See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349991771

A PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW OF FILIPINO VALUES: AMBIVALENT VALUES

Conference Paper · August 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 12,365

2 authors:

Juan Rafael Macaranas Basilisa Padua Macaranas

De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde 2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   
23 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Rafael Macaranas on 11 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Section: 91 - Philosophy of Values.
Paper file #: 1394 (a revision), Date submitted: December 3, 2017

a philosophical review of Filipino values:

ambivalent values
Juan Rafael G. Macaranas, Ph. D., De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde, Manila
and Basilisa Padua Macaranas, Housewife, Manila
e-mail: johnnymacaranas@gmail.com; juanrafael.macaranas@benilde.edu.ph

INTRODUCTION

This review of values attempts to improve on the existing Filipino value system, towards

promoting applied philosophizing. Philosophy, as it engenders passionate attitude towards

pursuing the truth and defining what is good for everyone, is a key discipline for this purpose.

We give attention to the family given its primal role in developing values of individuals. Rather

than blame the family for the ills in community and society (Kelly Oliver, 1997), we see family

and society in a give-and-take dynamics. Arellano-Carandang, a Filipino psychologist affirmed

our view on the family when she observed that while the family intimately reflects the stresses

and strains of social life, it is also a source of strategies for resolving the social tensions (2001,

in Philosophical Papers Vol. II). This is particularly true when it comes to keeping or changing

values.

VALUES, CULTURE AND CHANGE

Values are principles, morals, standards, and ideals that we consider dear and precious

in our life. What is valued stands for something important, to be treasured. Our value system is

shaped by our culture or way of life, as people’s values collectively shape the culture, if not

immediately, in the future.

From the human sciences perspective, as Emerita Quito cited in her essay Values as a

Factor in Social Action, the best scientific information we have for now is the theory on primary

and secondary values (1990). The primary values are the first ones formed in the child, from

the moment of inception of consciousness until the age of 12. These values, since they were

fostered when the child’s language and reasoning faculties were not yet fully developed, lie in
the person’s unconscious. They underlie the person’s decision making in an automatic manner.

They define one’s sense of values: what is right or wrong, what is beautiful or unappealing, what

is worthwhile and not. Oftentimes, the person would not be able to explain one’s choices and

simply take it as a subjective or personal judgment. Unless intervened upon, primary values do

not change in one’s lifetime.

In contrast, secondary values are formed as the person gets more mature and interacts

with society. Secondary values are borne out of deliberate choices. The set of values, through

time, get higher or lower in hierarchy as the person gathers experiences and wisdom.

Eventually, they become part of one’s scale of values. Secondary values can change as the

person gathers objective proof for or against one’s current scale of values.

In a lifetime, to attempt to change a value system will have to consider three things. First,

it can start with philosophical awareness, an objective examination if you may, of one’s current

set of values and culture. Second, it requires deliberate and conscious efforts to change

towards a more coherent value system. Third, as subjective values are formed, molded or

shattered in the family, families must be recognized as the primary player, with community-wide

collaboration as a quicker and effective route of values, and, eventually, cultural development.

REVIEW OF FILIPINO VALUES

Many Filipino values are universal human values that took on a distinctively Filipino

flavor, meaning or application, best expressed in a native language. In general, all peoples eat,

talk and sing, but Filipinos feast on Filipino delicacies, speak various languages, and sing in

most gatherings. The Greek ideal of moderation, the Confucian and Buddhist “doctrine of the

Middle” or “balance” has a Filipino equivalent in such an expression as: “Hindi labis, hindi

kulang, katamtaman lamang” (Timbreza, 1982). Meaning: Not too much, not too little, just right.

Diversity is given in the Philippine culture, owing to more than 100 indigenous groups, the

archipelagic setting, and the varied cultural influences in its history (Gripaldo, 2013, 2007, 2005;

Quito, 1990). Nonetheless, there remains distinctly Filipino values that form part of the Filipino

identity (Mercado, 1974). More comprehensive reviews and probing on the Filipino values have
already been completed by Mercado (1994, 1990, 1974; Miranda, 1990; as cited by Villanueva,

2006), and other philosophy professors such as Timbreza (1982) and Gorospe (1988).

This paper builds on the foundations already set by such previous scholarly works by

now focusing on the identified kinks in the culture. It has long been reported by Gorospe (1988)

that Filipino values tend to be ambivalent, in the sense that they have the potential to work for

good or evil. Ambivalence runs counter to coherence in the culture. Indeed, there are some

deeply positive values in other cultures, which when translated in the Filipino context were found

negative. They somehow get stretched or twisted. The simple value of tolerance, which

UNESCO identified as the new word for peace in the 1990s, was found “primarily associated

with pagpapalampas (letting things pass) and pagtitiis (endurance)” in a language survey

conducted by Philippine Psychology Research and Training House (Quisumbing and Sta. Maria,

p. 9). Educators, such as Fe Hidalgo and Julian Abuso acknowledged that while tolerance “can

be used to promote open-mindedness and acceptance of differences,” the colloquial meaning is

negative. In Romero’s elaboration, “Someone destroys another person, you tolerate it…just

tolerate it is valuing what is not pro-person, something that should not be…” (p. 30).

The Filipino value for the family is something shared among the Oriental cultures. High

value given to the family has also been attributed to the failure of government. As observed in

her clinical psychology practice, Carandang says, “in a country where systems do not work well,

people turn to their families” (2008, p.4). Many Filipinos mainly depend on “God, my family, and

myself,” she added. Ambivalence comes in many forms. For one, families go to extreme

measures to protect its members. For protective reasons, like saving face, crimes in the family

or by family members do not get reported or acknowledged, even for generations. This creates

a dual ethical policy.

It is also common among Filipinos to leave their families to earn a living in the city or in

other countries for their family’s sake. When faced with inhuman work condition and loneliness,

or the prolonged dependence of certain family members, they usually end saying, “Okay lang,

para sa pamilya,” conveying resignation. They tolerate pains for the sake of the family. While
sacrifice can be good, it distracts from thinking more objectively for themselves. Sadly, long-

term recipients stay dependent unless the support stops. Owing perhaps to separation or plain

un-mindfulness, some families fail to take into consideration the needs of the provider. The

family fails to develop into a mutually caring unit.

The value for God or a supernatural being is a well-rooted one. The Filipinos fully trust in

God, regardless of religion, as expressed in the bahala na attitude. It is an expression of full

trust to fate, that everything will turn out for the best. Etymologically, bahala came from Bathala,

the native Filipino name for God (before colonizers came). Bahala na comes from complete

trust in divine power. It is uttered when one faces a challenge, like before performing,

competing, or taking a difficult test. In a healthy situation, the person did all the necessary steps

to prepare for the occasion but still lacks confidence. It is a wish that the divine will do the rest,

or will make possible something the human faculty cannot achieve. It is uttered by farmers,

when before harvest, an unexpected bad weather comes. In this context, it is uttered with “may

awa ang Diyos” or God is merciful. But it also connotes fatalism. Typically, a student who failed

to review for an examination because of negligence would also utter “Bahala na.” Together with

the prayer is a wishful thought that maybe he would pull it off in the next exam.

Utang na loob means reciprocity, indebtedness, gratefulness, or honoring gratitude. It

permeates and influences all facets of the Filipino life—in business, education, politics, morality

and religion. A grateful client will not stop at simply paying his or her dues, or expressing

appreciation for help received. One is compelled to do something extra, like give a gift to the

doctor, the teacher, the government staff, or a kind neighbor. Unable to pay, one will insist to

give a gift on the next visit. The sense of gratitude is especially intense among the poor who

offer to pay back in anyway. This is where opportunists thrive. Exploitation of utang na loob has

been linked to almost all evils in Philippine society: in the perpetuation of smuggling syndicates,

and persistent corruption in politics and government. Any sense of indebtedness, could be

exploited by a politician or a businessman to exact undue payback, usually in unspoken

services. It can be so compulsive, making one turn a blind eye to ethics.

TOWARDS A MORE PHILOSOPHICALLY TENABLE VALUE-SYSTEM

Ambivalent values are likely just an extension of the ambivalence in human nature. They

cannot be taken out by taking out the values. For a culture to be tenable and strong, there ought

to be check and balance. Other values could limit the excessive, unbounded, or compulsive

observation of certain values. Miranda (1990) and other Filipino scholars have proposed the

following values or traits in the Filipino that need to be cultivated for this purpose.

Miranda (1990) suggests honing makatwirang-loob (internal uprightness). The use of

katwiran could help Filipinos, who tend to be subjective, use objective moral standards to

ensure rationality. It could supplement kabutihang-loob or kagandahang-loob (internal

goodness), a traditional belief that relies on an internal compass presupposing goodness of the

human being.

In relating with family and others, several traditional values could guide in establishing

personal boundaries: Mapagkilatis (observant) or mapagmasid (aware) ought to bring back

objectivity in dealings and relationships; Marangal na pamumuhay (dignified living) or pagiging

totoo (truthfulness) could mitigate undue advances and abuses from others; and, Pakikipag-

kapwa tao (relating among fellow humans) presumes the self is as important as the family and

others.

Simultaneously valuing the family, God, self, and others, if founded on kagandahang-

loob, guided by makatwirang-loob and the other suggested norms in relating is expected to

result to a coherent and more humane Filipino culture, where everyone shares and no one is

sacrificed. In this context, the other traditional Filipino values for pagmamalasakit (empathizing),

pakikiramay (sympathizing), pagtutulungan (helping one another), and bayahihan (mutual

assistance) are expected to be rekindled. These are all considered tenable with pagsasama-

sama (inclusiveness, togetherness) especially considering the different indigenous groupings in

Philippine society. Inclusivity is a value needed to respect indigenous philosophies and ensure

self-determination in the Philippines (Ramiscal, 2013).

CONCLUSION

As we live, we philosophize. Much remains to be done in addressing ambivalent values

towards promoting a more coherent value system. To live out and apply philosophical insights

require sustained and deliberate reflective exercise across levels: self, family, community and

society. All parents and educators need to be oriented towards philosophizing. Basic education

must not only prepare the young to survive, but also to build a family. Philosophers need to

venture in collaborative projects involving other disciplines. Outside philosophical societies,

Filipino philosophers should seriously consider influencing parent organizations, school curricula

or academic programs, or the social media. Discussing ambivalent values is an interesting

starting point.

REFERENCES

Andres, Tomas D. 1989. Filipino values for winning success. Manila, Philippines: Our Lady of
Manaoag.

Carandang, Ma. Lourdes A. and Queena N. Lee-Chua. 2008. The Filipino family surviving the
world: Psychological essays on the family. Pasig, Philippines: Anvil.

Creswell, John W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. International student edition. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

De La Salle University. 1990. A life of philosophy: Selected works (1965-1988) of Emerita S.

Quito. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University.

Deutsch Eliot, ed. 1991. Culture and modernity: East-West philosophic perspectives. Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii.

Gorospe, Vitaliano R., SJ. 1988. Filipino values revisited. Metro Manila: National Book Store.

Gripaldo, Rolando M., Jove Jim S. Aguas, Jovino G. Miroy, eds. 2007. Engaging philosophical
traditions: Filipino perspectives on certain philosophical topics. Philosophical Papers, Vol. II.
Manila, Philippines: Philosophical Association of the Philippines.

Gripaldo, Rolando M. 2013. Filipino philosophy: A Western tradition in an Eastern setting.

Available at Academia.edu. Accessed: 28 September 2017.

_________. 2007. Filipino philosophy, western tradition, and nation building. Philosophia:
International Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 36, No. 1.

_________. 2005. Cultural traditions, the person, and contemporary change: The Filipino
experience. Available at Academia.edu. Accessed: 28 September 2017.
Han Sung-Joo, ed. 1999. Changing values in Asia: Their impact on governance and
development. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Center for International Exchange.

Mercado, Leonardo N. 1994. The Filipino mind: Philippine philosophical studies II. Washington,
D.C., USA: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.

________ . 1990. In Readings in Filipino philosophy. De La Salle University Press.

________. 1974. Elements of Filipino philosophy. Tacloban City: Divine Word University
Publication.

Miranda, Dionisio M., SVD. 1990. Buting Pinoy: Probe essays on value as Filipino. Manila:
Divine Word Publications.

Oliver, Kelly. 1997. Family values: Subjects between nature and culture. New York, USA:
Routledge.

Quisumbing, Lourdes A. and Felice P. Sta. Maria. 1996. Values education through history:
Peace and tolerance. Pasay City, Philippines: UNESCO National Commission of the
Philippines.

Ramiscal, Noel G. 2013. Indigenous philosophy and the quest for indigenous self-determination.
Philosophia: International Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 14, No. 2.

Timbreza, Florentino. 1982. Pilosopiyang Pilipino. Manila: Rex Book Store.

Villanueva, Camilo M. Jr. 2006. Article Review. Leonardo N. Mercado: Declassifying

the Filipino cultural philosopher. International Journal of Philosophy,
Philosophia. Vol. 35, No. 2.

View publication stats