WHY LOOB?
"Hindi isang sulok ng dibdib, kundi isang daigdig ng makabuluhang
Loob featured among the important things to study if we want to
understand Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Enriquez (1975) clarified that
psychology should be the study of kalooban (emotions) and
kamalayan (experienced knowledge), ulirat (awareness of one's
surroundings), isip (information and understanding), diwa (habits
and behavior), and kaluluwa (soul).
In several studies and explorations into the Filipino philosophy and
the Filipino personality, loob has always been identified as a core
concept. Aside from Filipino philosophers (Mercado 1974, 1994; De
Mesa 1984) and psychologists (Alejo 1990: De Guia 2005; Enriquez
1992), historians (Salazar 1977, 1981; Ileto 1979; Rafael 1993) and a
poet (Lacaba 1974) have also analyzed loob.
Loob is also a central concept in understanding Philippine values. In
fact, next to kapwa, loob is one of the richest indigenous concepts
that came out of Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Albert Alejo
Tao Po!
In 1990, Paring Bert published Tao Po! Tuloy! which contained his
ideas and arguments on the concept of loob (inner self or relational
interiority) and kapwa (fellow human being), two important
elements in sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology).
This book earned him a National Book Award. But more importantly,
it placed his ideas in conversation with fellow thinkers seeking to
unearth, through language and culture, the profundity of the
Filipino social experience.
For Paring Bert, a person's loob consists of a series of connections.
ugnayan." (Not a space inside the body, but a world of meaningful
relations.)
For example, when a loved one is killed, we say that we feel hurt or
wounded (masakit ang loob). When we are faced with difficulties,
we say that our family gives us strength (ang pamilya ang nagbibigay
ng lakas ng loob). In such instances, the entities related to us are, in
Paring Bert's words, "kadugtong ng bituka" or connected extensions
of ourselves.
Such ideas are at the core of Paring Bert's message in the light of
the war on drugs. Seeking to understand those who were killed and
their families as kapwa-tao (fellow being), with deeply connected
inner selves, we are open to the possibility of empathy and respect.
This way of understanding is the opposite of tokhang, a process
which, instead of knocking on doors, saying Tao Po! and signaling
one's intentions, deploys dahas (force) – "pilit kang pumapasok,
hindi ka naman kumakatok at hindi ka naman pinapatuloy." (You
force yourself to enter without knocking, without making your
intentions known, without being allowed to enter.)
In the context of pakikipagkapwa-tao (fellowship with shared
humanity), Paring Bert asks, what if we facilitate a meeting between
the families of those killed by drug addicts and those killed in the
war on drugs? Helping them recognize and share each other's loss
and suffering might lead them to find solace together, and through
this, rely on each other's strength (humugot ng lakas ng loob) as
they seek justice, recover lost dignities, and even grant forgiveness.
It might also shift our focus to the ineffectiveness of the current
method, a method of killing that only results to the loss of lives
without actually solving the problem. "Baka naman hinahabol mo
'yung daga, pumasok sa isang bahay, sinunog mo 'yung buong
bahay, nakawala rin yung daga." (You might be chasing a rat that
entered your house, and what you do is burn the entire house
down, even if the rat was able to escape).
Alejo’s Loob
Loób is the most obvious key term in Filipino virtue ethics
because so many Filipino virtues are of the form x-loób such as
kagandahang-loób, utang-na-loób, and lakasng-loób. There are also
negative descriptions of loób such as masamang-loób or mahinang-
loób. I conceive of other virtues, such as pakikiramdam and hiya as
virtues of loób. In short, as I will show, loób is the subject of the
virtues; it is what the virtues affect and modify.
There is ample academic literature on loób. Pe-Pua (2016)
has provided a helpful survey of the different authors who have
tackled loób: Filipino philosophers (Mercado 1972, 1994; de Mesa
1986), psychologists (Alejo 1990; de Guia 2005; Enriquez 1992),
historians (Salazar 1977, 1985; Ileto 1979; Rafael 1993) and a poet
(Lacaba 1974). An author whom Pe-Pua did not include in her list,
but whom I consider one of the most important authors on loób is
the theologian Dionisio Miranda, who has the longest single
treatment on loób to date (Miranda 1989). These authors have
given various definitions for loób, usually as an “inner self,” “inner
being,” “what is inside the self,” “holistic self,” “core of oneself,”
“core of one’s personality,” etc. As I am about to show in this
chapter, my interpretation of lóob is completely different from the
general trend so far.
Loób is simply the person’s will. This meaning is shown in
the two older Spanish Vocabularios where it is mentioned as
voluntad or “will” (de San Buena Ventura 1613, 671; de Noceda and
de Sanlucar 1860, 193). 68 In fact, the 1860 dictionary is particularly
interesting because it has two separate entries for loób. One entry
includes “voluntad” among other definitions (“Adentro, voluntad,
querer, entrar al aposento [in, will, want, enter the room]”) and the
second entry defines loób as voluntary action (“Hacer algo
voluntariamente [do something voluntarily]”). The sense of loób as
will or willed action has the greatest proportion overall compared to
other definitions of loób.
The loób is not only the combination of the lawak (breadth)
and lalim (depth) of the walls, fl oors, and eaves of a room but the
laman (content) which are gathered in the center and that which
moves from the center unto the corner and out into the front. Loób
is also the surroundings that is composed of the sounds which are
heard by the one who is knocking and not invading. The loób is that
which is felt even in its silence which is understood when someone
understands and shares that loób.
Loob
HOLISTIC “LOOB”
According to Quito (1975: 3-5), philosophy is religion and religion is
philosophy in the Orient. The Oriental does not segregate
philosophy which includes process of thinking, from religion, which
is application of life. Quito stressed, “Life for oriental thinkers is a
translation of thought; it is philosophy in action.” The fruit and
application of life must be an extension of thought. The experience
of the individual can be considered as phenomenological.
Reflections are linked to personal experiences; a particular event is
related to the total experience of a person. Questions such as,
“What am I living for?” and “What do I live by?” guide the reflective
process (Dy, 1989: 70). Experience vis-a-vis reflection focus on the
growth of the “I” in the community -- the “we”. Without “we”, the
“I” ceases to develop. That “I” exist with a reference group
emphasizes that “loob” in essence, is not individualist nor a private
perspective on morality.
The holistic concept of “loob” brings a person into a face-to-face
encounter with God; elevating one’s experience in the realm of
spirituality such as asking forgiveness to God and family. At this
point, one is invited to look up in the heaven to experience God
because one’s self-reflection already reached celestial being.
Therefore, a person does not to forsake one’s humanity but
experiences how to be truly human. As Quito (1975: 50) said, man
has to step out of the Totality of which he is a part or reflect upon
himself and therein arrive at an identification of self with Reality.
INTERIOR “LOOB”
The interior dimension of “loob” focuses on human-heartedness
such as compassion, kindness and harmonious relationship with
people. Further, as the innate goodness of human beings, “loob”
embodies moral conscience and ethical dimension. “Loob” as
interior, encompassed harmony, deepens the reality of human
beings and gives order to their lives which are connected to the
Creator (Alejo, 1990:29).
Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao
Immediately defines loob as the inner sanctum-you must knock in
the most respectful way, and wait for permission to enter and
access the loob. Sometimes, the loob can be silent, or the door may
not open, so you need to be sensitive and use pakikiramdam (being
sensitive to cues) and slowly gain trust so that the loob can come
out. Pakikiramdam is like trying to get into the loob of someone's
loob.
Alejo (1990) started his theorizing of loob by suggesting that loob is
not just "not labas"—it has breadth, depth and content. It is both
the container and the content. This is the sculpture or the shape of
loob. He then proceeded to present the architecture of loob. Much
like any building, you need to admire and appreciate a building not
by just doing it from the outside, but you must go in and be in the
center, inside the building, and then move around. Therefore, to
understand the loob, you must go inside, pumaloob, and gain the
point of view from the loob, the seat of consciousness and feeling.
You must be able to enter the loob without forcing yourself in. You
need to be matunog (resonant) and know how to behave; and you
must be good in pakikiramdam. You also need to go through
pakikipagpalagayang-loob (building rapport and trust) in order for
the loob to come out, or for you to be allowed to access the loob.
Kutob (hunch) is a relevant concept here. It can be a slight hint,
which could prove to be wrong, but at least give you a glimpse of
the loob. It takes time to understand someone's loob. It requires
patience, intense observation, listening, and focus (Alejo 1990).
Alejo elaborated on how loob is both ubod (core) and daigdig
(world), much like the center and the rays of a wheel. As daigdig,
loob has three elements: (a) abot-malay-the extent of consciousness
or awareness, measured by breadth; (b) abot dama-the extent of
emotions, measured by intensity or depth; and (c) abot-kaya-the
extent of ability, measured by strength and content. Abot-malay
includes awareness of self, others (kapwa), the world, and God.
Abot-dama includes getting into the loob of the other person,
showing empathy and sympathy, being deeply involved, and being
one with God. Abot-kaya includes integration of the loob, taking
responsibility, continuity of integrity, and struggle and hope. (Alejo
1990)
Filipino Personality and Values
Rethinking Filipino values Enriquez was critical of this approach to
the study of Filipino values. He encouraged Filipino scholars to take
a second look at these values using a Filipino orientation. Social
scientists such as Lagmay, Salazar, and Bonifacio took up the
challenge in their own research. Let us examine three of these
‘‘Filipino values’’ from the exogenous and indigenous perspectives.
Bahala Na. The Filipino cultural value of bahala na has no exact
English translation. Bostrom (1968) was the first psychologist to
analyze this value by comparing it with American fatalism. This is
obviously a pervasive interpretation that when Thomas Andres
published the Dictionary of Filipino Culture and Values, he still
defines bahala na as ‘‘the Filipino attitude that makes him accept
sufferings and problems, leaving everything to God. ‘Bahala na ang
Diyos (God will take care of us)’ . . . This attitude is a fatalistic
resignation or withdrawal from an engagement or crisis or a shirking
from personal responsibility’’ (Andres, 1994, p. 12). The
Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective interprets bahala na differently.
Lagmay (1977) explained that bahala na is not ‘‘fatalism’’ but
‘‘determination and risk-taking’’. When Filipinos utter the
expression ‘‘Bahala na!’’ they are not leaving their fate to God and
remaining passive. Rather, they are telling themselves that they are
ready to face the difficult situation before them, and will do their
best to achieve their objectives. The expression is a way of pumping
courage into their system so that they do not buckle down. In fact,
even before they have said ‘‘Bahala na!’’ they have probably done
their best to prepare for the forthcoming situation.
Hiya. Sibley (1965), an American scholar, translated hiya as
‘‘shame’’. Another American, Lynch (1961) saw hiya as ‘‘the
uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being in a
socially unacceptable position, or performing a socially
unacceptable action.’’ For example, when an employee is scolded in
front of other people. To add to the negativity of this interpretation
of hiya, Andres (1994) described hiya as ‘‘an ingredient in why
Filipinos overspend during fiestas in order to please their visitors,
even to the extent of going into debt’’ (p. 64). This conventional
interpretation of hiya is inadequate because it does not take into
account the importance of understanding how affixations in
Philippine languages can give a new meaning to a word. Bonifacio
(1976) alerted us to the different meanings of the word hiya
depending on its form – nakakahiya (embarrassing), napahiya
(placed in an awkward position), ikinahiya (be embarrassed with
someone), etc. With some affixes, it becomes negative, e.g.,
napahiya; with others, positive, e.g., mahiyain (shy); and in still
other forms, it can either be positive or negative depending on the
context, e.g., kahihiyan (sense of propriety, or embarrassment).
Salazar (1981, 1985b) expounded on affixation and hiya and showed
the internal and external aspects of hiya. Evidently, it is the external
aspect which foreign scholars have captured. After all is said and
done, the more appropriate translation of hiya in English is not
‘‘shame’’ but ‘‘sense of propriety’’.
Utang na loob. Utang na loob was translated by Kaut (1961) as
‘‘debt of gratitude’’. Andres (1994, pp. 190–191) defined it,
following Kaut’s logic, as ‘‘the principle of reciprocity incurred when
an individual helps another. The person helped then feels an
obligation to repay the debt in the future when the helper himself
(sic) is in need of aid, or he (sic) may repay his debt by sending gifts.
It is often not clear when a debt has been fully paid, so that the
relationship becomes an ongoing one.’’ Hollnsteiner (1961) took this
interpretation further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is
forced ‘‘to show his (sic) gratitude properly by returning the favor
with interest.’’ Enriquez (1977) dared to speculate that there is an
element of wanting to promote reciprocity which is useful for
maintaining the image of the colonizer as benefactor. But looking at
utang na loob more closely in the context of Filipino culture, it
actually means ‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’. It is not necessarily a burden
as the word ‘‘debt’’ connotes, because in the Filipino pattern of
interpersonal relations, there is always an opportunity to return a
favor. It is not absolutely obligatory in the immediate future, for the
opportunity to show utang na loob might come only in the next
generation, maybe not in your lifetime. Your children will see to it
that it is recognized and respected. It is a beautiful element of
Filipino interpersonal relationships that binds a person to his or her
home community or home country. In fact, this is expressed in a
popular Filipino saying, ‘‘Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay
hindi makakarating sa paroroonan. (Those who do not look back to
where they came from will not reach their destination)’’. Utang na
loob is a calling heard by many Filipinos who go to other lands but
who still retain strong ties with their homeland.
Pakikisama vs. pakikipagkapwa. Pakikisama was identified by Lynch
(1961, 1973) as a Filipino value, giving it the English translation of
maintaining ‘‘smooth interpersonal relations’’ by going along with
the group or the majority decision, i.e., conformity. Enriquez (1978,
1994) started unfolding the concept of kapwa (shared identity),
which is at the core of Filipino social psychology, and which is at the
heart of the structure of Filipino values. He discovered that it is not
maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships that Filipinos are
most concerned with, but pakikipagkapwa which means treating the
other person as kapwa or fellow human being. There are two
categories of kapwa: the Ibang-Tao (outsider) and the Hindi-Ibang-
Tao (‘‘one-of-us’’). In Filipino social interaction, one is immediately
‘‘placed’’ into one of these two categories; and how one is placed
determines the level of interaction one is shown. For example, if
one is regarded as ibang-tao, the interaction can range from
pakikitungo (transaction/civility with), to pakikisalamuha
(interaction with), to pakikilahok (joining/participating), to
pakikibagay (in-conformity with/inaccord with), and to pakikisama
(being along with). If one is categorized as hindi-ibang-tao, then you
can expect pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in-
rapport/understanding/ acceptance with), or pakikisangkot (getting
involved), or the highest level of pakikiisa (being one with).
Filipino Theology
The term “animism” was first proposed by E. B. Tylor as the “the
general doctrine of souls and other spiritual beings in general”
(Tylor 1871, 21). Though he must be faulted for a condescending
attitude to the primitive tribes that he studied, calling them “lower
races” and applying the “often-repeated comparison of savages to
children” (Tylor 1871, 28), he does helpfully list the general traits
and characteristics of animist beliefs in primitive society: An idea of
pervading life and will in nature far outside modern limits, a belief in
personal souls animating even what we call inanimate bodies, a
theory of transmigration of souls as well in life as after death, a
sense of crowds of spiritual beings, sometimes flitting through the
air, but sometimes also inhabiting trees and rocks and waterfalls,
and so lending their own personality to such material objects. (Tylor
1871, 260) In the animist worldview everything is “alive” with
personal souls and spirits. There is no purely lifeless or physical
matter as we conceive of it in modern science.31 I adopt what
Owen Barfield (who drew from Emile Durkheim and Lucien
LevyBruhl) calls “original participation.” The primitive tribes who
came before the rationalization of the Greeks and the monotheism
of the Hebrews had a different consciousness of the world which
had not yet put a strict divide between the world and the self. “The
self, so far as there yet is one, is still aware that it and the
phenomena derive from the same supersensible source” (Barfield
1988, 122-123). The animist was enmeshed, woven, and connected
into the world around, such that one could identify oneself with
their animal totem, be possessed by the spirit of one’s ancestors or
nature spirits, and be absorbed into the cosmic whole in death. 31
“It has been noted that Philippine languages have no original or
non-loaned words for ‘religion’ or even for ‘sacred’; the distinction
between grace and nature, sacred and profane does not even arise”
(Maggay 1999, 29).40 Everything in human life was also understood
in regular cycles that coincided with the cycles of nature. Notably
among our indigenous peoples (but also among rural Filipinos,
although to a lesser degree) there is no division between the
religious and the social, economic, cultural and other aspects of
human life. The Creator is seen in the signs of nature: the rainbow,
sun, moon, stars, streams, trees, birds and flowers are symbols of
the divine. Prayers and offerings are made in times of planting,
harvesting, fishing and hunting; in the life-phases of birth, marriage
and death. Once in a lifetime events are perceived to be somehow
sacred moments as well. (Miranda 2003, 270; cf. Jocano 1998a, 183)
The first breach from “original participation” according to Barfield
was through Greek philosophy (Barfield 1988 43-44) and its
flowering in the Middle Ages, which allowed human consciousness
to inspect things as distinct from the self through the use of human
reason. The Middles Ages still contained elements of “participation”
(97-99) but also paved the way for modern science.32 The second
and more radical breach was through Descartes and the empiricists
in the 17th century. It was the combination of 1) a sharp divide
between consciousness and the body, and 2) a lifeless and
mechanical view of the world populated only by extended objects
(cf. Taylor 1989, 145, 161). If “original participation” had all the
naiveté and wonder of a child, modern philosophy represented the
disenchanted and disillusioned adult. Perhaps one benefit of having
the animistic tradition still alive in the Philippines is that it affords
some kind of access to this “original participation” which has been
lost and forgotten in the West. The actual events of Homer took
place three millennia ago, and the epics are studied merely as
literature. In contrast a “preHomeric” (purely oral) culture was
present in the Philippines only 450 years ago when the Spanish
arrived, and its living influence remains until now. Deep in the semi-
conscious regions of the modern Filipino psyche lurk the same
spirits which inhabited his pre-Spanish ancestor, and which are
likewise found today in modern Javanese, Sumatran, or Malaysian
societies. Theologies and names of God and the spirits may have
changed but the “realities” upon which these names are projected
remain the same. (Bulatao 1992, 50) The “original participation”
that Barfield talks about can also be called “connectivity.” The
vocabulary of being one with another, or having a “shared identity”
with another contains a trace layer of this animistic worldview. This
layer is hinted at by Miranda when he says: “For the Filipino the
world is not so much the world of nature as it is the world of
persons; indeed, even the physical universe is a personalist
universe” (Miranda 1992, 244). 32 Suggested readings on the
positive relationship between the Middle Ages and modern science
are Jaki (1978) and Grant (1996); both followed the lead of Pierre
Duhem (cf. Jaki, 1987). 41 The most notable figure in Philippine
animism is the babaylan or the priestess class, who served as the
bridges and mediators between human beings and the spirits. But
they were also the primary culture-bearers of the barangay
societies. The babaylan are very interesting, since they are the most
central character in past Philippine society in the fields of the arts,
religion, and medicine, and all the kind of theoretical and practical
knowledge concerning the phenomena of nature.33 (Salazar 1999,
6; translation mine) Although they were mostly women, there were
sometimes men who also served as babaylan. 34 But their privileged
status as women is connected to the more general equality
between men and women in Philippine society. “The equality of
men and women is an ancient Malay tradition which has withstood
Muslim influences in Indonesia and Spanish Catholic traditions in
the Philippines” (Guthrie and Jacobs 1966, 42). There were several
insurgencies led by babaylan until the early 19th century, when they
were gradually replaced by more Christianized peasant movements.
Though the time of the babaylan is past, what is more interesting is
how animism has survived in and through Catholicism. One will note
that Catholicism at least provides an alternative to the babaylan in
the figure of the Virgin Mary, who is also a mediator and intercessor
with the divine.35 The ancestor and nature spirits have been
replaced with the saints. The result is a unique brand of “folk
Catholicism” which mixes elements from both worlds. A brown
scapular or prayer booklet might simultaneously be understood as
how it is taught by Roman Catholic theology and also as an anting-
anting (“magical amulet”) from the animist worldview. The belief in
the aswang or dark creatures is not contradicted but somehow
supported by the Catholic faith.36 “Many Filipinos move freely
between the two spheres without adverting to any rupture or
contradiction. Occasional Christians during particular events (Pasko,
Mahal na Araw, Ondas, Pyesta), they are arguably animist for the
rest of the year” (Miranda 2003, 270). Miranda also adds: Hardly
anyone denies that some elements of the religio-magical view have
survived into our time, either through metamorphosis, popular
maintenance or inculturation. Benevolent spirits are often pointed
to as mediators by their mediums, e.g., native shamans, magicians,
seers, priests and so on. Faith healers, whether as individuals or
groups of Espiritistas are living fossils of the biocosmic worldview.
Certain forms of devotions to the Santo Niño, Black Nazarene,
Marian shrines, and thaumaturgic 33 “Ang babaylan ay
napakainteresante, sapagkat siya ang pinakasentral na personahe sa
dating Lipunang Pilipino sa larangan ng kalinangan, relihiyon at
medisina at lahat ng uri ng teoretikal at praktikal na kaalaman
hinggil sa mga penomeno ng kalikasan” (Salazar 1999, 6). 34 “May
mga babaylan ding lalaki, subalit kadalasan sila ay may pagkabakla o
kaya talagang tahasan nang bakla o kaya binabae/hermaphrodite”
(Salazar 1999, 23). 35 For a picture of Marian devotion in a modern
Philippines context, see Sapitula (2013). 36 Though the aswang is
quite popular in Filipino culture and I think, quite revealing of the
residues of animist beliefs, it has been largely ignored by scholars.
One of the most notable exceptions is Maximo Ramos’ Creatures of
Philippine Lower Mythology (1971).42 saints are arguably the
products of formally Christian elements and biocosmic strata. In this
movement the indigenous biocosmic view clearly stood its ground
while absorbing elements from Christianity. (Miranda 2003, 250)
Some might even claim that the living elements of animism are still
weightier and more tangible than what people would call
“orthodox” Catholicism. As a belief system, [animism] is so deeply
rooted that it simply supersedes official Roman theology in spite of
the fact that most of these people are Roman Catholics. Even
among the well-educated class there is often a split between the
conceptual thought system which is learned in school and the
emotional awareness absorbed from the culture. (Bulatao 1992, 52)
Some people, like Joaquin, defend the animist layer as contributing
to the vitality and extravagance of Filipino folk Catholicism.37 Unlike
the Catholicism in Europe where the over-intellectualization of faith
has surrendered to widespread secularism, Catholicism in the
Philippines still preserves a living experience of the inarticulate and
mysterious. Animism should definitely not be ignored in our
understanding of Filipino concepts. Loób is not an autonomous will
but a will which is still bound to this “connectivity.” There is
reasonable grounds to calling it not just “will” but a “holistic and
relational will,” as I will argue later (section 3.1.4-5). Keeping the
notion of “original participation” in mind presents a useful counter
to thinking about loób in terms of an independent will or a modern
“self.” If the central concept of loób is grounded in this animist
worldview, the same goes for all the Filipino virtues which take the
loób as their primary subject. To conclude this section on the
Southeast Asian tribal and animist tradition, I should reiterate that it
is not “past” but still active and alive, though running underneath
the two newer traditions. The understanding of kapwa is linked to
the tribal mentality of the past, which is still an undercurrent in
Filipino familial and 37 “Almost gone, happily, is the day when
puritans assailed or, worse, smiled down at such marriages of the
pagan and the Christian, though there are those among us who still
deplore our “folk Catholicism” as religious illiteracy. The last word is
the key to the misunderstanding. A certain class of society regards
religion as something to be read – from a Bible, a missal, a prayer
book. Its ideal Catholic is the well-behaved person who makes, in
well-bred tones, the proper responses in a dialogue mass. That’s
what’s called the participation of the laity. But for the common folk
of the Philippines, participation has to be far more active than a
mere reading out of words from a page. Too much nonsense has
been said about Catholics being passive in worship. In the West
maybe; but not here in the Philippines, where our style of worship,
on the contrary, approaches the extravagant. We chant or sob our
prayers out loud; we walk on our knees; we dance in church; we
carry holy images on our shoulders in howling procession; we flog
ourselves on Good Friday. Outsiders to our culture find our style of
worship distasteful and conclude that we don’t “understand”
Christianity or true religion. Do they? Can Christianity, can religion,
really be reduced to pure and simple ethics – to living by God’s
word, to doing and being good? That was the Puritan ideal – and we
know how sick the Puritans ended up. Their mistake was in thinking,
being no friends of exuberance, that they could reduce religion to
its most common denominator and could take the thu out of
enthusiasm, being too austere to care for a word that unites divinity
and frenzy, though it perfectly expresses the religious impulse in
man” (Joaquin 2004, 105).43 interpersonal relationships today. The
understanding of loób should not ignore the background of
animism, which persists in Filipino folk Catholicism. In the absence
of any ancient canon or written text that definitively establishes
these connections, one should pay very close attention to the
history of the culture itself. At the very least, an awareness of how
Filipino ethical concepts are grounded in the tribal and animist
tradition will help us avoid acceptance of any theory that denies its
characteristic features (by taking for granted modern individualism
or materialism for example). As we will see in the next section,
perhaps one reason why the Spanish Catholic tradition was able to
merge well with the Southeast Asian tribal and animist tradition was
because it also affirms the importance of both kinship relations and
spirituality.
Filipino Philosophy
There are at present three different views about “Filipino
philosophy.” Any taxonomy on this topic— Feorillo Demeterio III
(2012a), for example, has a taxonomy of sixteen different meanings
of “Filipino philosophy”—can always be reduced to these three
categories. The first is the traditional or the authentic philosophical
approach; the second is the cultural approach; and the third is the
nationality or constitutional approach.
Traditional/Philosophical Approach
The traditional approach is the genuine philosophical approach. It
answers the question, “What is your own philosophy?” It is the truly
philosophical approach as traditionally used by historians of
philosophy. It follows the Greek philosophical model. It enumerates
Filipino individual philosophers and discusses their respective
philosophical ideas. I have so far written two books—Filipino
philosophy: Traditional approach, Part I, Sections 1 & 2 (2009c and
2009d) on this type of approach. In these books I discussed the
philosophical ideas of Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Manuel Quezon, Jose Laurel, Renato Constantino, R. Esquivel
Embuscado, Cirilo Bautista, Claro Ceniza, and Rolando Gripaldo. No
doubt, this list is not complete and certainly the discussions of the
philosophical views of these philosophers are not exhaustive. A
complete history of Filipino philosophy has yet to be written.
 Bonifacio’s philosophy of revolution was published in the
revolutionary newspaper, Kalayaan (literally, “Freedom”).
Agoncillo (1956,12) attributed the phenomenal increase of
Katipunan membership to the dissemination of the
revolutionary ideas in Kalayaan as the “power of the written
word.” Making use of the Enlightenment idea of a contract,
Bonifacio (1963) transformed the blood compact between
the Spanish explorer, Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, and
Sikatuna, the chieftain of the island of Bohol, in central
Philippines, as a kinship contract. The blood compact,
Sanduguan, consisted in mixing in a vessel drops of blood
taken from the wrists of at least two individuals and drank
by both of them. It signifies the union of the two as blood
brothers. It means a contractual agreement of helping each
other in their needs and development.
 Jacinto (Gripaldo 2002) capitalized on the Enlightenment
idea of a free reign of reason, of the freedom to think and
do (i.e., intellectual liberty) rather than the freedom to will
and do (l.e., volitional liberty). He apparently believed that
the issue on which comes first, the freedom to think and do
or the freedom to will and do, is highly situational. In a
colonial situation where both will and thinking are
suppressed, where intellectual fanaticism is the rule, where
one’s will is conditioned to submit to tyranny, it is
intellectual liberty that becomes primary. The freedom to
think and do is a rebellion against a tyrannized will. In such a
debased situation, there is no will to think freely, there is
only a leap to exercise the freedom to think (intellectual
freedom). One should be able to think through his situation
clearly before he can will anything significant at all.
 Quezon’s political philosophy consists of two strands:
political pragmatism and political preparation for an
eventual Philippine independence. Political pragmatism is
the principle, which says that one must fight for a goal, but
if obstacles towards that goal are difficult to surmount, then
one must fall back to an alternative that is better than
nothing provided it is in the right direction. Quezon realized
it was difficult to obtain from Congress an immediate and
complete independence because Democratic President
Woodrow Wilson, whom Quezon thought would be
different from Republican presidents, would not allow it. So,
he persuaded Congressman William Jones to author a bill,
which would promise Philippine independence as soon as a
stable government in the Philippines could be obtained.
Erving Winslow, the secretary of the American Anti-
Imperialist League, persuaded Senator James Clarke to
author an amendment in the Jones bill that would make the
 Philippines independent in four years. Quezon supported term “ethnophilosopher.”7 The product of an individual who
and fought for its passage, but the Clarke amendment was philosophizes is a personal philosophy, while the product of an
defeated in the Senate by one vote. The Jones Bill of 1916 individual who extracts philosophical ideas from the languages and
eventually became a law. folk literature of a group of people is an ethnophilosophy (see the
comments of Hallen 2010, 73-85). This distinction is very significant
Cultural Approach in the Philippine setting as the cultural or ethnophilosophical
approach seems to undermine the authenticity of the genuine
The second approach is the cultural one. It answers the question,
Filipino philosopher. So far, I have distinguished the philosopher
“What is the people’s philosophical perspective?” or “What are the
from the historian of philosophy and the ethnophilosopher. The first
philosophical views of the people based on their socio-linguistic,
is the authentic thinker in the sense that he creates his own
cultural, and folk concepts or the like?” Originally, I called this the
philosophy which is distinguishable from the ideas of other
anthropological approach (1996, 3) because Leonardo Mercado
philosophers, although this may not be purely original. The latter
(1976), the author of the book Elements of Filipino philosophy, is an
two extract the philosophical ideas either from the writings or
anthropologist. Florentino Timbreza (1982), who wrote Pilosopiyang
lectures of philosophers (and present these historically) or from the
Pilipino, also followed the anthropological approach (see
cultural oral or written literature of an ethnic group (tribal or
Mancenido 2010, 80-94). But when I attended in Tehran in 1999 the
national). We should also distinguish the ethnophilosopher from the
World Congress on Mulla Sadra—a philosophical conference on an
philosopher of culture. The former extracts the embedded
Iranian philosopher—I met Dr. George F. McLean, the editor of
philosophical underpinnings of a people’s languages, folk literature,
various books published by the Council for Research in Values and
folk reasoning, and so on, while the latter reflects upon the merits
Philosophy.5 In 2000 I requested him to write the foreword of the
and demerits of one’s culture, how culture can be meaningful, what
first edition of my book, Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach,
essence there is—if any—of culture, the ethical dimensions of
Part I, Section 1 (2000a). He suggested that I 3 use “cultural” instead
culture, and the like. An ethnophilosopher can be a philosopher of
of “anthropological,” since any social science approach to Filipino
culture and vice versa, but the two activities are quite distinct.
philosophy—be it anthropological, psychological, sociological, and
Moreover, there are ethnophilosophers who simply remain as
so on—is basically, broadly speaking, cultural in nature.6 To
ethnophilosophers by resisting any meaningful philosophical change
distinguish the genuine philosopher in the Greek traditional model
of one’s culture (see Gripaldo (2012a, 59-65).
of an individual who does his own original philosophizing on various
philosophical themes from the cultural model of hermeneutic Nationality/Constitutional Approach
philosophizing—that is an individual who extracts interpretatively
the myriad philosophical underpinnings, presuppositions, The third approach I call the nationality or constitutional approach.
implications, or nuances of Filipino languages and dialects, myths, It answers the question, “How do we classify a Filipino work on a
folk songs, riddles, folk sayings, and the like—I now broadly use the Western or Eastern subject from the point of view of bibliography
writing?” When I was gathering the philosophical materials of a
research on a bibliography on Filipino philosophy (1996, 2000b,
2004) I simply gathered all writings by Filipinos on any philosophical
topic, including ethnophilosophical topics, together with the
writings of foreigners on Filipino thinkers like Rizal and Constantino.
But when I began classifying the works into several philosophical
categories—like ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, and
so on—I was faced with the problem as to what to include as
Filipino philosophy. A more accurate classificatory criterion was
needed. What is Filipino philosophy from the perspective of
bibliographic writing? What is a Filipino in the first place and who
are the Filipinos? Should I consider a work on Bertrand Russell’s
idea of neutral monism—written by a Filipino—a work on British
philosophy or is it a work on Filipino philosophy? Most of the
writings I have gathered are of this nature—a Filipino work on
Heidegger’s Dasein, on Sartre’s existentialism, on Foucault’s
genealogy, on Plato’s republic, and so on. These are works of
Filipino philosophy scholars (see Gripaldo 2009b). What is the
standard criterion for classifying philosophical works? So you see
how great my predicament was. If I discard all Filipino writings on
foreign philosophers and philosophies, then my research work will
be reduced into a few pages as there are only very few writings
done on both (i) ethnic and indigenous philosophical ideas and (ii)
on original or derivative but distinctive philosophical works by
Filipinos themselves. This is something I was not prepared to do.
The normal or standard procedure is to classify Filipino works on
foreign philosophies in terms of substance or content with the
nationality of the author simply taken for granted. So a Filipino work
on Heidegger’s concept of Being is a work on German philosophy; a
Filipino work on Sartre’s concept of nothingness is a work on French
philosophy; and so on. The standard central focus of analysis, in this
case, is the substance or subject matter regardless of the nationality
of the author. A deconstruction is necessary. We shift the central
focus—or the criterion of classification—to the nationality of the
writer himself or herself 4 regardless of the subject matter. The
basis of this deconstruction is the fact that when we say that
Heidegger’s concept of Being is German philosophy, it is not the
“concept of Being” that is German, but rather it is the bearer of the
idea—Heidegger himself—who is German. So when we deconstruct,
we place the nationality of the author at the center and place the
subject matter at the periphery. There is another important reason
for the shifting of the center to the nationality of the author in that
when a Filipino, for example, writes about Heidegger’s concept of
Being, the product is interpretative—even in basic expository
writing on a philosopher’s ideas, which, it has been claimed, has no
so-called “Filipinoness”—but this hermeneutic insight, no matter
how slight, is essentially his or her own interpretation. When we
apply this new deconstructive perspective, a Filipino work on
Heidegger’s concept of Being is necessarily a work on Filipino
philosophy in terms of the nationality of authorship and the
hermeneutics that goes with the writing of the work. This analysis
enables me to justify the inclusion of Filipino works on foreign
philosophies—Western, Indian, Chinese, etc.—in my Filipino
philosophy bibliography. And this is our answer to the fourth (4)
question above. But deconstruction works both ways in so far as my
Filipino bibliography is concerned. Deconstruction can also mean a
decentering, which suggests that there is no permanent center or
periphery depending on the situational need or context. I have
collected some works by foreign authors on Rizal’s or Bonifacio’s
ideas, for example. What should I do with these if not to revert to
the original center—the subject matter—regardless of the
nationality of the author? So Eugene Hessel’s (1983) book, The
religious thought of Jose Rizal, is likewise included in the
bibliography. In contemporary times, the author’s nationality is
defined in the country’s constitution. In answer to our first question
above (1), a Filipino generally comes from the Malayan race, and he
is a Filipino as stipulated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. IV,
Secs. 1-5). It is for this reason that sometimes I call the nationality
approach as also the constitutional approach to Filipino philosophy.
Samples of Philosophy
1. Pakikisama According to the results of the survey, the Filipino
trait most taken up was Pakikisama. This indicates that this is a
typical Filipino trait. Pakikisama refers to an interpersonal
relationship where people are friendly with each other. To be with
someone and to get along with each other indicates basic human
friendliness and affinity.
2. Hiya (Shame) The Tagalog word Hiya indicates shame, disgrace,
embarrassment, sense of modesty and manners, and to lose face.
The word involves inadequacy, anxiety, feelings of timidity and
reservation (Andres 1989 & 1996; Jocano 1997). Carson-Arenas
(2004) defines Hiya as a spreading sense of inferiority. The trait is
characterized by the Filipinos low sense of value as an individual and
independence, as well as deference to authority.
3. Utang Na Loob The third trait taken up as a Filipino trait was
Utang na loob, which means inner debt of gratitude (Carson-Arenas
2004). This is the tendency to feel grateful to a person who has
extended a kindness to them. The term indicates deep gratitude
towards the person who has extended kindness, and the heartfelt
wish to repay for the kindness.
4. Close Family Ties Filipinos are said to value and take good care of
their family. Although there are times when family ties are so strong
that they lead to conflicts between other families, these conflicts
also paradoxically represent the closeness of Filipino family
members.
5. Bahala Na In situations that become problematic, are unable to
be resolved, and one ends up in a tight corner, Filipinos will usually
say, Bahala na(Avelino & Sanchez, 1996). Bahala na, or come what
may indicates the tendency of Filipinos to resign oneself into the
hands of destiny or fate. This come what may will lead to Que sera,
sera (What will, will be), and no matter what happens, Filipinos
believe that it is the work of fate.
6. Amor propio Amor propio means self esteem, with the meaning
expanding to confidence, pride, strength, competence, and aptitude
that one is a useful and necessary asset to the world.
7. Bayanihan This trait involves cooperation and bonding with
people. According to Andres (1989), Bayanihan is the Filipino value
that denotes camaraderie among the people in the community and
helping one another in time of need. A Filipino proverb that depicts
this value is “kung sama-sama, kayang-kaya”(if we are together, we
can do it). Etymologically speaking, Bayanihan comes from the
Tagalog word “bayani” which means “hero”. Bayanihan, therefore,
represents spontaneous activeness to heroically help others, and
Bayanihan spirit indicates the bonding of team members feelings in
order to achieve a particular goal.
12. Manana Filipinos have a strong tendency to procrastinate and
put off doing their work orstudies. If there is something amusing,
what they will do is put aside what they have to do, even if it is of
importance, and become absorbed in the amusing event that is in
front of them. This is called the Manana habit. It is a matter of
course that many are tardy and absent from school or work.
13. Fiesta Grande Filipinos love festivals. Fiesta celebrations are held
in honor of the patron saint of the town or relgion. Lavish festivals
and celebrations are a part of the Filipino culture. Even in times of
crisis or economic delay, when it is time for fiesta grande events
Filipinos will become engrossed in celebrating in grand style and the
gaiety of the festivals. Guests will be served extravagant feasts, and
special arrangements will be made. Historically, the custom of fiesta
grande has been inherited from the Spanish, who ruled the
Philippines during the colonial period.

9. Ningas Cogon Ningas Cogon indicates a tendency to be

enthusiastic when beginning something, but eventually losing that
enthusiasm after a time. At the beginning of a task, energy and
enthusiasm will gain speed to reach a climax, but when there ceases
to be more excitement or challenge in the task, one will lose
interest and passion (Carson-Arenas 2004, Avelino & Sanchez 1996).
To be easily warmed up, but just as easily cooled down explains the
Filipino trait of Ningas cogon.