[This paper is the third revised version (2013).

It was originally presented in a

philosophical conference in Athens, Greece on 6 June 2006, Athens Institute of
Educati on and Research. It was first published as Chapter 28 in The philosophical
landscape. Third edition. Edited by Rolando M. Gripaldo. Manila: Philippine National
Philosophical Research Society, 2007. Other editions appeared in Philosophia:
International Journal of Philosophy 36/8 (1): January 2007 and in The making of a
Filipino philosopher and other essays. [A collection of Gripaldo’s essays.] Chapter 2.
Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 2009.]

FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY:
A WESTERN TRADITION IN AN EASTERN SETTING 1
Rolando M. Gripaldo, Ph.D. 2

In tracing historically the development of Filipino philosophy as

traditionally conceived, the author discovered that the early Filipino
philosophers were Enlightenment thinkers. This was the direct
consequence of the Filipino colonial experience and the explanation why
the trajectory of Filipino philosophy is basically Western in orientation.

INTRODUCTION

Filipino historical experience gives birth to Filip ino philo sophy.

Colonially governed by Spain for o ver three centuries, by t he Unit ed States
for half a century, and by Japan for about half a decade, the Filip inos towards
the last decade of the nineteenth century began to absorb the Enlightenment
ideas that came fro m Europe. These ideas helped trigger the 1896 Philippine
Revo lut ion against Spain.
The opening of t he Suez Canal reduced travel from Europe to the
Philippines from about six months to only a litt le over one month, or to be
exact, to only thirt y-three days. Spanish Enlightenment moved slo wly in
Spain, but in the first half of t he nineteenth century, Krausism spread. Krause
was a minor Kant ian who wanted Spain to be progressive. 3 In the second half
of the nineteenth century, a number o f Filipinos went to Spain to study. One
of them, Jose Rizal, had a po lit ical agenda to unite the Filipino expatriates in
Spain and seek reforms for the nat ive country. 4 While studying medicine in
Madrid, Rizal read a lot and was familiar wit h the ideas o f Vo ltaire and other
Enlightenment thinkers.
Meanwhile, the Filip ino intellectuals who remained in the Philippines
read about the Philippine situat ion part icularly through the works of Rizal—
his two novels—Noli me tangere and El filibusterismo—that depicted the sad
state of the Philippines, his po lit ical essays, and his annotations of Antonio
Morga’s history of the Philippines. They also read about the Spanish
Revo lut ion; the French Revo lut ion and its ideals of libert y, equalit y, and
fraternit y; and the lives of the American presidents, amo ng others.

7
ENLIGTENMENT IDEAS

The seventeenth century is tradit ionally described as the Age of Reason,

the nineteent h century as the Age o f Ideo logy while the eighteenth century as
the Age of Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment (Berlin 1956) included
such thinkers as John Locke, Vo ltaire, George Berkeley, David Hume,
Thomas Reid, Condillac, La Mettrie, Johann Hamann, and Georg
Lichtenberg. The Age o f Enlightenment stresses the dominance o f reaso n;
contractual agreements; inevitabilit y of progress; deist ic, humanist ic, or
mechanist ic religious persuasions; reliance on human effort to solve human
problems; human rights; educat ion as an instrument to progress; and the like.
It was also the period of scient ific pursuit s and progress (the age o f Robert
Boyle and Isaac Newton), and the period of econo mic t heorizing (the age of
Adam Smit h, the Physiocrats, and Malt hus).
The early Filipino t hinkers—the reformists (like Jose Rizal) and the
revo lut io nists (like Bonifacio and Jacinto)—were Enlightenment thinkers.

FILIPINO ENLIGHTENMENT

Jose Rizal: Reformist

The alt ernat ive to a failed struggle for reforms in Spain, according to
Rizal, is to work on the consciousness of the people in the nat ive land itself.
He wrote Marcelo H. del Pilar, the editor of the Filipino mouthpiece in Spain,
La solidaridad, that he knew now the so lutio n to the ills of the country: it is
through intelligence, through reason, that the Filipino people should work
with. Their consciousness should be freed from fanat icism, docilit y,
inferiorit y, and hopelessness. Since nothing can be gained fro m formal
educat ion, which the Spanish friars controlled, Rizal thought that an informal
organizat ion, La Liga Filipina, should do the job o f enlightening the minds of
the people. Its goals were to unite the ent ire archipelago, develop agriculture
and commerce, mutual protection in t imes o f danger and need, defense
against vio lence and injust ice, and development of genuine educat ion.
Rizal believed in the human capabilit y to solve human problems. Human
potent ialit ies can be realized to the full except that in certain instances, there
are hindrances. The greatest hindrance in the Philippine situat ion was
Spanish co lo nizat ion. It is important to work within such a colo nial situat io n
in what is now known in contemporary po lit ical thought as the development
of a civil societ y. A civil society (McLean 2001) lies between the family and
the state, and it attempts to fulfill needs o f a communit y wit h or without the
help of the state through so lidarit y (unity in purpose) and subsidiarit y
(cooperation to accomplish basic co mmunit y goals). Religiously, Rizal
believed in agnost ic deism (see Gripaldo 2009a,33-56), the view that God
created the universe wit h its laws, never to interfere wit h it again. We know
God, according to Rizal, both through nature (the hard deism o f Vo ltaire) and
our conscience (the soft deism o f Rousseau), but we do not know exact ly

8
what his attributes are. Human problems are irrat ional human creat ions and
can be so lved though rat ional solut ions. If reason co mmit s mistakes, only
reason can correct them.
A revolut ion to succeed must have military leaders, sufficient funding,
sufficient arms and ammunit io n, sufficient numbers, and a proper polit ical
orientat ion. Otherwise, it will o nly be a massacre and innocent lives, wo men,
and children will perish in t he struggle. Rizal prefers first the people’s
experience in human basic freedoms or in basic democrat ic rights before the
grant of independence. A nat ion can be independent without being free or
free wit hout being independent. He once said: “What is the use o f
independence if the slaves o f today will be the t yrants of tomorrow?” He was
well aware of some independent states of Lat in America, which remained
despotic despite having gained independence fro m their co lonizers t hrough
bloody means.
Falsely accused of fo ment ing the 1896 Philippine Revo lut io n, Rizal was
eventually executed in Bagumbayan in December 1896. While in prison in
Fort Santiago, he learned about the successes o f the revo lut ion in nearby
Cavite province. In a desperate situat ion where the revo lut ion he originally
spurned was succeeding in certain parts of the nat ion, Rizal could only hope
for its success, and in his last poem, Mi ultimo adios, he appeared to support
it: “I see t ints in the sky begin to show / And at last announce the day” and
“Pray too [Fatherland] that you may see your own redempt ion.”

Andres Bonifacio: Revolutionist

Bonifacio is the founder of the revo lut ionary societ y, Katipunan. When
Spanish authorit ies discovered it, it ably recruited so me 30,000 members in a
period of approximately six mo nths. Three days after the founding of La Liga
Filipina, Rizal was banished to Dapitan in Mindanao, the southern part of the
Philippines. Bonifacio, a member of the Liga, thought that was the end o f the
line and founded the Katipunan.
Bonifacio’s philosophy of revolut ion was published in the revolut ionar y
newspaper, Kalayaan (literally, “Freedo m”). Agoncillo (1956,12) attributed
the phenomenal increase of Katipunan membership to the disseminat ion o f
the revolut ionary ideas in Kalayaan as the “power of the written word.”
Making use of the Enlightenment idea of a contract, Bonifacio (1963)
transformed the blood compact between the Spanish explorer, Miguel Lopez
de Legazpi, and Sikatuna, the chieftain o f the island of Boho l, in central
Philippines, as a kinship contract. The blo od compact, Sanduguan, consisted
in mixing in a vessel drops of blood taken from the wrists of at least two
individuals and drank by both o f them. It signifies the union o f the two as
blood brothers. It means a contractual agreement o f helping each other in
their needs and development.
While the social contract to set up a government by the people is based
on societal needs to provide them securit y in their lives and properties, the
blood contract refers to kinship t ies and is more basic than the societal

9
contract. A betrayal of the blood contract has depth in significance in that it
is a betrayal of a brother against another brother.
A revo lut ion or war is just ified, according to Bonifacio, when there is a
breach o f contract. The nat ives of the Philippine archipelago were
econo mically prosperous, free, and happy prior to Spanish colonizat ion. It
was—in a relat ive sense—a paradise. While the nat ives did their part of the
contract—by building Spanish ships, manning them, fight ing their wars, and
constructing their forts and churches—t he Spaniards failed miserably on t heir
part of the contract. They transformed the nat ives into docile religious
fanat ics and debased them—wit hout human and polit ical rights. They
exploited the nat ives t hrough forced labor and through buying nat ive
products at low government prices. They paraded their riches while the
nat ives wallowed in abject poverty. Only few nat ives benefited fro m the
colonizers’ greed. For Bonifacio, such a breach o f contract required a violent
upheaval. A revolut ion was just ified to restore the lost paradise.

Emilio Jacinto: Revolutionist

Jacinto (Gripaldo 2002) capitalized on the Enlightenment idea o f a free

reign of reason, of the freedo m to think and do (i.e., intellectual libert y)
rather than the freedo m to will and do (l.e., vo lit io nal libert y). He apparent ly
believed that the issue on which co mes first, the freedo m to think and do or
the freedo m to will and do, is highly situat ional. In a co lonial situat ion where
both will and thinking are suppressed, where intellectual fanat icism is the
rule, where one’s will is co ndit io ned to submit to tyranny, it is intellectual
libert y that becomes primary. The freedom to think and do is a rebellio n
against a t yrannized will. In such a debased situat ion, there is no will to think
freely, there is only a leap to exercise the freedo m to think (intellectual
freedo m). One should be able to think through his situat ion clearly before he
can will anyt hing significant at all.
Prior to Spanish colonizat ion, the nat ives were autonomous agents and in
democrat ic barangays or communit ies, they exercised this freedo m to think. 5
They also had the freedom o f expressio n to a certain degree. All t hese were
gone when the Spaniards ruled o ver the nat ives. Jacinto was committed to the
ideals of the French Revo lut ion: libert y, equalit y, and fraternit y. In his
philosophy of revolut ion, which was published in Kalayaan, Jacinto (1897)
had Libert y telling the Filipino youth who consulted her that the medical cure
of the ills of his brethren is to embrace her again wit h a price, a blood y
revo lut io n. They must get rid o f Slavery (Spanish co lonizat ion) who came to
them wit h the mask of friendship, prosperit y, civilizat ion, and t he like. They
embraced Slavery and forgot all about her, Libert y.

AMERICAN AND JAPANESE COLONIAL INTERLUDES

The explosion and sinking o f the American warship, Maine, in a harbor

of another Spanish colony, Cuba, provided the reason for the United States to

10
intervene in the revolut ionary situat ion o f the Philippines. What began as an
American friendly intervent ion in the Philippine revolut ion against Spain
turned into the suspicion by Filipino leaders that America, under the
Republicans, had no intent ion o f leaving the country. A misunderstanding o f
a military command to halt by an American sentry led to the shooting of three
Filipino revolut ionists, and the incident became the American excuse for
waging a war against the Filipinos. As expected in this Philippine-American
War, after leaving behind several thousand American so ldiers and Filip ino s
dead or wounded, 6 the Filipino military eventually succumbed to American
superior military might.

Manuel Luis Quezon: Political Philosopher

Quezon fought against the Americans in t he Philippine-American War.

But the surrender of Philippine President Emilio Aguinaldo to the Americans
signified, for Quezon, the end of the military struggle for independence. The
fight for freedom, Quezon believed, should now shift through peaceful means
in the U.S. Congress. By defeat ing the Federalista Part y whose plat form was
to make the Philippines a state of the United States, the Nacio nalista Part y
whose plat form was “immediate, co mplete, and abso lute independence,” sent
Quezon to the U.S. Congress to fight for independence. The United States, in
the Cooper Law of 1902, allowed two Filipino resident commissioners to
represent Philippine interests in the U.S. Congress. They could discuss and
debate on Philippine issues in t he Lower House and they could influence the
Upper House (the U.S. Senate), alt hough they could not vote.
Quezon’s po lit ical philosophy consists of two strands: po lit ical
pragmat ism and polit ical preparat ion for an eventual Philippine
independence. Political pragmatism is t he principle, which says that one
must fight for a goal, but if obstacles towards that goal are difficult to
surmount, then one must fall back to an alternat ive that is better than nothing
provided it is in the right direct ion. Quezon realized it was difficult to obtain
fro m Congress an immediate and complete independence because Democrat ic
President Woodrow Wilson, whom Quezon thought would be different fro m
Republican presidents, would not allo w it . So he persuaded Congressman
William Jones to author a bill, which would promise Philippine independence
as soon as a stable government in t he Philippines could be o btained. Erving
Winslow, the secretary of the American Ant i-Imperialist League, persuaded
Senator James Clarke to author an amendment in the Jo nes bill that would
make the Philippines independent in four years. Quezon supported and fought
for it s passage, but the Clarke amendment was defeated in t he Senate by o ne
vote. The Jones Bill of 1916 eventually became a law.
Unfortunately, the president of the Nacio nalista Part y, Sergio Osmeña,
mishandled his influence in running the government (which Democrat ic
Governor General Francis B. Harrison rapidly Filipinized) by po lit ical
patronage and corruptio n. By the end o f President Wilson’s second term, the
Philippine government was in near-bankruptcy and the stable government was

11
nowhere in sight. The Republican administration that succeeded President
Wilson nixed the independence issue. This incident led to the split between
Osmeña and Quezon whom the latter won. As head now of the Part y and the
Philippine Congress, Quezon began t he second strand o f his po lit ical
philosophy: the preparation for an eventual Philippine independence.
A new round of peaceful struggle for independence in the U.S. Congress
led to the passage of the Hare-Hawes Cutting Act creat ing the Philippine
Commonwealt h in 1935 and making the Philippines independent in 1945, but
the Philippine Congress rejected it. Quezon wanted the military provisio n
therein that leaves to the U.S. President the decisio n to retain or not the U.S.
military bases and installat ions in the Philippines revised. President Franklin
D. Roosevelt later acceded and t his led to the passage of the Tydings-
McDuffie Act. The Philippines would decide after independence whether to
retain or not the American bases in the country. 7
Elected as the Co mmonwealt h president in 1935, Quezon now buttressed
his po lit ical ideas wit h some educat ional and social thought. He believed in
Social Darwinism—that governments are products of polit ical struggles for
survival. He viewed polit ical part ies as necessary only when they have
compet ing plat forms of government because the part isanship is clear-cut. But
he opposed po lit ical part ies whose programs of government are not different
fro m the part y in power but whose existence is premised simply in crit icizing
the government in order to grab power. If polit ical part ies have no dist inct ive
polit ical programs, then a partyless democracy may be necessary.
He supported the American democrat izat ion o f educat ion for all social
classes by constructing more classrooms and hiring more teachers, and by
guaranteeing free public educat ion fro m the elementary to high schoo l. He
believed in the development of a nat ional language that would be spoken by
all. He also believed that the aims of education must be good cit izenship and
preparat ion for livelihood; that the foremost duty of the cit izen in t imes o f
peace is to pay his taxes and in t imes of war, to fight for the survival o f the
nat ion. He envisio ned a government wit h distribut ive just ice, which means
that the bourgeois desire for wealt h must be tempered by the social
ameliorat ion of the working class through government intervent ion in terms
of legal measures and econo mic regulat ions whenever necessary. He honest ly
sought a code o f et hics to strengthen the character not only o f cit izens but
also of government emplo yees.
He believed in just ice for all, a social just ice that would allow the
working class to receive decent compensatio n to enjoy culture and leisure.
His social just ice program included higher wages, credit facilit ies that would
allo w the Filipino s the opportunit y to earn a decent livelihood, and the
protection of the rights of women and the poor, amo ng others. He believed
that inequit y of the distribut ion of wealt h amo ng nat ions should be corrected
so that every nat ion was permitted to have equal access to essent ial raw
materials, which certain countries had mo nopo lized, and world trade—
controlled by few nat ions—would be allowed to take its natural course.

12
Knowing that such a new world economic order was not yet forthcoming, he
advised the youth to prepare for nat ional defense.
A nat ional defense for the Philippines during the Commo nwealt h Period
would assume a defensive nature under the umbrella o f the milit ary might o f
the United States, which would assume the offensive stature. Quezon thought
that a country would invade another country only for econo mic gain so he
envisioned to train some twelve divisions o f so ldiers, which would make it so
costly for an invader to undertake in terms of human and material resources.
At the time, Quezon developed a defensive air force and also a skeletal
defensive navy. He believed t hat even after independence in 1946 the
defensive nature of the Philippine military must be maintained and
strengthened. A military treaty wit h the United States could be obtained to
guarantee the external securit y of the country.

Jose P. Laurel: Political Philosopher

Individuals, according to Laurel, cannot forever remain in so litude. No

man can be an island unto himself. What throws individuals into a social
cohesion is this psychological “fear of so litude.” Alt hough a person is
gregarious and cannot live wit hout others, he or she realizes it is not likewise
easy to live wit h each other. They have personal differences (in terms o f
temperaments, ideas, and ideals) and social id iosyncrasies. There is this
constant personal attraction and a tolerant social repulsion, a lo ve-hate
relat ionship. I love my neighbor but I also hate my neighbor.
What goes among individuals goes likewise among nat io ns. Japan wanted
iso lat ionism, but military and econo mic survival required that it should
circulate itself amo ng other nat ions. Its massive industrializat ion necessitated
a constant supply of raw materials and greater trade within a larger area. A
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperit y Sphere (Gordon 2000) was needed. To
ensure such a success, a cost ly military adventurism far exceeded the
expectat ions o f the Brit ish, French, and American co lonial masters of Asia,
and even the gain-loss equat ion of Quezon. It may be cost ly to invade the
Philippines, but the econo mic gain far outweighs the cost in terms o f the
lo ng-term East Asia Co-Prosperit y scheme. When Japan bo mbed Pear l
Harbor, the die was cast.
Quezon decided that Laurel should stay in the Philippines to help Jorge
Vargas, the mayor of Manila, welco me the Japanese, who entered the
Philippines t hrough Northern Luzon in Aparri and Vigan, and Southern
Luzon in Legaspi, by making Manila an open cit y. Quezon himself would
head the Commonwealt h-government-in-exile in the United States. Laurel as
a lawyer earlier helped Japanese businessmen open up agricultural lands in
Mindanao. He also received an ho norary doctorate degree fro m the Universit y
of Tokyo.
These Japanese connect ions enabled the Japanese to gain confidence in
Laurel who later became the President of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine

13
Republic. Aft er the war, Laurel while in Sugamo priso n in Japan wrote his
memo irs and some of his moral and polit ical ideas.
Laurel believed that the love-hate relat ionship necessitates so me rules o f
ethical behavior for individuals in the form of laws, customs, and tradit ions,
and for nat ions, in the form o f treaties and execut ive agreements. The law
different iates between what is legally good or evil and between what is
legally just or unjust. The people’s support of their government would ideally
entail their protection from injust ice. Abo lish laws and everyt hing would fall
into confusion.
The law is the boundary between the government prerogat ive and the
people’s libert y. If the government prerogative prevails over t he people’s
libert y, then t yranny reigns while if the people’s libert y prevails over the
government prerogative, then anarchy emerges. The required balance between
libert y and authorit y should be achieved through the educat ion and discipline
of the cit izenry, including those who are running the government.
Democracy means the representative t ype of republicanism where the
people are considered sovereign. The people do not direct ly govern but
delegate their power through their representatives. The state exist s for the
individual and the funct ions of government are to provide t he people wit h
livelihood and healt h, social just ice, free educat ion up to a certain level, and
econo mic opportunit y.
Human rights cannot be guaranteed unless the cit izens first do their
obligat ions towards the state by honest ly paying their taxes, obeying t he laws
and regulat ions, sincerely performing the duties of professionals and public
servants, and not tolerat ing the infringement of laws by others. Laurel
believed that good governance is founded on righteousness and foreign
relat ions must be based on full reciprocal rights and privileges between and
amo ng nat ions.
Laurel’s main funct ion as president of the Japanese-sponsored republic
was to cushion the impact of hunger and Japanese atrocit ies o n the Filipino
people. He provided rolling kitchens to feed the people, and surrept it iously
supported the guerilla struggles against the Japanese forces. When the
Japanese Imperial Army to ld him to conscript Filipinos to fight the war
against the Americans, Laurel politely refused. Agoncillo (1965, 378) cites
an elderly man who said that Laurel did his job well as president of the
republic. Not everyone should be in t he mountains to fight as a guerilla.
Someo ne should stay in government to minimize the hardships experienced
by the people during the war.

POST-COLONIAL PERIOD

A number of Filip ino thinkers after independence in 1946 believed t hat

the Philippines had remained a colo ny—a neoco lony—o f the United States.
We have Claro M. Recto, Jose Ma. Sison, Lorenzo Tañada, and Renato
Constant ino, amo ng others. They called for an independent econo mic and
foreign policy. They were the left and the left-leaning nat ionalists who

14
wanted the Filipinos to cut their umbilical cord, so to speak, fro m their
colonial past, that is, get rid of their colo nial hangover. For lack o f space, I
will only discuss the nat ionalist philosophy of Renato Constant ino.

Renato Constantino: Nationalist

Constant ino (1966, 1970, 1978, and 1979) argued that Filipino colonial
experience has developed a captive consciousness in that it was shaped and
tailored to the needs of the co lonizers. It is a co lonial co nsciousness—a
consciousness of inferiorit y or an indiscriminat ing attitude to favor foreign
products in all sorts of things (foreign academic degrees, imported consumer
products, foreign designs, etc.) against local ones. An effect of this t ype o f
consciousness is crab mentalit y or the tendency—as crabs do in a basket—for
those on top of the hierarchy to push those down below while those below to
pull down those up above, and the net effect of this tendency is that there is a
very slow progress to go up for all o f them. What is needed is a counter-
consciousness in terms of nat ionalism.
Nat ionalism is defined as an expressio n of realit y t hat “we have a
country of our own, which must be kept our own.” Its economic expression is
industrializat ion wit h the desire to conscio usly “control the management o f
[its own] resources.” Aid and cooperation of its techno logically more
advanced sister-nat ions may be accepted, but it must insist on “full control o f
it s economic dest iny.” Its political expression is independence or the
“freedom to plan and work out Filipino nat ional goals wit hout outside
interference wit h t he nat ional interest in mind. And it s cultural expression is
the development of a culture rooted in Filipino heritage and, though
admitt ing of foreign influences, “retains its dist inct and separate ident it y.”
The neoco lonial status is one where foreign corporations control the
nat ional economy while the government implements mendicant po licies based
on mistaken priorit ies that benefit not the majorit y o f the people whose
econo mic status of povert y remain untouched but the transnat ionals and the
Filipino middle and upper classes. Instead o f pursuing a well-planned
industrializat ion [or superindustrializat ion] strategy, go vernment priorit ies
relied heavily o n (i) export-oriented industries that primarily import their raw
materials, (ii) export-oriented agricultural crops that eat up fift y-five percent
of arable lands, (iii) the tourism industry which develops resorts and hotels
that are most ly affordable only to foreign tourists and a few Filipino s, and
(iv) the export of manpower.
Constant ino’s econo mic nat io nalist alternat ive is an ideology o f
econo mic liberat ion which is (a) mass-oriented and (b) ant i-imperialist. He
suggested a “bottom-up” econo mic approach (rather than a “trickle-down”
approach), which will organically connect the people’s productivit y and
freedo m from economic deprivat ion by invest ment in industrial growth to
serve the growing needs o f the populat ion. This means the setting up o f
people’s cooperatives. The goal is a social and just distribut ion o f the
nat ional product, and exports should play a subordinate role to the production

15
for local basic needs. Income from exports must be devoted to capital build-
up. This economic alternat ive, for Constant ino, must be buttressed wit h a
nat ionalist educat ion (consist ing, among others, of advocat ing an
internat ionalism based o n a firm nat ionalism for the people to know what to
culturally assimilate beneficially) and a nat io nalist ethics that includes a
modified Sartrean injunct ion that when o ne makes a nationalist choice, he or
she chooses not for himself or herself alone but for the ent ire nat ion as well.

TRANSCENDING THE COLONIAL HANGOVER

Alt hough we cannot erase the co lonial past, we can make it obsolete in
our minds or make use of some aspects of it as we transcend the colonial
hangover. For lack of space, I will discuss the ideas of only four Filipino
philosophers who believed this can be done in certain areas, if not in all, o f
philosophy.

R. Esquivel Embuscado: Dissectionist

As an art ist-philosopher (he is a paint er), Embuscado (1975) rejected the

view that authent ic art is simply a co nt inuatio n of past experience or learning
to the present. He held that the task of an authent ic artist is to cut the
umbilical cord of t he past, to make use of the present, and to project that
present to the open future. He called his philosophy o f art “dissect ionism.”
True art must not be past-present oriented, but present-future oriented.
The contents of dissect io nism are the depressive social scenarios that we
experience at present: outcast figures, monotonous life, o ld age, war and
intrigues, povert y, social causes, discontents, and the like. According to
Embuscado, they are intuited [as Henri Bergson (2011) maintained in his
philosophy] fro m the unifold o f undifferent iated hidden realit y by human
consciousness and creat ively expressed in manifo ld dissect ional ways into the
future, through swirling mot ions, which later become available to the senses.
The unifold is in perpetual mot ion or becoming, and this mot ion o f the
present is creat ively projected into the future. The artist, in other words,
perceives beyond the sense appearances and projects the intuited scenarios o f
hidden realit y into the “regio n of the unknown” (the future).
Dissect ionism is dynamic. It consist s of mult ifarious lines that crisscross
the canvass from all direct ions in beaut iful mo vements. Ontologically, it is a
rebellion against art ist ic permanency, that is to say, against stagnat ion and
imitat ion (as in realism), mut ilat ion of realit y (as in cubism), fantasy (as in
surrealism), uncreat ivit y (as in repet it ive commercial art), and the like. The
true artist must rid art, if possible, o f human or any semblance to object ive
realit y. His task is not to capture a mo ment of realit y and make it permanent
in his or her work of art. Tradit ional styles dwell in the past and are
perpetuated in the present by imitat io n or improvisat ion. Permanence in art
depicts realit y as stagnant, negates the freedo m of mo vement, and st ifles
human possibilit ies to explore the unknown future. T h e n e w a r t is t must start

16
so mething authent ic; must create a novel mode of art ist ic expressio n in the
present which must essent ially be dynamically pro ject ive. It is important for
the art ist to create, not to imitate or repeat the past styles, but to explore the
possibilit ies of the future.
For Embuscado, the infinite variat io ns of two opposing forces—beaut y
and misery—excited him. This nervous excitement is not only the ult imate
form of art to him, but a “cont inuous act of protest, the result o f rebellio n,
the truth, and the contradict ions one finds in t he object ive world.” There is
beaut y in misery, “beaut y in melancholia.” The art ist as rebel must constant ly
dissect this beaut y pro ject ively and dynamically. The “regio n o f t he
unknown”—t he future—is the art ist’s “aesthetic dest iny;” it gives him the
“mysterious delights” to explore dissect ionally.
Embuscado’s futurism in art is different from Alvin Toffler’s futurism
(1970) in educat ion. Toffler does not have an open future in that our image o f
the future, which is precondit ioned by present technological developments,
determines the curricular offerings at present in order to realize that
futurist ic image. Embuscado’s theory has similarit ies wit h Italian futurism
(Boccioni et al. 1910; see also “Futurism,” n.d.), especially in paint ing, as in
the reject ion o f t he past and of imitat ion, but Embuscado does not dwell o n
glorifying the present but emphasizes the projection o f the mo vements o f
present hidden realit y towards the open future (see pictures below).

Nature from Behind. Ink on paper. Dissectional Figure. Oil on linen.

1973. 28.5 cm. x 36.5 cm. Year and size not indicated.

17
 Tambakero. Oil on photograph. Truth and Beaut y. Ink on paper
Year and size not indicated 1974 23 cm. x 30.5 cm.

Cirilo Bautista: Poetical Theorist

Baut ista is a poet-philosopher who believed we can make use o f so me

aspects of our colonial past while transcending it by fashioning the present
and the future. In writ ing poetry, e.g., we can use the language of the former
colonial master, i.e., English, in beco ming ourselves —modern Filipino s. He
wrote about the birth, nature, travails, and demise of any poem.
He (1998) maintained that every part icular poem has an ideal poem in
the poet’s mind ready to be expressed as such—a part icular poem. He called
this ideal poem the Rubber Tower—apparent ly because of it s soft, bouncy,
and pliant character—that looms high in t he poet’s consciousness ready to be
transformed into a specific piece o f poetry. For Baut ista, the Rubber Tower is
an organic flesh and the part icular poem is “flesh made Word.” The Rubber
Tower is nourished by the people’s historical experience and, as such, its end
product, the particular poem, is always cult ure-bound.
The poem was originally made for the ears; it had an aural beginning. It
was only much later that it was made fo r the eyes wit h the invent ion o f
writ ing. The print ing press mummified the poem in a piece o f paper; it
transformed the poem to a “word paint ing” or a “piece of sculpture.” The
inst itut ion of silent reading, which St. Ambrose started during the Middle
Ages, banished t he ears from part icipat ing in t he understanding of the poem.
On some occasions, oral reading is performed to reclaim t he ears’ prerogative
to the poem.
The poem can depict realit y fait hfully or disguisedly through it s layers of
mask. The Verb, the poem’s blood, is the first layer of the mask that sets the
poem’s intellectual direct io n. The Adject ive, the second layer, gives us the
magic of the poem; it provides us wit h mult ifarious landscapes and fills our
brains wit h kaleidoscopic colors. It is the “layer of sunrise and sunset, of

18
constant music.” The Adverb is “an Adject ive wit h legs.” It keeps the sunrise
and sunset in mot ion; it is the avant garde in the forefront of the poem’s
search for meaning. It is act ive, always in the march. The third layer is the
Noun, which is the “fulcrum o f the poem’s turning.” Exuding it s imperia l
character, the Noun is carried on its back by the Verb and the Adject ive. It
makes the poem a history and history a poem. Historical personages like
Rizal and Bonifacio would have just been memories, but their poems, through
the imperial Nouns as substances therein, are not only a part of history but
contains the people’s historical experiences.
The poem can assume many forms: it can be warlike, liberator, religious,
propagandist ic (or an opium o f the people), historical, polit ical, et hical, etc.
The meaning o f the poem is threefold: (i) the poet’s intended meaning; (ii)
the reader’s hermeneut ical meaning; and (iii) the meaning the poem has
assumed over t ime in its “peregrinat ion in the world of letters.” The poet’s
intended meaning is the meaning of the present mo ment and context when the
poet fashions the part icular poem fro m the ideal Rubber Tower. It is
essent ially t he maker’s individual meaning. The reader’s hermeneut ical
meaning carries the poem to the wider communal co nsciousness of the people
where its co mmunal rituals reflect collect ive history and the plan for
collect ive grandeur. The poem acquires t he co mmunal milieu that determines
the criteria of respectabilit y and good public taste. The reader’s meaning is
basically a co mmunal meaning. The two meanings—individual and
communal—are independent but if they do coincide it is only by accident. In
this co incidence, the times o f the maker and the reader beco me congruous,
and the poem becomes t imeless. It is the poem o f the individual (t he poet)
and the communit y (the readers) o f different t imes and p laces. It becomes
“everybody’s poem” that transcends cult ural and temporal bracket ing. In
so me instances, however, the single poem assumes different meanings to
different people o f different cultural backgrounds and beco mes a “freelance
linguist ic ent it y in life’s battlefield.”
The third meaning indicates the poem has it s own meaning which
originates from itself, not the maker or reader. It is an object ified collect ive
meaning which transcends the past and becomes universally relevant. When
this happens it beco mes a real poem—a sovereign poem. It becomes the
analogue poem. It beco mes the analogue o f societ y. Rizal’s Mi ultimo adios,
for example, has the object ified meaning of “the Filipino anguish for a just
life.” Alt hough it has this third meaning, it can also have the subject ive
meanings of different readers.
Understanding the poem takes the vantage point of the reader. As soon as
the poet finishes the poem, he no longer owns it ; it beco mes a public propert y
and will have a life of its own. Its meaning transcends it s beginning. History
can be read as a poem in t he same way that a poem can be read as history. A
poem can be polit ically belligerent, especially when it opposes t yranny, in
the same way as it can be an object of po litical terrorism as when the t yrant
equates it with sedit ion—vilifies, represses, or persecutes it.

19
 The death of the poem occurs in two ways: (1) when it is a manifestatio n
of the immaturit y o f the poet’s imaginat io n: it is a weak poem which cannot
govern its own passion, cannot sustain it s polit ical mo mentum, lacks a strong
ident it y, perverts it s historical sense, and the like; and (2) when it is a bad
poem: it cannot compare wit h other texts, cannot validate its poet ic claim,
fails in it s “tact ical preparat ion,” and cannot adequately articulate itself.
Baut ista argued that the poet fails to defend the poem to protect himself, but
he might have other talents such as a good “singing vo ice,” etc.

Claro R. Ceniza: Metaphysician

Ceniza tried to reconcile the Parmenidean denial and the Heraclit ean
affirmat ion of the realit y o f change. His philo sophical views simply forget
the co lonial past and proceed wit h contemporary realit ies. He rendered
obsolete that past and its hangover. Something like this view we find in t he
Bible: “Forget the former things; do not dwell o n the past. See, I am do ing a
new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it ? I am making a way in
the desert and streams in t he wasteland” (Isa. 43:18-19). In attempt ing to
reconcile Parmenides and Heraclit us, Ceniza indeed is making a way in the
desert.
Ceniza (2001) began by showing that we can derive t he existence o f
cont ingent objects from the postulates of Parmenides that what is rat ional is
real and what is real is rat ional (or what can be thought or spoken is possible
and vice versa, and what is possible is and vice versa) and it s negat ive
corollar y t hat what is nonrat io nal is nonreal and what is nonreal is
nonrat ional (or what cannot be thought or spoken is not possible and vice
versa, and what cannot be thought or spoken is not and vice versa). In
themselves, individually, the postulates and their respect ive corollaries do
not contradict each other, but when applied to contingent pheno mena, they
involve a contradict ion. For instance, it is a contradict ion t hat “it is possible
for things to be and for them not to be” at the same t ime. It is contradictory
for me to have a million dollars in the bank and not to have them in the same
bank. Being contradictories, it is apparent that cont ingent pheno mena do not
exist. But Ceniza argued their nonexistence does not mean they are
completely oblit erated, because we experience seemingly cont ingent objects
like chairs, tables, trees, and the like. Co nceptually, cont ingent pheno mena as
contradictories do not exist, but experient ially, they do. How is that possible?
Ceniza first clarified the meaning o f existence. “To exist” is “to stand
out.” Contingent ent it ies do not stand out; they subsist. If an object is not
green, it does not mean it has no color, but the color green does not stand out
or does not exist in t he object. Red and green result in yellow but they are
there subsistent in yellow. The co lors of the rainbow are subsistent in
whit e—the plenum or neutral state—which is the “balanced sum o f all co lors
of the rainbow.” Numbers subsist in zero, the plenu m (or sum total) o f all
posit ive and negat ive integers, as silence is the plenum o f all noises. The
other meaning of the phrase “to exist,” according to Ceniza, is “to make a

20
difference” in the sense of affect ing so mething or its surroundings. In a
sense, the Parmenidean Being or universe is a plenum o f which cont ingent
ent it ies subsist, and they exist or stand out only from the perspect ive o f
experiencing finite subjects or persons. Existence is, t herefore, experiential,
that is, either phenomenologically or empirically.
From the Parmenidean plenum, cont ingent ent it ies exist or stand out
because they are caused. There must be a “reaso n, cause or explanat ion for
the things we experience.” If the ground is wet, it must have been caused by
(1) rain, (2) flooding, (3) broken underground water pipe, (4) sprinkled
water, or (v) waste water thrown on the ground. In (1), the wet ness would
cover a wide area including the roofs o f houses; in (2) the wetness will be
wide but will not include elevated grounds and roofs of houses; in (3) “t he
wetness would cover a relat ively small area, with a center where the break in
the pipe is located;” in (4) the area covered by wetness will even be smaller ;
and in (5) the covered area will be much smaller and the water might even be
dirt y. By examining the affected surroundings, we can determine the cause o f
the wetness.
Ceniza discussed a number o f other issues such as the nature of the
universe, t he possibilit y of a Final Cause, the nature o f t he person, and the
like, but for lack of space I will just enjo in the readers to read his book. In
the final analysis, Ceniza’s reconciliat ion of the realit y o f the Being (“The
One”) of Parmenides and the mult iplicit y of cont ingent changing ent it ies o f
Heraclitus hinge o n the notio ns of subsistence and existence which are both
experiential (experienced by the subject pheno menologically or empirically).

Rolando M. Gripaldo: Circumstantialist

Like Ceniza, Gripaldo (2011) attempted “to make…streams in the

wasteland” by lett ing the co lonial past subsist and by letting t he present and
the future stand out—to make a difference.
Gripaldo dist inguished two senses of the word “circumstance” in relat io n
to the choosing situat ion. The first sense is the situation totalized. It is this
sense where the choosing agent feels the total situat ion co mpels him or her to
choose one option rather than the others: “Under the circumstance, I have no
choice but to leave you.” The second sense merely means a situational
condition among many such situat ional condit io ns that lead to a person’s
choice. Here the choosing agent feels free to choose A rather than B or C:
“Under the circumstances, I will choose A.”
Situations are of many kinds—situat ions of death, marriage, murder,
choice, anger, etc. and they are fluid : overlapping, interpenetrating,
transitory, momentary, and if they endure it is only for a litt le while, not
forever. They may recur later, but they are always succeeded by other
situat ions. Their borders are difficult to delineate in object ive realit y, but
they can be abstracted in thought and their boundaries delineated for
analysis. Gripaldo zeroes in on the choosing situat ion, for he was int erested
in clarifying the notion of “free choice.” In what sense is a choice free? His

21
thesis is that while the chooser is free in the sense that he or she is not
compelled by an authorit y or by so meone to make a cho ice, the situat ion o f
which he or she is an integral part determines his or her cho ice. Gripaldo
describes his book, Circumstantialism, as an essay on situat ional
determinism.
Choices are always done in situat ions, which are of two broad types:
rational and no nrat ional. Rat ional choices invo lve deliberat ion and decisio n.
Nonrat ional choices are done wit hout deliberat ion as in habitual cho ices,
flippant choices like tossing a co in or picking just any card fro m a deck o f
cards, mistaken choices, unconscious choices, and cho ices done on the basis
of a simple preference. While Gripaldo extensively discussed nonrat ional
choices, he set them aside as pseudo-choices. Genuine choices must meet T.
F. Daveney’s (1961) five condit io ns. First, there must be genuine
alternat ives. One cannot be said to have chosen if he or she takes the one and
only choco late in the box. Second, the chooser must be aware of these
alternat ives. One cannot also be said to have chosen if he or she believes
that, assuming he or she takes it, there is only one chocolate in the bo x when
in fact there are many and of different kinds. Third, he must believe these
alternat ives are attainable or doable. One cannot choose to buy a house or a
particular car if he or she knows it is not for sale. Fourth, he must have a
prior aim, purpose, or want for choosing. We have two scenario s: (a) If I
want to arrive at my dest inat ion quickly, then my cho ice of transport will be
guided by that want; and (b) If offered a jo b in a foreign land out of nowhere,
then—though I may have no init ial purpose in accept ing the offer—the
purpose will actually become discernible when I go into the deliberat ive act.
I may want a higher salary and the offer has it. Fift h, t he alternat ive chosen
must be that which suit s him or her best: (a) If we choose an opt ion which we
desire or which is in line wit h our goal, the choice suit s us, and also the
situat ion, best. (b) If the situat ion calls for us to do an act which appears
necessary but which we do not want to do, but have to, then the cho ice suit s
the sit uat ion best, though not necessarily us. One may, e.g., shoot a wounded
friend in war: “I did not really want to shoot him but he requested me to do it
and I knew the enemies would torture him to death just the same, so I had to
shoot him.” (This is t he first sense o f circumstance—sit uat ion totalized—and
should not concern us.)
When the chooser is confronted wit h alternatives in the choosing act, he
or she usually performs three stages. The first stage, Stage1, is his or her
recognit io n of alternat ives, which can be more than two. The alternat ives may
be abstract like “love or friendship,” concrete like “apples or bananas,” or a
mixture like “pineapple or love.” The second stage, Stage2, invo lves his or
her deliberat ion and decisio n. The chooser begins to deliberate as to which
alternat ive suit s him or her best. He or she weighs the merit s and demerits,
advantages and disadvantages, pluses and minuses of each alt ernat ive, and
makes the decision. At the tail end o f t he acts of deliberat ing and deciding is
the chosen alternat ive. A person may say, “To buy this banana is my
decision; it is also my choice.” After the second stage, the act of choosing is

22
consummated alt hough a rerun may st ill be possible. The last stage, Stage3,
involves the chooser’s act ing out of his or her decision/choice. It is the
taking, buying, etc., of the chosen alt ernative. The act of choosing is here
fully consummated.
Situational condit ions are the data or pieces of informat ion that serve as
the inputs of the act of choosing. These are the circumstances of the choosing
situat ion, and the choosing agent derives them fro m four sources: Source1,
the person’s present external environment—provides alternat ives as
perceived: physical or mental objects or both; in t he case o f mental or
abstract objects, the spat io-temporal environment is st ill necessary since the
person who makes the choice is situated in a space-t ime setting. Source2, the
person’s past—memory as the repository: includes habit s, attitudes, and
capacit ies. Those relevant in choosing are generally remembered; those
“unconscious” desires or wants, when they do not appear in conscious
memory, are irrelevant or will not feature in the act of choosing. Source3, the
person’s future—refers to a project ion of the cho ice to the future:
merit s/demerit s, advantages/disadvantages, usefulness/uselessness, and the
like. Source4, the person’s present physical and mental co ndit ion—healt hy or
not either mentally, physically, or both. All these sources are situated in a
particular space-time scenario. They are all present in a part icular choosing
situat ion even if some are ignored or just taken for granted. For example, if
one is healt hy, the choice to go to Singapore or not will not include Source4,
since t he physical condit io n is taken for granted. But when one is sick for
days, the decisio n will include the physical condit ion and the decision may
be negat ive.
Gripaldo argued that the vo luntary freedo m one feels when one confronts
the alternat ives (Stage1) is carried over to the acts of deliberat ing and
deciding (Stage2). And it is here in the second stage that the chooser begins
to discern the best choice for him/her under the situat ion. When he or she
finally decides on choice A, the other cho ices are simply blotted out. In other
words, in so far as the four sources of situatio nal condit ions are concerned,
the best choice for the chooser is latent or hidden in the choosing sit uat ion
and it goes to the surface only during the act of deliberat ion. In a manner of
speaking, the chooser’s best choice 8 has already been determined by the
situat ion, and the chooser—on the basis of the four sources—has simply
discerned (or has ascertained) it in t he process o f deliberat ion. Gripaldo
concluded that in rat ional cho ices the person could not have chosen
otherwise. The situat ional condit io ns—some or all of which the chooser may
avow—are his or her reaso ns for select ing the choice. In Stage3, the chooser
acts out the cho ice in a manner where he or she is led to an option, after
deliberat ion, where he or she could not have chosen otherwise. In this regard,
Gripaldo maintained that in Circumstant ialism or in a genuine choosing act,
freedo m and determinism are co mpat ible. 9

23
CONCLUSION

The Filipino philo sophies discussed in this paper 1 0 are basically Western
in orientat ion. Such a historical trajectory is brought about necessarily by the
people’s colonial experience (Christ ian religio n, English language, Western
philosophical ideas) and carried over to contemporary times. Recent Filipino
philosophizing is characterized wit h a break fro m the co lonial past—or, at
least, by the act of ignoring that past—and a preoccupat ion wit h particular
philosophical problems, but it is st ill a Western brand o f philosophizing.
There are current activit ies by Filipino teachers of philosophy and
philosophers, which focus on so me reflectio ns on certain topics in Eastern
and Filipino cult ural ideas, but they have not yet reached t he status of
philosophical maturit y. We are interested, for example, in a Filip ino’s own
philosophy of culture rather t han o n his or her descript ions of perceivable
philosophical perspect ives presupposed or imbedded in co mmunal Filipino
culture, i.e., tribe or nat ion (see Mercado 2005 and Villanueva Jr. 2006).

NOTES

1. Third revised versio n o f the paper originally presented in an

Internat ional Philosophy Conference in At hens, Greece on 6 June 2006 under
the sponsorship o f Athens Inst itute of Education and Research.
2. For Gripaldo’s curriculum vit ae, please click t he link
http://www.pnprs.org/Philosophia%20Editor.pdf.
3. Karl Christ ian Friedrich Krause (Bonoan 1994, 13) tried to orient
Spanish life to European rat ionalism.
4. Rafael Palma’s (1996) polit ical agenda is more probable to me than
Leon Ma. Guerrero’s (1974) literary agenda.
5. William Scott (1994, 129) ident ifies autocratic and demo crat ic
barangays. In the co ntext of Jacinto’s argument, Jacinto certainly referred to
democrat ic barangays.
6. An est imate puts it at 4,234 American soldiers dead wit h 2,818
wounded and 20,000 Filipino soldiers dead with 200,000 to 500,000 civilian
casualt ies. See “The history guy” (2006).
7. Quezon also objected to the econo mic provisio n, which would not
properly prepare the country for independence, but this was shelved for
future negotiat ions after independence.
8. If we choose the second best cho ice, there must be an addit io nal
intervening sit uat ional condit io n that tips the balance o f decisio n in favor of
the second best choice, and elevates that cho ice to the posit io n of the first
best choice in that given situat ion.
9. Gripaldo (1998-99) discusses some implicat ions of this philosophy in
terms of responsibilit y, remorse, punishment, etc. in “Circumstant ialist
ethics.”
10. For lengthy discussio ns on individual Filip ino philosophers, see
Gripaldo (Part I, Secs. 1-2, 2009b and 2009c).

24
REFERENCES

Ago ncillo, Teodoro. 1956. The revolt of the masses: The story of Bonifacio
and the Katipunan. Quezo n Cit y: Universit y of the Philippines.
________. 1965. Fateful years. Volume 1. Quezon Cit y: R. P. Garcia
Publishing Company.
Baut ista, Cirilo. 1998. Words and battlefields: A theoria on the poem.
Manila: De La Salle Universit y Press.
Bergson, Henri. 1911. Creative evolution. New York: Henry Ho lt and
Company.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1956. The age of enlightenment . New York: Mentor Books.
Boccioni, Umberto, Carlo Carrà, Luigi Russolo, Giacomo Balla, and Gino Severini.
2010. Manifesto of the futurist painters, 11 February. Available at
http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/paint ers.html. Accessed: 30 July 2013.
Bonifacio, Andres. 1963. What the Tagalogs should know. In The writings
and trial of Andres Bonifacio. 1963. Edited by Teodoro Agoncillo and S.
V. Epistola. Manila: Antonio J. Villegas and t he Manila Bonifacio
Centennial Co mmission.
Bonoan, Raul. 1994. The Rizal-Pastells correspondence . Quezo n Cit y:
Ateneo de Manila Press.
Ceniza, Claro R. 2001. Thought, necessity, and existence: Metaphysics and
epistemology for lay philosophers. Manila: De La Salle Universit y Press.
Constant ino, Renato. 1966. The Filipinos in the Philippines and other essays.
Quezon Cit y: Malaya Books.
________. 1970. Dissent and counter-consciousness. Manila: Erehwon.
________. 1978. Neocolonial identity and counter-consciousness. Edited by
Istvan Mezaros. London: Merlin Press.
________. 1979. The nationalist alternative. Quezon Cit y: Foundat ion for
Nat ionalist Studies.
Daveney, T. F. 1961. Want ing. Philosophical Quarterly 1.
Embuscado, R. Esquivel . 1975. The aesthetic[s] of dissectionism: A general
theory and practice. Pasay Cit y: By t he Author.
Futurism. N.d. Available at
http://www.bws.wilt s.sch.uk/Curriculum/pdfs/Art_Futurism-ppt.pdf.
Accessed: 30 July 2013.
Gordon, Bill. 2000. Greater East Asia Co-Prosperit y Sphere. Available at
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/coprospr.htm. Accessed: 6
February 2006.
Gripaldo, Rolando M. 2011. Circumstantialism: An essay on situational
determinism. Revised edit ion. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller GmbH &
Co. [First edit ion published in 1977, Dumaguete Cit y: Silliman Universit y
Press.]
________. 1998-99. Circumstant ialist ethics. Σοφια 28 (1).
________. 2002. Liberty and love: The political and ethical philosophy of
Emilio Jacinto. Foreword by William McBride. Manila: De La Salle
Universit y Press.

25
________. 2009a. Agnost ic deism: Rizal’s religious philosophy. Filipino
philosophy: Traditional approach. Part I, Sec. 1. Third edit io n. Quezo n
Cit y: C & E Publishing, Inc.
________. 2009b. Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach, Part I, Sec. 1.
Third edit ion. Foreword by George F. McLean. Quezon Cit y: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
________. 2009c. Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach, Part I, Sec. 2.
Second edit ion. Foreword by George F. McLean. Quezon Cit y: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Guerrero, Leon Ma. 1974. The first Filipino. Manila: Nat ional Historical
Commission.
Jacinto, Emilio. 1897. Manifiesto. Translated by Juan Caro y Mora. In
Archivo del bibliofilo Filipino. Vo l. 3. Compiled by Wenceslao Retana.
Madrid: Minuesa de los Rio s.
McLean, George F. 2001. Philosophy and civil societ y: Its nature, its past,
and its future. Parts I-IV. Φιλοσοφια: International Journal of Philosophy
30 (1-2).
Mercado, Leonardo N. 2005. Essays on Filipino philosophy. Manila: Logos.
Palma, Rafael. 1966. The pride of the Malay race. Translated by Ro man
Ozaeta. Quezon Cit y: KEN Incorporated.
Scott, William Henr y. 1994. Barangay. Quezon Cit y: Ateneo de Manila
Universit y Press.
The history guy: Philippine-American War 1899-1902. 2006. Available at
http://www.historyguy.co m/PhilipineAmericanwar.ht ml. Accessed: 6
February 2006.
Toffler, Alvin. 1970. Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
Villanueva Jr., Camilo. 2006. Leonardo N. Mercado: Declassifying the
Filipino cultural philosopher. Article Review of Essays in Filipino
philosophy. Φιλοσοφια : International Journal of Philosophy 35/7 (2).

26