The Paradigm Shift in Filipino Philosophical Theorizing
By Menelito Mansueto (Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology) Department of Philosophy
Looking at my own journey both as a philosophy enthusiast and as a struggling educator back then beginning as a young graduate of philosophy in early 2000, I have some significant points of reflection to offer for the present generation of graduates or students in Philosophy – the so-called millennials. In my case, the primary reason why I took Philosophy as a baccalaureate course was because I was under seminary formation in which case a four-year degree in Philosophy is mandatory. During my first semester as a freshman, honestly, I had no idea at all what Philosophy was, and why I was taking it at all. As a student in a university run by our own congregation, we had the privilege to simply attend classes without having to worry about enrollment concerns. Thanks to the SVD missionaries who formerly have a college seminary formation in Cebu back in the day which granted us the privilege to enroll at the prestigious University of San Carlos. We just had the commencement exercises at MSU-IIT, which is the reason I have the luxury of time to write and reflect on this matter. I seldom write, except when I am bored or mentally and emotionally preoccupied.
I describe my philosophical education back then as conservative, especially when I was mentored in the auspices of a religious congregation. And then finally, I got the chance to return to my home province and continue my education in philosophy. There used to be a baccalaureate course in philosophy offered in what was formerly called Divine Word College of Tagbilaran (now Holy Name University). The chair of the social sciences department at the time decided to remove philosophy from its course offerings after allegedly one of the students graduated with a bachelor’s thesis on satanism, at least, the students’ version of the story. But we also suspect it was due to the lack of enrollees in the program, quoting our then department of social sciences’ chair, who said that “only ex-seminarians usually enroll in Philosophy.* He was implying that it is not a viable program at the time compared, for example, to BS Nursing. The establishment of the philosophy program in Tagbilaran City, Bohol was due to the efforts of Ms. Corazon Logarta (whom unfortunately I did not have the chance to meet), and later, under the leadership of Dr. Eddie R. Babor.
But today’s story of philosophy is different. When back in the day, we struggled to find books in the libraries, we now enjoy the benefits of the Internet, more so – Artificial Intelligence. Most of our thesis topics back then were mostly expository or descriptive in terms of approach, while today the concepts are more applied. I even have a journal article publication back at a time when scholarly journals do not yet require an Abstract. When I had the privilege to attend an undergraduate philosophy conference at De La Salle University in Taft Avenue, I was in a culture-shock listening to a beautiful petite young lady discussing BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and Masochism).
The philosophy curriculum or degree program that we currently offer in Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT) could give me a sneak preview of what the future philosophers of Mindanao would be like. I do not think there is any other similar philosophy curriculum at least in the Philippines that included physics and hard sciences subjects as part of its prospectus. We need to get rid of the traditional notion that we enroll in Philosophy because some are not good at Math. We might have forgotten that Logic is the foundation of reasoning. This could mean our future Filipino philosophers also have the potential to become hard scientists. Out of the population of about 160 enrollees from the first year to fourth year under our BS Philosophy program in MSU-IIT, only one student happens to be an ex-seminarian.
On the other hand, under the initiative of the Social Ethics Society (SES), we have seen the presence of international and foreign scholars who are nterested in Filipino theorizing, for instance, the likes of Wataru Kusaka, Juichiro Tanabe, Layne Hartsell, Darryl Macer, John Weckert, and Daniel Mishori, to name a few. In fact, their theoretical investigations can be juxtaposed with local scholars like Christopher Ryan Maboloc, Romulo Bautista, Ian Clark Parcon, Rogelio Bayod, Raymundo Pavo, Carlito Gaspar, and Rudy Rodil. We have had enough of Western theorizing. The primary reason why the early Filipino scholarship such as Virgilio Enriquez’ Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology), Prospero Covar’s Pilipinolohiya (Filipinology), Zeus A. Salazar’s Pantayong Pananaw (From-Us-For-Us) thrived through the years is because we are already fed up with Westernization. If we examine closely some concepts in Filipino Philosophy, it is still very much loaded and heavily reliant on the concepts of foreign sociologists, as well as from Continental and Anglo-Analytic scholars. “Loob” and “Meron” are simply Filipinizations (Tagalogized/Tagalized versions) of the Western notions of “Self” and “Being.”
Now is the best time to give a deeper and serious attention to neglected non-Western concepts, to take a deep meditative breath and feel the soulful air of non-Western concepts and (non)frameworks, such as of Asian, Arabian, or African. Instead of concepts such as “being” and “becoming” or “Absolute Spirit,” let us then try to venture on some other notions, like those of “emptiness,” “selflessness,” “nonself,” and “non-being” in Eastern philosophies. After all, our Lumads have their own ways of thinking and doing philosophy. Our fixation and preoccupations with the Hegelian notion of “progress” has instead led us to stagnation, with the inability to diagnose a “pathology” which has really been its own. The philosophical world does not revolve around the French and the Germans.
It is true that there are already so-called “Orientalists” ahead of us – Filipino scholars who are experts in Chinese, Japanese, Indian or Arabic philosophies, but they failed to make Filipinos realize how we are in the similar Eastern paradigm and not rather looking at Chinese philosophy, for example, as an external import or still foreign, and looking at us Filipinos as a strange “Other,” still no different from the way most Westerners had also looked upon the rest of Eastern Philosophy as “Orientalizations,” including most likely the so-called Filipino Philosophy. Edward Said is very well-versed in describing such a phenomenon of Orientalism. Given our colonial past and neo-colonial structures of government and education, and even our methodologies of research, (as well as the presence of conservative Islamic faith in our midst), we need to continually decolonize what has become an inherent structure. We need to resist the continuing cultural colonization. The life philosophy of retired professor Rudy “Ompong” Rodil, as one example, has amazed me particularly his conscious commitment to “not speak” in English as it is the language used as an instrument of exploitation and alienation that led to the loss of ancestral lands, andaltered the cultural landscape of the ethnic minorities of Mindanao, say for example, by means of their lack of understandings of the legal provisions of Philippine agrarian laws which had been heavily written in English, and as well as resulting to a diaspora due to cultural displacements caused by the communist insurgency, including the ensuing political or structural violence, like in the case of the Badjao, as well as the Maranao during the Marawi Siege. The accented British-like articulations in English will not bother or impress the likes of Mr. Rodil.
Indeed, Tanabe’s unwavering advocacy on peace education and critical multiculturalism is equally an inspiring dedication towards a harmonious humanity. Hartsell’s advocacy for “bioregionalism” and Weckert’s “indigenous contribution to philosophy of technology” can equally be seen as impressive examples showing us as to what better direction the future of Filipino theorizing can possibly take us. They, as foreign scholars, have embraced our culture as it is. But should we not, as locals, stop our pretentious efforts to appear as “big brothers.” A local phenomenon may be interpreted with Western theories, but certainly not to forcibly fit a Western theory to the local phenomenon which obviously have their own unique contexts, hindsight, lifeworld, and dimension.
