PHILOSOPHY

GRADE 11
(FIRST Semester/ S. Y. 2020-2021)
Core Subject Title: PHILOSOPHY
Week 1 to 3: (8 meetings)
TARGET GOALS:
 I can evaluate and exercise prudence in choices.
 I can realize that: a. Choices have consequences. b. Some things are given
up while others are obtained in making choices.
 I can show situations that demonstrate freedom of choice and the
consequences of their choices
Activity 1.
Concept Mapping: Write your concepts about freedom.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Introduction:
What truly is freedom?
 Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without
hindrance or restraint.
 Freedom is the absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic
government.
 Freedom is the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
To be free is a part of humanity’s authenticity. In one way, understanding
freedom is part of our transcendence (you have gone beyond ordinary
limitations.). Freedom consists of going beyond situations such as physical or
economic. For instance, students can be young and poor, but they can still pursue
their dreams of becoming a doctor, teacher, engineer or stage actor. As
previously mentioned, critical thinking is an important tool toward freedom and
truth.

Realize that “All Actions Have Consequences”

1
A. Aristotle
The Power of Volition
The imperative quality of a judgment of practical intellect is meaningless,
apart from will. Reason can legislate, but only through will can its legislation be
translated into action. The task of practical intellect is to guide will be
enlightening. Will, in fact, is to be understood wholly in terms of intellect. If
there were no intellect, there would be no will. This is obvious from the way in
which will is rationally denominated.
The will of humanity is an instrument of free choice. It is within the power of
everyone to br good or bad, worthy or worthless. This is borne out of:
 Our inner awareness of an ability to do right or wrong;
 The common testimony of all human beings;
 The reward and punishments of rulers; and
 The general employment of praise and blame.
Moral acts, which are always particular acts, are in our power and we are
responsible for them. Character or habit is no excuse for immoral conduct.
Attending class and submission of assigned activities by the teachers is a
student responsibility. Should the students cut classes or failed to submit the
given activities by his/her subject teachers, then he/she is responsible for any
accident or failure in grades that will befall on him/her. The student may regret
what she/he had done, but all the regrets in the world will not call it back. The
point is the student should not have cut classes nor failed to submit all the
activities given to him/her in the first instance. When the matters are sifted down,
the happiness of every human being’s soul is in his own hands, to preserve and
develop, or to cast away.

Action

Will
Reason

Aristotle: Intellectual Freedom

For Aristotle, a human being is rational. Reason is a divine characteristic. Humans
have the spark of the divine. If there were no intellect, there would be no will.
Reason can legislate, but only through will can its legislation be turned into
action. Our will is an instrument of free choice. Reason, will and action drives
each other.

B. St. Thomas Aquinas

Love is Freedom
2
 Of all creatures of God, human beings have unique power to change
themselves and the things around them for the better. St. Thomas Aquinas
consider s the human being as moral agent. As discussed previously, we are both
the spiritual and body elements; the spiritual and material. The unity between
both elements indeed help us understand our complexity as human beings. Our
spirituality separates us from animals; it describes moral dimension of our
fulfillment in an action. Through our spirituality, we have a conscience. Whether
we choose to be “good” or “evil” becomes our responsibility.
A human being, therefore has a supernatural, transcendental destiny. This
means that he can rise above ordinary being or self to a highest being or self.
This is line with the idea of St. Thomas that in the plan of God, a human being has
to develop and perfect himself by doing his daily task. Hence, if human being
perseveringly lives a righteous and virtuous life, he transcends his moral state of
life and soars to an immortal state of life.
The power of change, however, cannot be done by human beings alone, but is
achieved through cooperation with God. Between humanity and God, there is an
infinite gap, which God alone, can bridge through His power. Perfection by
participation here means that it is a union of humanity with God. Change should
promote not just any purely private advantage but the good of community.
Aquinas gives a fourfold classification of law: the eternal law, natural law,
human law and divine law. Human beings, as being rational, have laws that
should not only obeyed but also obeyed voluntarily and with understanding (for
instance, in following the traffic rules). The natural law, then, in its ethical sense,
applies only to human beings. The first principle and rule of the natural law is that
good is to be sought after and avoided evil (this is the instruct of self-
preservation). There is inherent in every human being an inclination that he
shares with all other beings namely, the desire to conserve human life and forbids
the contrary. For instance, if there is fire, and its burning heat is felt, then, it is a
human tendency to avoid it.
Since the law looks to the common good as its end, it is then conceived
primarily with external acts and not with interior disposition. For example, if
someone does not lie to his parents so they will increase his allowance, then the
reason of his goodness stems not because he does not want lie because it will
hurt them but because he knows that there is a reward for being so. The same
goes with government officials who use full media coverage when they help their
constituents so that people would vote for them. A person, thus, should not be
judged through his actions alone but also through his sincerity behind his acts.
For Aquinas, both natural and human laws are concerned with ends
determined simply by humanity’s nature. However, since a human being is in
fact, ordained to an end transcending his nature,, it is necessary that he has a law
ordering him to that end, and this is the divine law or revelation.
It also gives human beings the certitude human reason unaided could arrive
only at possibilities. It deals with interior disposition as well as external acts the

3
final and it ensures the final punishment of all evil doings. Neither of which is
possible for human law. The divine law is divided into old (Mosaic) and the new
(Christian) that are related as the immature and imperfect to the perfect and
complete. we have, however , now passed beyond philosophy since this rests on
reason and experience alone, the analysis of the divine law is the function of the
theology.
Eternal law is the decree of God that govern all creations. It is “That Law
which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise the
unchangeable and eternal. ”Natural Law is the human participation ”in the
eternal law and discovered by reason. Natural law is based on “first principles”.
As discussed in the previous lessons, the principle of sufficient reason state that
nothing exist without a sufficient reason for its being and existence.
For Aristotle, the purpose of a human being is to be happy. To be one, one
has to live a virtuous life. In other words, human beings have to develop to the
full their powers –rational, moral, social, emotional, and physical here on earth.
For St. Thomas, he follows the same line of thinking but points to a higher form of
happiness possible to humanity beyond this life, and that is perfect happiness
that everyone seeks but could found only in God alone.
St. Thomas wisely and aptly chose and proposed love rather than Law to
bring about the transformation of humanity. For Love in consonance with
humanity’s free nature, for Law commands and complete; Love only calls and
invite. St. Thomas emphasizes the freedom of humanity but chooses love in
governing humanity’s life. Since God is love, then love is the guiding principle of
humanity toward his self-perception and happiness-his ultimate destiny.

C. St. Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Freedom:

Actions
(Good or Evil)

Conscience

God’s
Love

Spiritual Freedom

St. Thomas Aquinas establishes the existence of God as first cause. Of all God’s
creation, human beings have the unique power to change themselves and things
around them for the better. As humans, we are both material and spiritual. We
have conscience ecause of our spirituality. God is Love and Love is our destiny.
4
D. Jean Paul Sartre: Individual Freedom

Sartre’s philosophy is considered to be a representative of existentialism

( Falikowski 2004). For Sartre, the human person is the desire to be God: the
desire to exist as a being which has its sufficient ground in itself (en sui causa).
There are no guidepost along the road of life. The human person builds the road
to the destiny of his/her choosing; he/she is the creator (Srathern 1998)
Sartre’s existentialism stems from this principle: existence precedes essence.
 The person, first exist, encounters himself and surges up in the world then
defines himself afterward. The person is nothing else but that what ha makes
of himself.
 The person is provided with a supreme opportunity to give meaning to one’s
life. In the course of giving meaning to one’s life, one fills the world with
meaning.
 Freedom, therefore, the very core and the door authentic existence. Authentic
existence is realized only in deeds that are committed alone, in absolute
freedom and responsibility and which, therefore the character of true creation.
 The person is what one has done and is doing.
 On the other hand, the human person who tries to escape obligations and
strives to be en-sol (i.e., excuses, such as “ I was born this way” or “ I grew up
in a bad environment” ) is acting on bad faith (mauvais foi).
Sartre emphasizes the importance of free individual choice, regardless of the
power of the other people to influence or coerce our desires, beliefs, and
decisions. To be human, to be conscious, is to be free to imagine, free to choose
and be responsible for one’s life.

Activity 1:
1) Explain Sartre’s belief: “ Human being is free, human being is freedom”.
2) Can the world with all its power, grandeur, and glory satisfy to the fullest
measure our desire for perfect and everlasting happiness? Explain your
answer.
3) Explain: For Aristotle, ”rationality is not merely passive but a function to be
performed.”

E. Thomas Hobbes
Theory of Social Contract
A Law of Nature (lex naturalis) is a percept or general rule established by
reason, by which a person if forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or

5
takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he
thinks it may be best preserved.
Given our desire to get out of the state of nature, and there by preserve our
lives, Hobbes conclude that we should seek peace. This becomes his first law of
nature. The reasonableness of seeking peace immediately suggest a second law
of nature, which is that we mutually divest ourselves of certain rights ( such as
the right to take another person’s life ) so as to achieve peace. That a person be
willing, when others so too (this is necessary for peace building) , to lay down this
right to all things; be contented with so much liberty against other people, as he
would allow other people against himself (Garvey 2006).
The mutual transferring of these rights is called a contract is the basis of the
notion of moral obligation and duty. If one agrees to give up his right to punch
you, you give up your right to punch him. You have the transferred these rights to
each other and thereby become obligated not to hurt each other. From these
selfish alone, both are motivated to mutually transfer these and other rights,
since this will end the dreaded state of war. Hobbes continues by discussing the
validity of certain contracts. However, one cannot contract to give up his right to
self-defense or self preservation since it is sole motive for entering any contract.
The rational pursuit of self- preservation is what lead us from commonwealths
or states; these laws of nature gives the condition for the establishment of society
and government. These are the rules a reasonable being would observe in
pursuing one’s won advantage, if he were conscious of humanity’s predicament in
a condition in which impulse and passion alone rule. The individual himself should
not be governed by momentary impulse and by prejudice arising from passion.
The state itself is the resultant of the inter play of forces; and the human reason,
displayed in the conduct expressed by these rules , is one of the determining
forces (Garvey 2006).
The laws of nature can be said to represent axioms and postulates that render
this deduction possible. They answer the question “ What are the conditions
under which the transition from the natural state of war to the state of human
beings living in organized societies becomes intelligible? These systems are
rooted from human nature and are not God-given laws . Nor they sated absolute
values, for according to Hobbes, there are no absolute values (Garvey 2006).
In Leviathan , Hobbes asserts:
“ The fundamental law of nature by seeks peace and follows it, while at the
same time, by the sum of natural light , we should defend ourselves by all means
that we can.

It follows from this that there are “ some rights that no human being can be
understood by words, or other signs”, to have abandoned or transferred”.
Contracts made in the state of nature are not generally binding, for, if one fears
that you will violate your part of the bargain, then no true agreement can be

6
reached. No contracts can be made with animals since animals cannot
understand an agreement”.
The third law of nature is that human beings perform their covenant made.
Without this law of nature, covenants are in vain and but empty words; and the
right of all human beings to all things remaining, we are still in condition of war.
Further, this law is the fountain of justice. When there has been no covenant , no
actions can be unjust. However, when a covenant has been made, to break its
unjust. Hobbes adds:
“…that covenants of mutual trust are invalid when there is fear of non-
performance on either part, and that in the natural condition of war this fear is
always present. It follows, therefore, that there are no valid covenants and hence,
no justice and injustice until the commonwealth is established; that is, until a
coercive power has been established which will compel human beings to perform
their covenants.
Hobbes uphold that human being that human beings seek self-preservation
and security; however, they are unable to attain this end in the natural condition
of war. The laws of nature are unable to achieved the desired end by themselves
alone; that is, unless there is coercive power able to enforce their observance by
sanctions. For these laws, though dictates of reason, are contrary to humanity’s
natural passions. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a common power
of government backed by force ad able to punish. This mean that plurality of
individuals should confer all their power and strength upon one human being or
upon one assembly of human beings, which may reduce all their wills, by plurality
of voices unto one will (Garvey, 2006)
That is to say, they must appoint one man (or woman), or assembly of human
beings, to bear their person , a person being defined as “he whose words or
actions of another human being, or of any other thing, to whom they are
attributed, whether truly of by fiction.” Hobbes makes a distinction between a
commonwealth by institution or by acquisition.
1. A commonwealth is said to exist by institution when it has been established
through the covenant o every member of a multitude with every other
member. The multitude of human beings subjects themselves to a chosen
sovereign from one fear to another.
2. A commonwealth is said to exist by acquisition when the sovereign power
has been acquired by force. Here, human beings fear for death or bonds of
that human being who holds power over their lives and liberty.
Neither of these commonwealths affects the sovereignty. The subjects of a
sovereign cannot either change the form of government or reject the authority of
the sovereign: sovereignty is alienable. No sovereign can be unjustly put to death
or in any way punished by

his subjects. For inasmuch as every subject is author of all sovereign ‘s actions, to
punish the sovereign would be to punish another for one’s own actions.

7
 One of the prerogatives of the sovereign enumerated by Hobbes is judging
what doctrines are fit to be taught. Thus, the power of the sovereign being, to all
intents and purposes unlimited, brings forth the question of freedom (if any) to be
possessed by the subjects or ought to be possessed by them. A point of greater
importance is that subjects are absolved from their duty of obedience to the
sovereign, not only if the latter has relinquished his sovereignty, but also if he has
indeed the will to retain his power but cannot, in fact , protect his subjects any
longer.
If the sovereign is conquered in war and surrenders to the victor, his subjects
become the subjects of the latter. If the commonwealth is torn asunder by
internal discord and the sovereign no longer possesses effective power, the
subject return to the state of nature, and a new sovereign can be set up.

F. Jean – Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau is one of the most famous and influential philosophers of the of the
French enlightenment in the 18th century. In his book, The Social Contract, he
elaborated his theory of human nature. In Rousseau, a new era of sentimental
piety found its beginning.
The “EDSA Revolution” is an example, though an imperfect one, of what the
theory of Social Contract is all about. According to Hobbes and Rousseau, the
state owes its origin to a social contract freely entered into by its members. The
two philosophers differed in their interpretations. Hobbes developed his idea in
favor of absolute monarchy, while Rousseau interpreted the idea in terms of
absolute democracy and individualism.
Both have one thing in common, that is, human beings have to form a
community or civil community to protect themselves from one another, because
the nature of human beings is tow age war against one another, and since by
nature, humanity tends toward self – preservation, then it follows that they have
to come to a free mutual agreement to protect themselves.
Hobbes thinks that to end the continuous and self- destructive condition of
war fare, humanity founded the state with its sovereign power of control by
means of a mutual consent. On the other hand, Rousseau believes that human
being is born free and good. Now, he is its in chains and has become bad due to
the evil influence of society, civilization, learning, and progress. Hence, from
these come dissension, conflict, fraud and deceit. Therefore, human being lost his
original goodness, his primitive tranquility of spirit.
In order to restore peace, bring his freedom back, and as he returned to his
true self, he saw the necessity and came form to form the state through the
social contract whereby everyone grants his individual rights to the general will.
The term “Social Contract” is not an actual historical event. It is the philosophical
fiction , a metaphor , and a certain way of looking at a society of voluntary
collection of agreeable individuals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
constituted , as an instance of social contract, however, is not a metaphor but an

8
actual agreement and actually signed by the people or their representatives
(Solomon and Higgins 1996). The “1986 EDSA Revolution” was not a bloody one.
People gathered in EDSA to voice their disenchantment peacefully and through
mutual effort , successfully ousted Marcos. This had inspired changes not only in
our own country but also in Eastern Europe’s Perestroika.

Sovereign/Ruler
(State)

Freedom
(General will or
mutual transferring
of rights

Citizens
(Individual Rights)
Hobbes and Rousseau Political Freedom
There must be a common power or government which the plurality of
individuals (citizens) should confer all their powers and strength into (freedom)
one will (ruler).

Activity 3.
1. Video Viewing: Watch a video presentation of the EDSA Revolution or the
life of Mahatma Gandhi . Based on the film, answer the following questions:
a. How can reason translated into action?
b. If there were no intellect, there would be no will. Explain.
c. What is Social contract and how is it reflected in the People Power (EDSA
Revolution)?
2. Reflective Journals:
Journal 1: In your view, what consist “free choice” ? Cite examples in the
current situation.
Journal 2: Are you slave to something? (e.g. ., technology) why? or why
not?

Evaluate and Exercise Prudence in Choices

For B. F. Skinner, the environment selects which is similar with natural
selection. We must take into account what the environment does to an organism
not only before but also after its responds. Skinner maintains that behavior is
shaped and maintained by its consequences. Behavior that operates upon the

9
environment to produce consequences (operant conditioning) can be studied by
arranging environments in which specific consequences are contingent upon it.
The second result is practical; the environment can be multiplied.
Yelon (1996) accepted that behavioral psychology, is at fault for having
overanalyzed the words “reward” and “ punishment”. We might have
miscalculated the effect of environment in the individual. There should be balance
in our relationship with others and the environment. In our dealings with our
fellow human beings, there is the strong and the obvious temptation to blame the
environment if they do not conform to our expectations.
The question of freedom arises. Can an individual be free? According to
Skinner, our struggle for freedom is not due to a will to be free as for Aristotle or
Sartre but to certain behavioral processes characteristic of the human organism,
the chief effect which is the avoidance of or escape from “aversive” features of
the environment.
The feeling of freedom, according to Skinner becomes an unreliable guide as
soon as would be controllers turn to non- aversive measures, as they are likely to
do to avoid the problems raised when the controller escapes or attacks. For
example, a skillful parent learns to reward a child for good behavior rather than
punish him for bad. Control becomes necessary in the issue of freedom.
Following the adage of John Stuart Mill ,”Liberty consist in doing what one
desires”. Skinner states that when a person wants something, he acts to get it
when the occasion arises. Skinner argues that even though behavior is
completely determined, it is better that a person “ feels free” of “ believes that he
is free”.
The issue is controllability. we cannot change genetic defects by punishment;
we can work only through genetic measures that operate on a much longer time
scale. What must be changed is not the responsibility of autonomous individual
but the conditions, environment, or genetic, of which a person’s behavior is a
function. Example, a student was praised by a teacher who said to him “Very
good!” for a solution to a problem or for giving the correct answer to a question.
Skinner thinks that the problem is to free human beings not from control but
from certain kinds of control, and it can be solved only if we accept the fact that
we depend upon the world around us and we simply change the nature of
dependency. Skinner proposed that to make the social environment as free as
possible of aversive stimuli, we do not need to destroy the environment or escape
from it. What is needed, according to Skinner, is to redesign it.

Life is full of paradoxes; nobody could nor should control it. We have to be
open to life, learn to accept and live with paradoxes. Learning with contradiction
is not the same as living in contradiction. The paradoxes accounts for the reasons
why life cannot be held still. Defining or conceptualizing insists on regarding one
aspect of life at the same time disregarding the other.

10
 In the spirituality of imperfection, we learn to accept the life, our
environment, is both “evil” and “good”. In recognizing life’s open-endedness, we
learn to be flexible and adaptable. B.F Skinner believes that morality is a
condition response impressed on the child by society. Despite this view, however,
creating a static environment, such as controlled environment , is not applicable
in the realities of everyday world (Schouten & Looren De Jong 2012).
Skinner is right, however, in pointing the influence of the environment
especially in the socialization of the children. Unfortunately, there is an emphasis
today in the acquisition of money, property and prestige, regardless of values or
lack of those – that children learns.
There should be no just be a re-engineering of the environment, but a total
transformation of how we view our environment, beginning with our own
orientation. How do we view life? Is it merely a life concerned with power that
according to Buddha, is the cause of despair? Or should it be a life cooperation,
vision and concern with other living beings?
Indeed, the theory of freedom has negative and positive tasks. Our lives
should not be merely controlled by rewards and punishments. As human beings,
we are capable of reaching different levels of heights and ideals. According to
Yelon, punishment is an educative measure, and such is a means to the formation
of motives, which are in part to prevent the wrongdoer from repeating the act in
part to prevent others from committing a similar act Analogously, in the case of
reward we are concerned with incentives (Schouten & Looren De Jong 2012).
However, much more than important than the question of when a person is
said to be responsible is that when he himself feels responsible. Evidently, not
merely that it was he took the steps required for its performance but there must
be added awareness that he did it ”independently” , “ of his own initiative”
whatever the term is. This feeling is simply the consciousness of freedom, which
is merely the knowledge of having acted of one’s own desires. And of “one’s own
desires” are those which have their origin in the regularity of one’s character in
the given situation, and are not imposed by external power , such as stimulus The
absence of external power expresses itself in the well-known feeling that one
could also have acted otherwise.
Indeed, the environment plays a significant part in our lives. However, since
the Stone Age, we had proven that we are not completely under its mercy. We
have and shall continue to tame and adapt to the changes in the conditions of the
environment . As Plato believes,

the soul of every individual possesses the power of learning the truth and living in
a society that is in accordance to its nature
We are responsible, whether we admit it or not, for what is in our power to do;
and most of the time, we cannot be sure what it is in our power to do until we
attempt. In spite of the alleged inevitabilities in personal life and history, human

11
effort can re-determine the direction of events, even though it cannot determine
the conditions that make human effort possible.
It is true that we did not choose to be born It is also true that we choose , most
of us, to keep on living It is not true that everything that happens to us is like “
being struck down by a dreadful disease”. The treatment and cure of disease –to
use an illustration-would never serve as a moral paradigm for the whole human
situation – would never have begun unless we believed that some things that
were did not have to be, that they could be different, and that we could make
them different. And what we can make different, we are responsible for

Activity 4:
1. Relate peace and freedom as necessary for the state..
2. Despite our genetic defects, are we free? Defend your answer..
3. To what extent does the environment affect our choice? Cite Examples.

Choices Have Consequences and Some Things Are Given Up While

Others Are Obtained In Making Choices.
Twentieth century gave rise to the importance of the individual, the opposite
of medieval thought that was God-centered For Ayn Rand (1996) individual mind
is the tool for the economic progress vis—a-vis laisse faire capitalism. Since the
mind is important, the sector that molds it should not be controlled by the
government. Similar with Aristotle, Rand believes that thinking is volitional. A
person has the freedom to think or not. Though, for Rand, the majority belongs to
the passive supporters of the status quo who choose not to think.
Individual rights, as espoused by Hobbes and Rousseau, are not merely
numbers. Rand rejects collectivism because of its brute force. Though human
beings have rights, there should also be responsibility. Individual rights were
upheld in capitalism that this is the only system that can uphold and protect
them. The principle of individual rights represented the extension of morality into
the social system.
Rand cited the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
Most developed countries have disposed their toxic wastes to developing
countries. Disposing material values, thus, is not just a matter of throwing waste
but projecting where to dump wastes that would invade on the rights of others.

Individualism, as espoused by Rand, is lined in family dependency because

Easterners believe that the individual needs the community and vice versa. The
Filipino and Chinese, for instance, stress the human relationships that emphasize
that the person is not necessarily an independent entity. In Filipino’s loob, for
instance, the individual is the captain of his own ship on a sea that is not entirely
devoid of uncertainties. Loob touches the daily human aspect of the Filipinos.

12
 Filipinos embraced family and political parties. For the Filipinos, one does not
only fulfill reasons of the mind but of the heart and personal involvement as well.
Whereas Rand upheld the individual , Fiipino’s loob is essentially an interpersonal
and social concept before its privately, personal concept.
Filipinos look at themselves as holistic from interior dimension under the
principle of harmony. This encompasses Filipino’s humanity , personality,
theological perspective, and daily experiences. It aspires harmony with others
and nature to be in union with God. Filipino’s holistic and interior dimensions
stress a being with others and sensitivity to the needs of others that inhibits one’s
personal and individual fulfillment.
There is the apprehension on the group oriented approach of the Filipino that
might hamper the individual’s initiative and responsibility. It is contented that the
individual should be disciplined form within rather than fear from authority figure.
Discipline and responsibility should be inculcated especially through education.
Filipino’s loob is the basis of Christian value of sensitivity to the needs of
others and gratitude. It compassed “give and take” relationship among Filipinos.
As such, repaying of those who have helped us is a manifestation of utang na
loob or debt of gratitude. Loob is similar with other Eastern views that aspire for
harmony (sakop) with others, God and nature. Loob prioritized family, relatives
and even non-kinsmen. It bridges individual differences and is the common factor
among human beings.
The concept of Rand’s free individual and Filipino’s view of the free human
being may have differences can be overcome. The potential of the Filipino should
be able to grow so that he will be aware of his uniqueness. Children should be
brought up to the identity of the members of the family and simultaneously with
that of the nation. Self-sufficiency (kasarinlan) should recognize human worth
and dignity.
Individualism, thus, should not see as selfishness but an affirmation of a truly
human self that is the supreme value of human living. To be a free individual is
to be responsible not only for one’s self but also for all. Thus, the individual
becomes a free and creative person who asserts one’s uniqueness.
Kagandahang-loob, kagutihang-loob and kalooban are terms that show
sharing of one’s self to others. This is the freedom with Loob. Loob puts one in
touch with his fellow beings. Great Philippine values, in fact are essentially
interpersonal. The use of intermediaries or go

between, the values of loyalty, hospitality, pakikisama(camaraderie) and respect

to authority are such values that relate to persons. In short, the Filipino generally
believes in the innate goodness of the human being.
Filipino ethics have an internal code and sanction than other legalistic moral
philosophies that are rather negative. The Filipino, who stresses duties over
rights, has plenty in common, once again with Chinese of Indians. The Filipino
looks at himself as one who feels, wills, thins, acts, as a total whole as a “person”

13
, conscious of his freedom, proud of his human dignity and sensitive to the
violation of these two.

Activity 5:
1. To be a free individual is to be responsible not only for one’s self but also
for all.
2. To grow intellectually is a responsibility of an individual.
3. The individual should be disciplined from within rather than fear from
authority figure

Show Situations that Demonstrate Freedom of Choice and the

Consequences of their Choices
The author agrees to Rand’s views of the individual in the advancement of a
person. According to Rand, individual freedom should be aligned with economic
freedom. The Filipino “sakop” or harmony can be a helping value to the full
development of the Filipino if it opens up to embrace the whole Philippine society.
However, there are cases where the Filipino “sakop” may adversely affect the
social and financial status of the one moving upward the social ladder. For
instance, the more well-off members of a family share their gains with their
relatives or friends in need.
However, sometimes, the beneficiaries of the monetary assistance (utang or
loans) just use the money for non-essentials (e.g. drinking sprees) when there are
more important concerns that should be prioritized (e.g. tuition fee). Hence,
Filipino “sakop” must begin to raise its members in a more responsible way and
the members should likewise take this attempt to raise them financially and
socially seriously so as not to waste the help bestowed on them. Moreover, they
must come to realize that their personal worth and dignity is not exterior to
themselves; it is not found in the body of the “sakop” but in one’s kalooban. If
these are fulfilled , the Filipinos shall not only be better person but a better nation
with a sound economy (Andres 1994).
A leader or a manager with “magandang kalooban” is not passive but plays
active role in economic development. Leaders should not just focus on the
impact of job performance but treats every individual worker as person and not
as objects. Filipinos can attain a sound economy through an integrative system as
such there is support and help among unit of organizations within a company. To
make up for the inferiority complex of Filipinos, a good

Filipino leader/manager must encourage fellow Filipinos to believe in themselves

so that they can bounce back as an economic power.
Rand presupposed that greater creativity will be achieved if the government
will minimize influence on individuals. Filipinos should take the initiative by
following Rand’s suggestion and adopting individualism in their value system. The
author thinks that individualism will provide Filipinos an opportunity to be more

14
aware of their capacity, to harness fully their strength, and to commit themselves
to life. Individualism reinforces kasarilihan (self-sufficiency), as such, it
discourages subservience from external control higher than itself.
“Kasarilihan” promotes entrepreneurship, which minimize foreign control of
Filipinos (i.e.. from the control of monopolies and multinational companies). Other
than entrepreneurship, individualism also prioritizes countryside development, a
self-help concept among the country dwellers which discourages dependence on
government loans which would leave the locals to follow whatever conditions the
government sets in favor of the loan. Furthermore, for Andres (1986), the spirit of
self-help is the root of all authentic growth in rural development, which is a
source of national productivity and efficiency.
As a result, entrepreneurship and countryside development economically and
politically emancipate Filipinos from local and foreign invention. Moreover,
Filipinos learn to be self-sufficient which leads to self-respect and consequently ,
enhances Filipino’s amor propio (pride and respectability)
Education has its own part to fulfill in giving importance to individual students
and promulgation of the concept of individualism. Mounting a continuing
education among Filipinos, education should not shape the student’s mind to be
passive. Educators should be aware of the individual talents of students, the
differences in their family back ground, gifts and capabilities. Rand proposed that
the main task of education is to teach students how to be trained in theories and
concepts. The students have to be taught the eventual of knowledge discovered
in the past so that they will be equipped to acquire further knowledge of their
own effort (Binswanger 1986).
However, individualism should be tied with social responsibility and should
not be just “tayo-tayo” or “kami-kami”. Our own individuality should interact with
the individuality of others. In this light, every Filipinos should give equal chance to
cultivate their talents that inevitably contribute in the development of the society.
Further, as individuals who are free, Filipinos should recognize their own brand of
uniqueness, instead of copying foreign cultures. “ Loob” does not only develop
the self of an individual but the welfare of others.
For Aristotle and Rand, reason and will or volition is part of our being human.
In relation to this, Filipinos had proven matured thinking, pertaining to EDSA
Revolution. Filipinos become sovereign people who stood up for what they believe
is right even before physical

threat. (Miranda 1987) viewed EDSA Revolution as a redeeming event; Filipinos

did not become fatalistic. Instead, Filipinos took matters in their own hands.
During EDSA Revolution, Filipino actuations were based on reason; Filipinos
exemplified a conscious decision of ousting a dictator.

15
 The decision is based on the Filipino’s belief in freedom. They also voluntarily
risked their lives as they face danger. Again, EDSA Revolution is one example of
social contract as discussed earlier in this lesson.
Filipino’s self is rooted in “loob” (Alejo 1990) from which springs a person’s
authenticity. Individualism could only progress to real change if it springs from
the innermost depth of “kalooban” and not just for “pakitang tao” (outward
appearance’s sake). Thus, individualism manifest changes within and outside the
person.
Further, “loob” is the only identical factor among people’s diversity in creed,
color, and status in the society. Moreover, there is no way that Filipinos will have
no equal chance to become worthy individuals. The author also took note of the
interplay of Western philosophy that emphasizes modern science and technology;
the East, however, is more concerned on the inner and personal nature of the
self. The Eastern thinker is acquainted through one’s personal experience and
intuitive grasp of reality., which is of higher value than the analytical speculation.

Activity 6:
A.
1. What is intellectual freedom?
2. What is spiritual freedom?
3. What is political and economic freedom?
B. Choose one topic and explain.
1. Great Love and great achievements involved greater risk.
2. Respect for self, respect for others and responsibility for your actions.
3. The future is fixed; how one’s life unfolds is a matter of destiny. Agree or
disagree? explain.

Prepared by:

LEAH CAMELLO PIRA, LPT/ MA.Ed

SUBJECT TEACHER

16