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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.”
 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
 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;
 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
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
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.
 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.
 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.
 . 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.