80 DALUMAT

Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado and Timbreza:

A Re-evaluation

Marella Ada V. Mancenido

Introduction

T he search for an indigenous Filipino philosophy has been the goal of

several Filipino thinkers. While there are some who claim that Filipino
philosophy could be found in folk sayings and traditions, there are others
who claim that it is the mere act doing philosophy that constitutes Filipino
philosophy. The tension between these two claims needs to be carefully
examined.

What are the foundations of Filipino philosophy and how can it be

distinguished from other schools of thought? If by “philosophy” we mean
being critical with our search for truth, and being equipped with the ability
to cogitate and rationalize, then the second claim above should take
precedence over the first one. The challenge that this paper would undertake
is to re-evaluate our presuppositions regarding the definition and foundations
of the thing we call “Filipino philosophy.” Undoubtedly, among the leading
experts in the search for Filipino philosophy are Leonardo Mercado and
Florentino Timbreza. This paper, therefore, would study and evaluate the
basic presuppositions of these two thinkers as to what Filipino philosophy
is.

Methodology of Mercado’s Filipino Philosophy

Mercado attempts to uncover Filipino philosophy using a meta-
linguistic method. He traces a common thread among the various
manifestations of habits and structures of Filipino languages. These habits,
he claims, can be seen through various folk stories from various regions in
the country. He uses language in his analysis of the Filipino mind and
behavior. He claims that “language, thought, culture and society are linked
inseparably” (Mercado, 1974). Mercado cites several terms and beliefs from
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 81
the Tagalog culture and language, and presents their counterparts among
the Visayan and Ilocano cultures and languages. This method demonstrates
how certain Philippine ethno-linguistic groups tend to view certain
experiences in similar manner.

Mercado’s definition of Filipino philosophy is nominal. The term

“Filipino” originally meant “a Spanish born of Spanish parents residing in
the Philippines,” and it was only during the latter period of the Spanish regime
when natives started to be considered as Filipinos as well (Mercado, 1974).
Since then, the term “Filipino” denotes the nationality of the group of people
residing in the Philippines. Mercado claims further, that a group of people is
similar with all other groups, in the sense that each group is equipped with
the ability to rationalize and cogitate. The ability to elicit valuations, based
on a common experience of the outside world, is common to all groups.

Mercado uses two definitions of philosophy: Greek and existential.

The Greeks defined philosophy as a science that investigates the first
principles and causes of things through the light of reason; while existentialist
thinkers defined it as something that must affect one’s life and therefore
must be practical, experiential, as well as contemplative (Mercado, 1974).
Based on these two definitions, Mercado sets out to locate philosophy in
Filipino culture. If rationalizing is a universal act, why then should the
possibility of the existence of Filipino philosophy be questioned? In order
to show that philosophical activity exists in Filipino culture, Mercado studies
various indigenous literatures from different parts of the country, and argues
that successfully finding a common indigenous thread of thought will help
us develop Filipino philosophy further. His gauge in determining whether
philosophical activity exists in a culture is its indigenous literature and
intellectual history.

Mercado, in his later studies, tries to device another method which

he calls “ethno-philosophy.” This particular method is an adaptation of
Okafor’s search for Afro-Japanese ethno-philosophy. He describes this
method as a “folk philosophy which tries to look into the reflection of the
people on the worldview and an unveiling of the thought system, or way of
thinking, of a particular community within a cultural region or of the entire
region” (Mercado, 2000). As it appears, this particular method encompasses
his former method, in a way that we can now consider his meta-linguistic
method as subsumed under ethno-philosophy. We cannot deny that his
82 DALUMAT

former analysis using language also tries to investigate the manner of thinking
of the people who speak the language. The new method, ethno-philosophy,
adapted by Mercado provides his search for Filipino Philosophy an added
leverage by making it a more encompassing method which is not just the
study of the language of the people, but also the analysis of its culture. In
this manner, we can now be more critical in the unearthing of a particular
philosophy from a given region.

There are criticisms against this method. According to Okafor, ethno-

philosophy lacks an abstract logic. “Folk philosophy is devoid of pure
rationalism of western thought. It contrasts with a western philosophy
founded on reason and logic…it contains its own logic, its own rationality,
albeit less concrete than Western rationalism” (Mercado 2000). The probable
reason for this is that folk philosophy is exclusively based on folk sayings.
Although it may possess a certain degree of intelligibility, or the ability of
the folk people to rationalize or explain a particular experience, folk
philosophy lacks the western structural way of thinking. Mercado argues
that “Filipinos think concretely, he has another way of reaching truth and of
reasoning” (Mercado 2000). While westerners try to answer questions by
placing the problem at hand in a logical plane and by being rational about
issues, Filipinos would address these questions by trying to answer them
using intuition, if not their religious beliefs and folk tales that oftentimes
invoke the existence of super natural beings.

Themes of Mercado’s Filipino Philosophy

Mercado notes that Filipinos have a deep sense of community, that
even before they act for themselves, they consider the people around them.
This could be the reason why Filipinos have very strong ties with their families
compared to the westerners. It is quite evident that family ties in Philippine
society is something that cannot be severed easily, as Filipinos give
importance to hierarchy, be it in the family or the state. Although this sense
of hierarchy can also be traced in various western ideas, the sense of hierarchy
within a family is not given much importance by westerners. Filipinos give
emphasis to ranking, and this is the basis why in most instances older people,
or people who hold more power, are considered correct even in cases when
their reasons appear wanting.
Apart from this idea, Filipinos give importance to the concept of
being together. They believe that things are done better when done with
somebody who shares the same causes. This is what Mercado calls sakop.
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 83
This is when one individual gives weight to the value of a group or a family.
This shows that Filipinos are not individualistic by nature, for they are more
concerned with the beliefs of their group than with their own personal
perspective.

But does this mean that Filipinos lack a sense of selfhood and
individuality? Mercado does not think so (Mercado 1974). For him, Filipinos
view the notion of sakop as a means to achieve harmony among men, and
that the achievement of the society can also be considered as an achievement
of the individual. The Filipino’s individual achievement is his contribution
to the achievement of the group. Sakop can also be characterized by certain
terms like kuyog, kasama, and kadua. These terms denote the concept of
being together, or a sense of companionship. The term tayo-tayo is commonly
used to denote the idea of an individual’s membership to a particular group.
According to Mercado, these ideas are necessary to uplift a person’s self-
esteem, as one’s sense of belonging is something that is really essential among
Filipinos (Mercado 1974). But the problem of this particular claim is that we
fail to realize the importance of the individual as the concepts are more
focused on the community. Sakop can also be characterized through
language. Thus, instead of saying “my,” Filipinos tend to say “ours.” Again,
this depicts the Filipino attitude of togetherness and oneness. It is as though
the possession of one becomes a possession of all (Mercado 1994).

The epic of Lam-ang shows us how a hero (bayani) is more concerned

with his society rather than with himself. The term bayani is rooted on the
term bayan, which when translated in English would mean “town” or
“municipality.” Hence, Mercado claims that Bayani is oriented towards
others, just as the hero is oriented towards the society (Mercado 2000).
During the wedding of Lam-ang, the hero invited all his townspeople to
attend. This shows us how the bayani in the epic is inseparable from his
relatives and his society as well (Mercado 2000).

“Selfhood” for Mercado can be translated in Filipino using the term

Loob. The term, however, has an interesting range of usage and meaning.
The Filipino concept of Utang na loob (debt of volition), is an example of its
usage. This is characterized by a person’s indebtedness to another due to a
certain favor given to the former. According to Mercado, Filipinos value this
debt of volition, it can not be repaid by any material object, and that, once
a person is in debt of volition to another, he becomes eternally indebted.
84 DALUMAT

This could explain why an offspring, after being reared by the parents is
expected to return favor when he/she reaches maturity, or why a politician
is expected to prioritize his/her allies after he has been elected to office.
Although the sense of debt of volition is an important element of Filipino
propriety, it also has some negative effects, such as preventing Filipinos to
move out of this indebtedness. This concept could take away the value of
sincerity, for actions could be done insincerely as both investments and partial
payments.

Mercado characterizes loob as something holistic and interior. It is

holistic because it submits to both reason and emotion, and does not allow
emotion to affect reason nor reason to affect emotion. It is interior because
it also signifies human consciousness and moral conscience (Mercado 1974).
In another book, Mercado quoted Ileto in describing loob as “man’s inner
being which is intimately connected with the ideas of leadership and power,
rationalism and revolution” (Mercado 1994). Mercado explains that loob
can balance the threat and pressure given by the society. He then makes
use of the term kalooban which is understood as “man’s good nature.” This
assumes a position, that when the Filipino is faced with ethical dilemma, he
is bound to side with that which is good, which in fact is already a part of his
nature as a Filipino, his kalooban.

In our society, there are various ways where loob can be reinforced.
Religious people turn to prayers and novenas to strengthen their kalooban,
and this can go to the extent of placing their rosaries in their pockets for
protection. The use of amulets is another example of reinforcing and
purifying one’s kalooban (Mercado 1994). Kalooban is also considered to
be directly related to the body, as the body serves as the instrument for
feeling and therefore the starting point of every process of internalizing
experiences.

Each individual has his own sense of valuation, which is the process
of determining what is important for him. This sense is in constant relation
to one’s preferences and worth. The translation of the term “value” is buti,
pamantayan, ganda and pagpapahalaga. Buti, or kabutihan, means “good.”
This is one’s preference for that which is good over that which is evil. The
term pamantayan means “standard.” More often, we give value to things
which satisfy our standards. Ganda means “beauty” or “beautiful,” and which
implies that we value things that possess beauty. Lastly, the term
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 85
pagpapahalaga means “to give importance to something” (Mercado 2000).
This submits to the idea of opposition or duality, where one has to choose
one over the other: choosing good over evil; or choosing things that possess
a higher standard over things that do not; or beauty over ugliness; or simply
things that are important to the individual over things that are unimportant.
In most cases, the things that we prefer are things that are essential for our
self-preservation, things that give us a sense of self worth to help us move
towards actuality and direct us towards truth and wisdom (Mercado 2000).

Man’s valuation is still considered to be an integral part of his

selfhood. If one would analyze these translations in Filipino, one would
understand that even the Filipino sense of valuation is inter-subjective. It is
not dependent of one’s perception of value, but bases it on his society’s
perception of objects which are valuable. If we are to use the concept of
sakop system among Filipinos, then we understand that valuation for Filipinos
is dependent on his society rather than on the self. Although there may be
problems regarding Filipino identity and individuality, Mercado banks on
the idea that sakop does not limit the Filipinos, because it is part of the core
of their being. He translates the term being as pagka, and if one uses the
term pagka-Pilipino to mean “being Filipino. All that has been mentioned
above are the components which make up one’s pagka. This notion of pagka
embraces the Filipino selfhood, because it is the movement which draws us
closer to finding an authentic Filipino.

Methodology of Timbreza’s Filipino Philosophy

Timbreza sees language as an essential component in laying down
Filipino Philosophy. Like Mercado, he uses language to analyze Filipino
thought, as he tried looking for connections from several dialects to show a
valid common ground among Filipinos. He holds that there is a profound
connection between language and thought, and that if we are able to
understand the language, then it follows that we can also understand the
thought. Aside from language, he also utilizes common Filipino experiences.
He believes that Philosophy starts and ends in experience, and since Filipinos
are also capable of this experience, therefore, there is a possibility of Filipino
Philosophy (Timbreza 1982). Throughout his works, he tries to use Chinese
maxims to serve as a reference point for Filipino philosophy. His search
appears to be a comparative analysis of Chinese and Filipino thoughts, with
the implicit guiding principle that since something has appeared in Chinese
thought this thing might have a counterpart in Filipino philosophy.
86 DALUMAT

Themes of Timbreza’s Filipino Philosophy

Timbreza’s ideas are centered on the Filipino perspective of life and

the Filipino’s search for its meaning. Like Mercado, he stresses that Filipinos
give importance to family and society. The notions of pagkatao,
pakikipagkapwa, and pagkalinga, meaning “subjectivity,” “inter-subjectivity,”
and “compassion,” respectively, are focal themes in Timbreza’s work. He tries
to explicate these themes by relating them with known Filipino sayings and
customs.

Life, according to Timbreza, is given more worth by the situations

that surround us, such as the government, world issues, and other individuals.
He mentions that the idea of relating to another is inevitable from the
moment we are born and up to the time when our journey comes to an end.
He says that our relation with other people marks the importance of our
lives, as this process could measure whether we are able to live well. He says
that the most fortunate ones are the ones who are compassionate.

He points out that being is more important than possession: Ang

iyong mga ari-arian at katayuan sa buhay ay hindi kasinghalaga ng iyong
pagkatao, ng iyong dignidad, or “your possession is not as important as your
dignity.” It is important for us to understand that man’s worth should not
be measured by his possession and position, as these cannot quantify his
meaning and contribution to his society. He clarifies that man’s identity
should not be defined in words, as words and definitions would only limit
his potentials and capabilities. This statement echoes the Sartrean concept
of the objectification of the other, where one’s gaze has the power to petrify
another individual.

In his article Tinimbang ka, ngunit Kulang, he remind us of how

man is always lacking, and is always in search of that which would complete
his being. Timbreza holds how important one’s relation is with another. He
states that one’s movement to higher position cannot guarantee his
fulfillment; especially when he is not in good relations with the people around
him. This is true for every individual who is more concerned about what the
others can do for his own success. It cannot be denied that man’s
achievements are always earned with the intervention of others. A man
who claims that he is solely responsible for his own success would never be
truly happy. This is because his very attitude would surely adversely affect
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 87
his relations with others. In fact, this same attitude would alienate him from
the other individuals around him.

Man’s fault should not be anchored on his being human. It may be

correct that man’s being human makes him susceptible to committing
mistakes, but this is not an enough reason for him to be complacent in dealing
with his society. It is noted that man’s compassion and understanding could
be the solution for his fickle nature. It is through these inter-subjective
processes that a more durable relationship with others can be established.
One must be able to ask what good he can do for others, rather than what
good others can do for him. To quote Theresa of Calcutta, “if you love and
it hurts, love some more until it no longer hurts.” Timbreza’s says “to give
until there is nothing more to give.” Both statements emphasize the act of
emptying oneself. But one has to be clear that his motive for emptying himself
should be totally unselfish.

Timbreza states that accomplishments are measured by the

achievements of one’s family. As long as one’s family is bound by one goal
and is together, no amount of financial stability can equal the joy that such
togetherness can bring.

Timbreza also tries to explore the Filipino notion of God. He claims

that our relation to religion plays an important role in our everyday
experiences: Walang kay Bathala nanalig na sumasapanganib; or in
Boholano, Ang tawo nga dunay devocion sa caduat dili mo oyon (Timbreza
1982). These sayings show that the Filipino views religion as his means of
protection. Filipinos believe that whatever their experiences are, these are
given to them by God. But does this suggest that Filipinos subscribe to blind
fatalism?

In his book Intelektwalisasyon ng Pilosopiyang Pilipino, Timbreza

presents various maxims from western and eastern thinkers with their
counterparts in Filipino culture (Timbreza 1999). One example is for the
concept of good, where he uses the philosophies of Aristotle, Thomas
Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, Lao Tzu side by side with Tagalog, Ilocano and
Cebuano Maxims.

Aristotle: “walang sino mang naghahangad ng kasamaan

para sa sarili.”
88 DALUMAT

Lao Tzu: “Gantihan ng kabutihan ang kapootan”

Tagalog maxim: “Kung batuhin ka ng bato, tinapay ang
ihagis mo.”
Ilocano maxim: “No batuendaka ti bato, batuem ida ti
tinapay.”

These saying clearly show, that like the Western and Eastern thinkers, Filipinos
also view goodness as something that is inherent in man, that it is embedded
in his nature, and that he should repay an evil act with a good one. Timbreza’s
comparison presents to us the idea that there are certain experiences which
can be considered universal. In his search for Filipino Philosophy, he was
able to prove that although we may appear to be unique, there a number of
universal notions that we share with other civilizations, and that although
our analysis and understanding would lack the logic used by other
civilizations, the fact remains that we are able to experience similar things
that they experienced.

The Filipino process of valuation, according to Timbreza, is

something that we are able to acquire from childhood. This is taught to us
by people we mingle with. The act of reward and punishment leads a child
towards what he is supposed to do. In most cases, this is in accordance with
what his parents wish him to do or act. As the child grows older, he is placed
in the same scenario, where he is expected to submit to the will of authorities,
be it in school, workplace or elsewhere. Timbreza asserts that the Filipino
sense of valuation as something that is learned, differs from the western
process of valuation, where values are seen as something that is realized by
an individual, whether these are formed through self-creation, or through
grasping which things are valuable to him (Timbreza 2008).

Timbreza’s analysis shows that Filipinos seem to have become

simplistic and resigned. Our concepts of okay lang yan, ganyan lang ang
buhay, tayo’y tao lamang, nariyan na yan, mamaya na are just few of the
varied proofs for this particular claim (Timbreza 1989). Once a particular
unwanted event happens, we say okay lang yan, or nariyan na yan. We seem
to forget the idea that there is still the possibility for us to change our fate.
Once a mistake has been committed, we say ganyan lang ang buhay,or tayo’y
tao lamang. We become resigned to what the world has bestowed upon us.
These suggest that we lack the westerner’s concept of free will, and we have
imbued so much of the oriental notion of being one with nature.
Evaluation of the works of Mercado and Timbreza
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 89
Philosophy as an academic discourse started in our country when it
was first offered by the University of Santo Tomas as a course almost four
centuries ago. Philosophy then was synonymous to the ideas of St. Thomas
Aquinas. The subjects were taught by the Dominican friars, and so philosophy
then was limited to the role of being the handmaid of theology. It was only
during the 20th century that lay people were allowed to teach the subject.
From then on, Filipino scholars in philosophy contributed to the formation
of philosophy in our country. There had been a number of Filipinos who
went abroad to study Philosophy, and later on offered their knowledge to
their respective universities: Emerita Quito, Alfredo Co, Armando Bonifacio,
Claro Ceniza, Antonio Piñon, Manuel Piñon, Quintin Terrenal, Romualdo
Abulad, Roque Ferriols, Manny Dy, and Josephine Pasricha to name a few
(Co 2006). How far have we gone from the moment these Filipino scholars
imparted their new knowledge in philosophy during the 1970s when
existentialism, phenomenology and hermeneutics were the new trends? If
we are to take a look at the researches done in the universities in Manila
offering philosophy, we will realize that most of the studies are still under
the theme of existentialism, phenomenology and hermeneutics (Quito 1983).
Gripaldo, in a recent study, lists the topics of researches done by both M.A.
and Ph.D. students of philosophy in our country:

Aesthetics;
History and Philosophy of Art;
History and Philosophy of Literature/Literary Criticism;
Asian/Eastern Philosophy;
Autobiography;
Biography;
Philosophy of Life;
Epistemology;
Ethics and Meta-ethics;
Filipino Philosophy;
Logic/Logical Theory/Philosophical Logic and Philosophy of
Mathematics;
Metaphysics and Weltanschaunng;
Modernism/Postmodernism;
Feminism/ Post-Feminism;
General, Comparative, Introductory, and Historical Philosophy of
Culture;
Philosophy of Economics;
90 DALUMAT

Philosophy of Education;
Philosophy of History;
Philosophy of Language/Linguistic Philosophy and Hermeneutics;
Philosophy of Law/Legal Philosophy;
Philosophy of Mind/Philosophical Psychology;
Philosophy of Myth;
Philosophy of Nature;
Philosophy of Person;
Phenomenology and Existentialism;
Philosophy of Religion and Mysticism;
Philosophy of Science;
Philosophy of Technology;
Political Philosophy;
Pragmatism/Neopragmatism; and
Social Philosophy (Gripaldo 2004).

Although there is an increase in the number of topics, there seems to be

some need for newer interpretations and studies in philosophies, such as in
the areas of Pragmatism and Postmodernism. Alfredo Co mentions:

Those of us who are still toiling in a desperate search for

the Filipino soul and the Filipino Philosophy are really
lagging behind. Many of our Filipino Thinkers have already
done their part by philosophizing and writing. In the
process, they have become philosophers. And because
these are Filipinos philosophizing, then we call the body
of their works Filipino Philosophy (Co 2004).

Opposed to those who criticized the search for indigenous philosophy, Co is

calling for more participants in this search. If we are to look at the situation
of the state of Philosophy in our country, there appears to have been a lag
after the 1970 rising of Filipino thinkers. In a study done by Demeterio it is
shown that after a marked increase in political involvement, philosophical
writings also increased (Demeterio 2002). However, the increase in the
number of publications does guarantee any significant change in the
methodologies and interpretations. While there are random works on
Postmodernism, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, critical theory, Filipino
philosophy still basks in the glory of existentialism and phenomenology. New
trends may have been introduced but these are not fully accepted and
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 91
explored. We still find comfort in viewing philosophy in a very traditional
manner, and Timbreza justifies this lag by mentioning the need for survival.
These are the reasons why there have been few philosophical publications
during the time of political crisis brought about by the Martial Law (Demeterio
2002). What happened to the exploration and interpretation of new trends
in philosophy? What have we accomplished and what have we failed to
accomplish?

It is undeniable that in every endeavor one starts on, criticisms and

appraisals are to follow. We may look at Mercado and Timbreza’s works to
be the foundation of the search for an indigenous Filipino Philosophy, but
we must then question ourselves: is this the farthest that we can go? After
they have they given us proofs that there is Filipino philosophy, shall we
stop after their search? Timbreza states that what he was able to accomplish
must pose as a challenge to next generation of Filipino thinkers. He did not
deny that the product of his research is geared towards his own field of
interest. He wishes that the younger breed of thinkers would eventually come
up with their own accounts of what Filipino philosophy was and is.

Abulad, however, believes that “every philosopher is a product of

his time,” and “one cannot fault a scholar for his professional preferences”
(Abulad 1987). Although the methodologies used by Mercado and Timbreza
are borrowed from the field of Anthropology, their exhaustive search is a
proof for a “working” Filipino mind and, hence, for a Filipino Philosophy.
Abulad mentions that the Greeks just started to philosophize, without the
aim of creating Greek Philosophy, and he emphasizes on the demand for
having a written Filipino Philosophy, be it on the same plane leveled by
Mercado and Timbreza, or on other planes such as exploring particular
thinkers. What is important is for us to be able to put our ideas on paper,
which sooner or later would grow into a body of works which we would call
authentic Filipino philosophy and which would no longer be centered on
folk tales and religious stories. What becomes more important now is for
Filipino scholars to think beyond the boundaries of the schools of thought
that they inherited.
There is a call to reevaluate the works of Mercado and Timbreza. If
we may use the analysis given by Demeterio claiming that “philosophy should
not be afraid of borrowing theories and concepts from other nations, as
long as such borrowings are done reflectively and as long as such borrowings
92 DALUMAT

are applied as paradigms and methodologies” (Demeterio 1998), then

Mercado and Timbreza did the right things by borrowing theories and
concepts and investing them in their search for the Filipino mind. However,
the meta-linguistic methodologies used by Mercado and Timbreza still need
to be reevaluated. Demeterio explains further that although “manuscripts
and prints are unquestionably present in our country, culturally speaking,
we are still subsisting in a lingering residual orality... Havelock and Ong are
saying that an oral culture cannot support the development of philosophy,
only the epistemological processes and structure of consciousness from
literate culture can” (Demeterio 1998). If we take this as a criterion for the
possibility of philosophy, how then do we call the works of Mercado and
Timbreza since both of them based their studies on oral tradition? This makes
the search for an indigenous Filipino philosophy more problematic.

Mercado and Timbreza’s works on Filipino Philosophy tried to search

for the roots of Filipino thought, but that should not be the conclusion of
every Filipino thought. While it may be true that there is a valid philosophy
in epic and religious beliefs, there may also be Philosophy in our individual
study.
Maaring maging Pilipino ang pilosopiya sa pamamaraan o
kalamnan. Ang kalamnan ay maaaring maging isang
pagsusuri sa pananaw ng Pilipino sa daigdig o dili kaya’y
isang pagsusuri sa mga saligan sa pulitika at sa ekonomiya
ng bansa. Kayat masasabing tatlo ang maaaring maging
anyo ng pilosopiyang Pilipino: 1) Isang pamamaraan
Pilipino sa pilosopiya; 2) Isang pagsusuri sa mga saligan ng
pulitika at ekonomiya ng lipunang Pilipino; at 3) Isang
interpretasyon ng pananaw-sa-mundo ng Pilipino
(Fernando Nakpil-Zialcita, Qtd in Demeterio, 2002).

From the above quotation, there is a valid methodology for our search for
Filipino philosophy which is not primarily concerned with Filipino culture
and tradition. This quotation from Zialcita as used by Demeterio shows us
that even recent occurrences in our country can be basis for a philosophical
dialogue. It stands as a proof that any event analyzed through philosophy
has a right claim to be a product of philosophizing, hence it can be considered
as a concrete foundation for philosophy.
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 93
While it is important for us to recognize the efforts of Mercado and
Timbreza, for they have provided “concrete” representations of what they
consider as Filipino Philosophy, we also need to take up the bigger challenge
of precisely challenging their views. We should not take their studies at
face value, rather we should revisit their claims and analyze them seriously.
Demeterio emphasizes: “I believe that Filipino philosophy basically
should be a tradition of interrelated and interacting philosophical utterances
of Filipino intellectuals, despite the fact that these may be grounded on the
most rudimentary discursive formation” (Demeterio, 1998). Abulad states:
“what is needed is a sense of putting our ideas into permanence, and through
this we are to be equipped with a genuine Filipino thinking which could
already be miles apart from the epics which lacks sufficient logic previously
presented”(Abulad, 1988). What both writers are suggesting is for the
younger philosophy scholars in the country to reevaluate what has been
previously done by our predecessors, to be in constant dialogue with their
writings and to constantly do their share of “philosophizing” and putting
into print the fruits of their labor. The lack of new discourses in philosophy
can only be solved through our participation, through engaging with new
interpretation and analysis of works previously presented by other thinkers,
and through challenging our ideas and the ideas of other thinkers. It is
through these that we can contribute to the development of Filipino thought.
The use of new paradigms and methodologies in our studies can only prove
that we can surpass what our mentors have laid down for us.
94 DALUMAT

REFERENCES

Abulad, Romualdo. “Contemporary Filipino Philosophy.” Karunungan 5

(1988). Print.

Co, Alfredo. “Doing Philosophy in the Philippines: Fifty Years Ago and Fifty
Years from Now.” Karunungan 21 (2004). Print.

____________. “In the Beginning: a Petit Personal Historical Narrative of

the Beginning of Philosophy in the Philippines.” Unitas: a Quarterly
Scholarly Journal for Arts and Sciences 79.3 (2006). Print.
Demeterio, F.P.A. “Re-reading Emerita Quito’s Thoughts Concerning the
Underdevelopment of Filipino Philosophy.” F.P.A. Demeterio’s
Webpage on Philosophy and Cultural Studies. October 1998. Web.
28 May 2009.

______________. “Thought and Socio-Politics: An Account of the late

Twentieth Century Filipino Philosophy.” F.P.A. Demeterio’s Webpage
on Philosophy and Cultural Studies. April 2002. Web. 28 May 2009.

Gripaldo, Rolando. Filipino Philosophy. Manila:DLSU Press, 2000. Print.

______________. “An Update, 1998-2002 on Filipino Philosophy: A Critical

Bibliography.” De La Salle University Page. n.d. Web. 28 May 2009.
Mercado, Leonardo. Filipino Thought. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University, 1972. Print.

_______________. Elements of Filipino Philosophy. Tacloban City: Divine

Word University, 1976. Print.

_______________. Applied Filipino Philosophy. Tacloban City: Divine Word

University, 1977. Print.

_______________. Filipino Thought on Man and Society. Tacloban City: Divine

Word University, 1980. Print.

_______________. The Filipino Mind. Washington DC: Council for Research

in Values and Philosophy, 1994. Print.
Marella Ada Mancenido: Filipino Philosophy According to Mercado & Timbreza 95
_______________. The New Paradigm and Filipino Philosophy. Karunungan
(1988). Print.

Quito, Emerita. The State of Philosophy in the Philippines. Manila: DLSU Press,
1983. Print.

Timbreza, Florentino. Pilosopiyang Pilipino. Quezon City: Rex Printing

Company, 1982. Print.

_________________. Mga Hugis ng Kaisipang Pilipino. Quezon City: Rex

Printing Company, 1989. Print.

_________________. Intelektwalisasyon ng Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon

City: Rex Printing Company, 1999. Print.

_________________. Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino. Quezon City:

Rex Printing Company, 2008. Print.