticism is still the predominant
one as it is used as a formative program for higher Catholic theological studies. Hence,
Gripaldo also noted that there is this equally widespread idea among Filipinos that
philosophy is a program that is only fit for priests and nuns (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino
Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building” 48-49). Gripaldo claimed that the
Filipinos’ failure to conceptualize philosophy as a discipline, as they are mired in the
idea that it is just logic, philosophy of man, or ethics, or in the idea that it is just a
particular tradition, could surely hinder the development of Filipino philosophy.
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
199
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.
Gripaldo’s sixth element and factor focused on the deficiencies of the

philosophical organizations in the Philippines, that failed to unite under one umbrella
organization, that failed to foster research and publication, and that failed to be
developmental in its outlook (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher” 68-
69). This could be the reasons, why Gripaldo’s Philippine National Philosophical
Research Society is keen in its emphasis for research and publication to the point of
hosting monthly philosophical conferences and even offering small research grants to
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
200
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.
Critique of the Cultural Approach in Filipino Philosophy
Gripaldo’s critique of the cultural approach in Filipino philosophy is mainly found

in the 2003, 2003 and 2007 essays “Cultural Approach to Filipino Philosophy,” “Is there
a Filipino Philosophy?,” and “The Making of a Filipino Philosopher.” This critique,
however, can only be properly appreciated once we understand first Gripaldo’s key
distinction between the traditional approach and the cultural approach in Filipino
philosophy. For him, the traditional approach in Filipino philosophy is his main basis for
his insistence that there is such a thing as Filipino philosophy despite Quito’s denial that
presently there is such a thing as Filipino philosophy in the strictest sense of the word.
What Gripaldo meant by “traditional” is connected with the way philosophy is written and
studied in the west, as well as in the east, in which individual philosophers are named,
their biographies are recounted, and their works are analyzed and explored (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Cultural Approach to Filipino Philosophy” 170-171). He argued that although
we do not have similar individual philosophers who worked as, or who were known as,
philosophers in their own lifetime, it does not follow that we do not have individual
intellectuals who thought and wrote about problems and things that may turn out to be
philosophical. For him, the primary examples of such intellectuals are Jose Rizal,
Andres Bonifacio, and Manuel Quezon. The philosophical insights of these thinkers and
a handful of others will be tackled in the section on his discourse on local themes.
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
and mores should be considered more important to philosophies and morals because
they are actually the philosophies and morals of a given society.
Although Gripaldo affirmed the discursive significance of the cultural approach in

Filipino philosophy as it is geared towards the articulation and understanding of the
Filipino folkways/folk philosophies and mores/morals, he warned the Filipino scholars
who intend to focus on this area of philosophizing that they should not duplicate the
201
theoretical error committed by Sumner who in effect had argued that the “is” should also
be the “ought,” in his attempt to respect the radical autonomy of a given society. In
other words, Filipino scholars who work in the parameters of the cultural approach in
Filipino philosophy should not stop with the mere articulation and description of the
Filipino folkways and mores, but should exert further efforts in making their findings
useful and in critiquing and rectifying whatever folkways and mores they have
established to be counterproductive and questionable. Gripaldo stressed: “the end of
understanding such a worldview must be to cleanse it of impurities, so to speak, in order
to improve or better society and to enrich the nation’s cultural heritage” (Gripaldo,
“Cultural Approach to Filipino Philosophy” 177).
Developmental Path of Filipino Philosophy
Gripaldo’s suggested developmental path for Filipino philosophy is mainly

contained in the 2003, 2006 and 2007 essays “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?,” “Filipino
Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building,” and “The Making of a Filipino
Philosopher.” This developmental path is actually constituted by the remedies that he
thought of for the hindrances that he already uncovered and itemized. Hence, the first
of these remedies is the attainment of a more functional definition of what philosophy is,
which for him can be done by properly conceptualizing philosophy as a discipline. He
lauded the innovation introduced by Quito in the Philosophy Department of De La Salle
University that made this department eclectic in its outlook (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino
Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building” 46). Gripaldo was convinced that
this eclecticism has the potency of presenting a fuller picture of what philosophy really
is. Although Gripaldo did not lay out a proposal in counteracting the widespread
perception about the absence of career opportunities for philosophy graduates, he did
present a thorough argumentation that such perception is baseless as philosophy is an
effective training ground for a career in research firms, business firms and publishing
companies, or for further studies in law and other graduate programs (Cf. Gripaldo, “The
Making of a Filipino Philosopher” 47).
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
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
202
heritage as a nation (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation
Building” 58).
Gripaldo’s fourth remedy is his challenge to Filipino academicians in philosophy

to continuously devote themselves to research and publication. He even remained
open to the possibility that many Filipino academicians would opt to dedicate their
career in the scholarship of specific foreign thinkers. But he advised these
academicians not to stop at the point when they have already mastered the biography,
works and theories of the foreign philosopher of their choice, for there is always that
possibility that they can create breakthrough philosophizing by going beyond the
doctrines of their selected thinkers. He said: “depart from just being an expert or a
scholar. . . but. . . modify those ideas in a uniquely original way such that one ceases to
be, e.g., simply a Kantian, but becomes a neo-Kantian” (Gripaldo, “Is there a Filipino
Philosophy” 5). His fifth remedy revolved around the restructuring, consolidation and re-
orientation of the philosophical organizations of the country. He wanted that these
scattered organizations will have an umbrella organization like what is practiced in many
countries abroad, will go beyond their current focus on hosting seminars and
conferences and foster the culture of research and publication, and will eventually
become institutional members of the International Federation of Philosophical Societies
(Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building” 53-55).
Gripaldo scored the ego-centricism and selfishness of many Filipino philosophy
professors that limited their view of philosophy as personal and individual toil and
blinded them to the prospect that Filipino philosophy will greatly benefit from the mutual
cooperation of individual Filipino scholars and organizations (Cf. Gripaldo, “Filipino
Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building” 58).
Gripaldo’s Critique of Philippine Culture and Politics
As shown in figure 9, Gripaldo’s critique of Philippine culture and politics is

focused on his critique of the padrino system and Philippine governance, and his
critique of tourism in the country. These critiques will be tackled in the following sub-
sections.
Critique of Padrino System and Philippine Governance
Gripaldo’s critique of the padrino system and Philippine governance is mainly

found in his 2001 essay “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and Contemporary Change:
the Filipino Experience.” This critique is aligned with his stand that Filipino philosophers
should not stop at the profiling and articulation of the Filipino identity and cultural traits
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
203
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).
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.
204
Critique of Philippine Tourism and Heritage Conservation
Gripaldo’s critique of Philippine tourism and heritage conservation is contained in

the 2005 essay “Tourism and Heritage in a Global Society: the Philippine Experience.”
Gripaldo started with the affirmation that tourism is a good, both for the tourist and for
the host country, and that heritage conservation is also a good, in the sense that a
heritage site needs to be appreciated by the present and the future people of a given
nation. He argued that there ought to be a natural connection between tourism and
heritage sites, because these sites are supposed to attract tourists, and the coming of
tourists is supposed to generate funds to conserve such heritage sites.
However, the Philippines seemed to be special case, because even if it boasts of

five heritage sites, which are actually spread on eight locations, it lagged behind the
other ASEAN countries as a tourist destination (Cf. Gripaldo, “Tourism and Heritage in a
Global Society” 187). Specifically, the cultural heritage sites of the Philippines are: 1) its
baroque churches, the Immaculate Conception Church in Intramuros, Manila, the
Nuestra Senora Church in Santa Maria, Ilocos Sur, the San Agustin Church in Paoay,
Ilocos Norte, and the Santo Tomas Church in Miag-ao, Iloilo, 2) the town of Vigan,
Ilocos Sur, and 3) the rice terraces of Banaue, Ifugao; while its natural heritage sites are
4) the subterranean river of Puerto-Princesa, Palawan, and 5) the Tubbataha reefs of
Palawan. Gripaldo, then, laid down eight reasons why the Philippines is not a favorite
tourist destination in the ASEAN region.
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
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
205
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
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
Gripaldo’s discussion on the philosophical insights of Rizal is contained in the

1986, 1996, and 1998 essays “Rizal’s Philosophy of Nonviolence,” “Rizal’s Utopian
Society,” and “Agnostic Deism: Rizal’s Religious Philosophy.” As hinted by the titles of
these essays, Gripaldo focused his attention on the extraction of Rizal’s philosophical
thoughts on nonviolence, his utopian vision, and his theodicy.
Rizal’s philosophy of nonviolence is rooted on his notion of freedom, which

according to Gripaldo is the condition that allows man to attain his full potentialities (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Rizal’s Philosophy of Nonviolence” 13). This is the reason why for Rizal
there seemed to be no contradiction between freedom and the full integration of the
Philippines as a true province of Spain. At that time, Philippines’ being a mere colony
did not accord this country substantial rights, hence the individual freedom of the
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”
206
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.
Gripaldo called Rizal’s theodicy, or religious philosophy, as “agnostic deism,” in

the sense that Rizal believed in a “God who does not interfere in man’s affairs and
whose attributes are unknowable” (Gripaldo, “Agnostic Deism” 52). About the human
soul and its immortality, Gripaldo, expounded on Rizal’s almost Pythagorean and
Platonic utterance that God shared with man a spark of His divinity, and arrived at the
conclusion that Rizal believed in the existence of the human soul and its continued
existence after death (Cf. Gripaldo, “Agnostic Deism” 53). Gripaldo regretted that Rizal
did not reflect much on the problem of evil which is supposed to be one of the central
topics of theodicy.
On Andres Bonifacio
Gripaldo’s discussion on the philosophical insights of Bonifacio is contained in

the 1987, 1992 and 1997 essays “Bonifacio, the Translator: a Critique,” “Reflections on
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
207
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
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
208
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
Gripaldo wrote his dissertation on Quezon and published a portion of it as his

book Quezon-Winslow Correspondence and other Essays, but our short presentation of
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.
209
Gripaldo called the strategic strand of Quezon’s political philosophy “political
pragmatism,” which the former defined as the conviction that “one should fight for ideals
and principles, but in case obstacles to an ideal are difficult to surmount, one must be
ready to fall back on an alternative that is better than nothing or that is a right step
toward the ideal” (Gripaldo, “Quezon’s Political Philosophy” 113). According to
Gripaldo, Quezon used this strategy in working out a roadmap that would eventually
lead to Philippine independence, which at the same time contained milestones that are
palatable both to the American officials and the Filipino public.
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
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
210
vigilance against the exploitation of fellow Filipinos (Cf. Gripaldo, “Quezon’s Philosophy
of Philippine Education” 169).
On Jose Laurel
Gripaldo’s extraction of the political philosophy of Laurel is contained in the 1982

essay “Laurel: the Political Philosopher and the Man.” Gripaldo premised his reflection
on Laurel’s political thoughts on an explanation that the accusation of the other
historians concerning the latter’s collaboration with the Japanese should be properly
contextualized as the latter’s obedience to the parting orders of Quezon that he stay
behind and help take care of the country (Cf. Gripaldo, “Laurel” 186-187). Before the
Japanese occupation, Laurel had a number of Japanese clients who opened
businesses in Mindanao and had been given an honorary doctor’s degree by the
University of Tokyo. This made Quezon believe that he can be a good intermediary
between the Filipino people and the invading Japanese forces. Gripaldo argued that
Laurel’s efforts in running a provisional government under the Japanese flag were done
in good faith. In fact in the essay “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and Contemporary
Change: the Filipino Experience,” Gripaldo already depicted Laurel as a good padrino
who protected a number of Filipinos against the violence of the Japanese Kempeitai (Cf.
“Cultural Traditions, the Person, and Contemporary Change” 190-191).
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
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
Constantino was a political historian, diplomat, college professor, museum

director and journalist who devoted much of his textual production critiquing our colonial
211
bondage as well as the neo-imperialism of the United States of America. Gripaldo’s
analysis of his cultural and political philosophy is contained in the 1999 essay “Renato
Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism: a Critique.” According to Gripaldo,
Constantino’s critique of colonialism had been a two-pronged project (Cf. Gripaldo,
“Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism” 203). On the one hand, Constantino
explored our psychological colonialism; and on the other hand, our economic
colonialism, which is otherwise known as our neo-colonial bondage. Psychological
colonialism is manifested by our having a captive consciousness, or the consciousness
that is shaped by the needs and desires of the Spanish and American colonizers.
Gripaldo wrote: “the Spanish friars saw to it that the natives, through religious
conversion, became docile and illiterate, obedient and fanatical. The Americans on the
other hand, by using education with English as the medium of instruction, saw to it that
the natives developed Western preferences, thereby imbibing a Western consumerist
consciousness” (Gripaldo, “Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism” 204).
Constantino imagined our psychological colonialism as a great hangover from our
history of being subservient to our colonial masters.
Constantino argued that the antidote for our psychological colonialism is

nationalism, which he defined as our realization that we have our own country and
therefore we should have the commitment for keeping it our own and developing it for
our own people. He, however, warned us that there are at least four types of
nationalism and that only one of them could be the proper medicine for our colonial
malady (Cf. “Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism” 205-206). The first of
these is the lip-service nationalism, which is unreliable and dangerous; the second of
these is emotional nationalism that nurtures the strong sentiment for the country without
necessarily understanding what nationalism really is all about; the third of these is
intellectual nationalism that thoroughly understands what nationalism is all about but is
uncommitted to its required actions and sacrifices; while the fourth of these is genuine
nationalism that merges affection, understanding, commitment and action (Gripaldo,
“Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism” 206). This fourth type is the kind of
nationalism that can effectively address our psychological colonialism, and this can be
established and propagated through the concerted efforts of our intellectuals and
through a re-conceptualized nationalist educational system.
Economic colonialism, or the neocolonial colonial economic system, pertained to

our economic structure that retained much of the colonial machinations of the American
occupation that were geared toward the reduction of our economy to a mere appendage
of the American global economy. During the American colonial period, our country
acted as the supplier of raw materials to American industries and an extended market
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
212
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
Restituto Embuscado is a Filipino-American visual artist who theorized on and

practiced what he called “dissectional aesthetics.” Gripaldo’s reflections on his aesthetic
theory is contained in the 2001 essay “Freedom and Futurism in Art: a Critique of
Embuscado’s Aesthetics of Dissectionism.” Dissectional aesthetics is a reaction against
the more popular aesthetic trends, such as the figurative stagnation of realism, the
mutilating force of cubism, the fantasy world of surrealism, and the un-creativity of
commercial kitsch.
According to Gripaldo, Embuscado’s aesthetic theory meditates over the darker

side of contemporary life, and focused on such themes as being an outcast, monotony
of life, old age, poverty, war and other forms of modern evils and sources of discontents
(Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom and Futurism in Art” 15-16). From these otherwise depressing
scenario, Embuscado’s aesthetics captures the tension between misery and beauty, as
well as between the underlying unity of his subjects and their multiple representational
possibilities, and through swirling brush strokes and blotches of color he would
represent that dynamic multiplicity on his canvas (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom and Futurism
in Art” 9-13).
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
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).
213
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
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
214
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.
According to Gripaldo, Ceniza accomplished his intention by affirming first the

presence of the Parmenidean being, or the one, or the plenum. By using his knowledge
about modern optics, Ceniza likened the Parmenidean plenum to a ray of white light,
which in reality is the sum total of all colors of light (Cf. Gripaldo, “Ceniza the Neo-
Parmenidean” 119). This means that the Parmenidean plenum is actually the sum total
of the Heraclitean many that subsist in such a plenum. Gripaldo explained that to make
his effort coherent, Ceniza had to revise his notion of existence by making it experiential
instead of just ontological. Ontological existence means the self existence of any being
regardless of other beings, while experiential existence means the existence of a being
in relation to another being. Hence, the many, which are subsumed in the plenum, can
only be said to exist once they stand out from the plenum from the point of view of some
finite subjects. Ceniza emphasized that to exist means to make a difference (Cf.
Gripaldo, “Ceniza the Neo-Parmenidean” 121-124). Going back to his analogy, a red
beam of light actually subsists in a white ray of light, but it will take a subject to isolate
this red beam and make it stand out from the white ray.
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.
Gripaldo’s Discourse on Universal Themes
As shown in figure 9, Gripaldo’s discourse on universal themes is focused on his

speculations on mass communication, on the public good, and on an ethical theory
which he called “circumstantialism.” These philosophical endeavors will be tackled in
the following sub-sections.
On Mass Media
Gripaldo’s take on modern mass media is actually a critique of these

phenomena. This paper could not classify his work on this topic along with his other
critiques on Philippine culture and politics for the reason that what Gripaldo was
critiquing was not just Philippine mass media, but mass media in general. His
philosophical reflection on modern mass media is contained in the 2005 essay “Media
Powerhouse: Challenges to Contemporary Philosophers.” Gripaldo initially clarified that
by “media” he meant media for transportation and communication which covered both
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
215
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
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
216
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.”
Gripaldo started with the widely accepted politico-economic definition of public

good as a non-rivalrous and non-excludable good (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Concept of the
Public Good” 87). Non-rivalry refers to the criterion that whenever somebody uses such
good it would not diminish or exhaust the same good; while non-excludability refers to
the criterion that the access and use of such good is open to all individuals. Upon this
common understanding, he proceeded to introduce three nuances, the first one of which
is his constriction of the range of his public by limiting it to communal and national
publics (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Concept of the Public Good” 83). His second nuance is his
elaboration of the goodness of the public good based on its desirability and beneficial
impact to the communal and national public (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Concept of the Public
Good” 83). His third nuance is his introduction of the distinction among public public
goods, private public goods, and mixed public goods. By public public goods, Gripaldo
meant those public goods that are made available to the communal and national publics
either from nature or from the government; whereas private pubic goods are those
public goods that are made available to the communal and national publics through the
efforts of the private sector; and whereas the mixed public goods are those public goods
that are similar to public public goods but are made available to the communal and
national publics through the efforts of some private organizations that are disinterested
in profit making (Cf. Gripaldo, “The Concept of the Public Good” 91-94).
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
217
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.
Circumstantialist Moral Theory
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.
To emphasize his focus on the authenticity of rational choices/decisions/actions,

he adapted T. F. Daveney’s five conditions for these choices/decisions/actions to be
authentic. Gripaldo said: “First, there must be genuine alternatives. Second, the
chooser must be aware of these alternatives. Third, he must believe that these
alternatives are attainable or doable. Fourth, he must have a prior aim, purpose, or
want for choosing. And fifth, the alternative chosen must be that one which suits him
best” (Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 147). Gripaldo proceeded to outline his
conceptualization of the process of choosing/deciding, which he partitioned into three
stages. The first stage pertains to the moral agent’s recognition of the alternatives that
are in front of him. This is followed by the second stage which pertains to the moral
agent’s weighing of the “merits and demerits, advantages and disadvantages, pluses
and minuses of each alternative” (Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 150). Finally,
Gripaldo’s process of choosing/deciding is capped by the third stage which pertains to
“the level or phase where the agent acts out his/her decision/choice,” or more simply, to
the full consummation of the choosing/deciding process (Gripaldo, “Freedom to
Choose” 150).
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
218
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).
Although Gripaldo’s circumstantialist construction of the moral choice/decision

demonstrated how choices/decisions are determined by the moral agent’s
environmental (Source1), historical (Source2), futural/intentional (Source3), and
physical/mental (Source4) conditions, he maintained that the moral agent’s
choice/decision is a product of human freedom. It is in this sense that Gripaldo can be
grouped with the other moral theorists who believed in the compatibility of freedom and
determinism. He believed that the moral agent is free as he goes through all the three
stages of the process of choosing/deciding (Cf. Gripaldo, “Freedom to Choose” 156-
157).
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).
Assessment and Critique of Gripaldo’s

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
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
219
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.
Gripaldo’s identification of the hindrances for the full development of Filipino

philosophy may not be as incisive and extensive as compared to that of Quito, yet his
critique on what he called the cultural approach to Filipino philosophy, which is
equivalent to Quito and Timbreza’s preoccupation with the reconstruction of Filipino
identity and worldview, is a powerful guideline that should strengthen the agenda of
those younger scholars who intend to focus on this area of philosophizing. He stressed
that Filipino scholars who desire to work within this philosophical parameter should not
stop with the mere articulation and description of the Filipino folkways and mores, but
should exert further efforts in making their findings useful and in critiquing and rectifying
whatever folkways and mores they have established to be counterproductive and
questionable.
This paper grouped Gripaldo’s substantive contributions to Filipino philosophy

into three clusters, namely: his critique of Philippine culture and politics, his discourses
on local themes, and his discourses on universal themes. Just like Quito, Ceniza and
Timbreza, Gripaldo’s critical reflections on Philippine culture and politics are not framed
using any of the Marxist inspired frameworks, yet his training as a historian equipped
him with a sharp critic’s eye for details and a broad context for the reliable appraisal of
his subject matter. However, figure 9 shows us that doing critical philosophy is not the
specialization of Gripaldo.
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.
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
220
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.
Because of some intramural “political” differences with his former colleagues at

the De La Salle University, Gripaldo is currently enduring some form of ostracism from
the philosophy department that he previously chaired. But no one can deny that his
dedication to the development of Filipino philosophy could easily equal, if not surpass,
that of Timbreza. He is the thinker who insisted that there is such a thing as Filipino
philosophy in the strict sense of the word philosophy. He invited other scholars to look
and be inspired and enriched by this philosophy in the textual production of some
Filipino intellectuals, and he invited other scholars as well to be bold enough to
philosophize as Filipino thinkers. For good or for bad, he decided to devote his post-
retirement time and energy for the management of the Philippine National Philosophical
Research Society with the hope of strengthening the bond of cooperation among
Filipino philosophers and scholars in philosophy.
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.
Similarities among the Four Filipino Philosophers
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.
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,
221
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.
Differences among the Four Filipino Philosophers
There seems to be more differences among the four philosophers from De La

Salle University than there are similarities. Firstly, the study of Filipino identity,
worldview and mind appeared to be something that is common only to Quito, Timbreza
and Ceniza, as Gripaldo avoided entering into this parameter. Secondly, the non-critical
reflection on some local themes appeared to be something that is common only to
Timbreza and Gripaldo, as Quito and Ceniza did not engage in such philosophical task.
Thirdly, although all of the four thinkers reflected on some universal themes, only
Timbreza and Gripaldo did so with the consciousness of their being Filipino thinkers.
Fourthly, in terms of methodology only Timbreza insisted on using a particular

style of philosophizing that in his own perspective would lead towards a truly Filipino
philosophy, as Quito, Ceniza and Gripaldo were all eclectically comfortable in exploiting
the potentialities of foreign philosophical systems. Fifthly, these Filipino thinkers have
diverse modes of positioning themselves as Filipino thinkers: Quito postured herself as
a philosophy teacher who is hopeful that one day a truly Filipino philosophy will emerge
from the collective efforts of Filipino philosophy scholars; Ceniza did not problematize
much the issue of Filipinoness, but instead went directly into philosophizing as a
cosmopolitan thinker; Timbreza styled himself as a pioneering Filipino philosopher who
is anchored on his self stipulated methodology; while Gripaldo took the stance of a
Filipino philosopher among other Filipino philosophers who should not be hesitant to
express and publish their own philosophical views.
Concluding Remarks
De La Salle University was able to contribute much to the development of Filipino

philosophy, through the works of Quito, Ceniza, Timbreza and Gripaldo, primarily and
initially because Bro. Connon and Bro. Gonzalez undertook some giant steps in
transforming De La Salle University into a research university and attracted Quito and
Ceniza to become part of their Philosophy Department.
Quito suppressed the hegemony of Thomistic and Scholastic philosophies within

this department and cultivated an environment of eclecticism that is open to the
possibility of pursuing researches and speculations on Filipino philosophy. Substantively
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
222
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.
Cummulatively speaking, Gripaldo could easily equal, if not surpass Timbreza’s

textual production on Filipno philosophy. Gripaldo’s veering away from the initial
preoccupation of Filipino philosophy for the reconstruction of the Filipino identity,
worldview and mind could be a signal of the intellectual exhaustion of the Filipino
scholars with such an endeavor. His impact on Filipino philosophy would be his
argument that there is such a thing as Filipino philosophy in the real or traditional sense
of the word philosophy. Consequently he devoted much of his time and energy trying to
extract these philosophical insights from the writings of some Filipino intellectuals.
Furthermore, Gripaldo enjoined the other Filipino scholars in philosophy to be bold in
asserting themselves as real philosophers among other Filipino philosophers through
the constant expression and publications of their views and speculations.
De La Salle Univesity had no doubt contributed much to the development of

Filipino philosophy through the efforts and dedications of Quito, Ceniza, Timbreza and
Gripaldo.
Recommendations
Before winding up this research project it would be beneficial to manifest the

themes and topics it left untouched for one reason or another. Perhaps some other
Filipino scholars in philosophy might be interested in pursuing these themes and topics
in the near or distant future.
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
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.
223
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.
(End of Three Parts)
SOURCES
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Agnostic Deism: Rizal’s Religious Philosophy.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 33-56.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Bonifacio and Jacinto: Two Philosophies of Revolution and their Sources.” Filipino
Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing,
Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 97-112.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Bonifacio, the Translator: a Critique.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part
I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 57-71.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Ceniza the Neo-Parmenidean: a Critique of his Metaphysics.” Filipino Philosophy:
Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp.
105-143.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Cultural Approach to Filipino Philosophy.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach.
Part I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 198-206.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Cultural Traditions, the Person, and Contemporary Change: the Filipino Experience.”
Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E Publishing,
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Filipino Philosophy, Western Tradition, and Nation Building.” The Making of a Filipino
Philosopher and other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, 2009. Pp. 41-61.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Filipino Philosophy: a Western Tradition in an Eastern Setting.” The Making of a
Filipino Philosopher and other Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, 2009. Pp. 10-40.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Freedom and Futurism in Art: a Critique of Embuscado’s Aesthetics of
Dissectionism.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 6-43.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Freedom to Choose: An Essay on Situational Determinism.” Filipino Philosophy:
144-163.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “He Could Have Chosen Otherwise?” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach. Part
I, Section 2. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Incorporated, 2009. Pp. 164-171.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Is there a Filipino Philosophy?” The Making of a Filipino Philosopher and other
Essays. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, 2009. Pp. 1-9.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Jacinto’s Libertarian Philosophy of Revolution.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Laurel: the Political Philosopher and the Man.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Media Powerhouse: Challenges to Contemporary Philosophers.” Filipino Philosophy:
172-184.
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Quezon’s Philosophy of Philippine Education.” Filipino Philosophy: Traditional
224
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
Gripaldo, Rolando. “Renato Constantino’s Philosophy of Nationalism: a Critique.” Filipino Philosophy:
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:
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,
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.
225

Readings For Filipino Philosophy Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings For Filipino Philosophy Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RE-READING EMERITA QUITO’S THOUGHTS

CONCERNING THE UNDERDEVELOPMENT

A national culture is the whole body of efforts made by a people in the

- Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth.

Romualdo Abulad, in his essay Contemporary Filipino Philosophy, schematized

Second Colonial Influx of Contemporary Philosophical Quito’s return from the

Early Filipino Academicians started to Reflect Quito’s publication of Pilosopiya

Beginning of Late Filipino Academicians distanciation from Later reflections of Quito

Quito is a very prolific writer, and her speculations concerning the

The Historical Problem

The Economic and Institutional Problems

Having been educated in Europe, Quito personally witnessed the economic,

The Linguistic Problems

Even the most under-qualified Filipino academician is multi-lingual, with two

The Cultural Problem

Quito noticed that culturally speaking, in the Philippines there seems to be a

Strict Sense: No real Philosophers

Loose Sense: Mentors of Philosophy,

Conceptually: Diwa, Volksgeist

START HERE DISCUSSION FOR JAN 26, 2021

CRITIQUE OF QUITO’S DIAGNOSIS

Basically, the above-mentioned clusters of problems, as well as the hypothesized

On The Historical Problem

I believe that an ideological enclosure and philosophy are two incompatible

On The Economic and Institutional Problems

Quito’s identification of the defective economic and institutional infrastructure of

On The Linguistic Problems

I think Quito’s isolation of Pilosopo Tasyo as a cause for the underdevelopment

THE RADICAL PROBLEMS OF FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

The Historically Distorted Concept of Philosophy

This historically distorted concept of philosophy can be most probably traced to

The Economic and Institutional Practices

When Quito critiqued the defective economic and institutional infrastructure of

FEBRUARY 15, 2022

The Culture of Orality

In her encyclopedia article Pilosopiyang Pilipino, Quito enumerates some of the

Aggregative rather than analytic, with ideas clustered on cliches and

Homeostatic, with cultures living in a kind of permanent present, sloughing

kongkreto sa halip na abstrakto

personal sa halip na impersonal, kung kayat kalimitan ay subhetibo

In face of this immense cultural obstacle, I still have to suggest a non-defeatist

FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY: A CRITIQUE

THOUGHT AND SOCIO-POLITICS:

-F. Sionil Jose. Ermita: A Filipino Novel.

FERNANDO NAKPIL-ZIALCITA’S MORPHOLOGY

Maaring maging Pilipino ang pilosopiya sa pamamaraan o kalamnan. Ang kalamnan ay

Graphically, what he asserted is represented by the following figure.

Filipino Methodology for

Interpretation of the Filipino

Nakpil-Zialcita’s Morphololgy of Filipino Philosophy

For him, Filipino philosophy as a methodology could be a promising hallmark of what

It is interesting to note from Nakpil-Zialcita’s analysis, is that the content of

On the one hand, 'ideology' is employed by many authors as if it were a purely

ROMUALDO ABULAD’S EVOLUTIONARY SCHEMA

First Colonial Phase Unchallenged Predominance of Thomism

Influx of Contemporary Philosophical

Beginnings of Late Filipino Academicians distantiation from

Abulad’s Evolutionary Schema of Filipino Philosophy

A COMPARATIVE READING OF NAKPIL-ZIALCITA

The most obvious difference between Nakpil-Zialcita’s morphology and Abulad’s

Abulad’s Scheme Nakpil-Zialcita’s Scheme

First Colonial Phase

Critique of the Political and