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, Manilaand Basilisa Padua Macaranas, Housewife, Manilae-mail:
johnnymacaranas@[Link]; [Link]@[Link] INTRODUCTION This review of
values attempts to improve on the existing Filipino value system, towardspromoting applied
philosophizing. Philosophy, as it engenders passionate attitude towardspursuing the truth and defining
what is good for everyone, is a key discipline for this [Link] give attention to the family given its
primal role in developing values of individuals. Ratherthan blame the family for the ills in community
and society (Kelly Oliver, 1997), we see familyand society in a give-and-take dynamics. Arellano-
Carandang, a Filipino psychologist affirmedour view on the family when she observed that while the
family intimately reflects the stressesand 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 changingvalues. VALUES, CULTURE AND CHANGE Values are principles, morals, standards,
and ideals that we consider dear and preciousin our life. What is valued stands for something important,
to be treasured. Our value system isshaped by our culture or way of life, as people’s values collectively
shape the culture, if notimmediately, in the [Link] the human sciences perspective, as Emerita
Quito cited in her essay Values as aFactor in Social Action, the best scientific information we have for
now is the theory on primaryand secondary values (1990). The primary values are the first ones formed
in the child, fromthe 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 unconsciou s. 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, whatis worthwhile and
not. Oftentimes, the person would not be able to explain one’s choice s andsimply take it as a subjective
or personal judgment. Unless intervened upon, primary values donot change in one’s lifetime .In
contrast, secondary values are formed as the person gets more mature and interactswith society.
Secondary values are borne out of deliberate choices. The set of values, throughtime, 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 [Link] 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 changetowards
a more coherent value system. Third, as subjective values are formed, molded orshattered in the family,
families must be recognized as the primary player, with community-widecollaboration 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 Filipinoflavor, 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 inmost gatherings. T he Greek ideal of
moderation, the Confucian and Buddhist “doctrine of the Mid dle” or “balance” has a Filipino equivalent
in such an expression as: “ Hindi labis, hindikulang, katamtaman lamang ” (Timbreza, 1982). Meaning:
Not too much, not too little, just [Link] is given in the Philippine culture, owing to more than 100
indigenous groups, thearchipelagic 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 Filipinoidentity (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 bynow 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 forgood or evil. Ambivalence runs counter
to coherence in the culture. Indeed, there are somedeeply positive values in other cultures, which when
translated in the Filipino context were foundnegative. They somehow get stretched or twisted. The
simple value of tolerance , whichUNESCO 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 isnegative. In
Romero’s elaboration , “Someone destroys another person, you tolerate it… justtolerate 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. Highvalue given to the family has also been attributed to
the failure of government. As observed inher 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 f amily, andmyself, ” she added. Ambivalence comes in many forms. For one,
families go to extrememeasures to protect its members. For protective reasons, like saving face, crimes
in the familyor by family members do not get reported or acknowledged, even for generations. This
createsa dual ethical [Link] is also common among Filipinos to leave their families to earn a living in
the city or inother 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 plainun-
mindfulness, some families fail to take into consideration the needs of the provider. Thefamily fails to
develop into a mutually caring [Link] value for God or a supernatural being is a well-rooted one. The
Filipinos fully trust inGod, regardless of religion, as expressed in the bahala na attitude. It is an
expression of fulltrust 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
completetrust 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
stepsto 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 “ mayawa ang Diyos ” or
God is merciful. But it also connotes fatalism. Typically, a student who failedto review for an
examination because of negligence would also utter “ Bahala na . ” Together withthe 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, moralityand religion. A grateful client will not stop at simply
paying his or her dues, or expressingappreciation for help received. One is compelled to do something
extra, like give a gift to thedoctor, the teacher, the government staff, or a kind neighbor. Unable to pay,
one will insist togive a gift on the next visit. The sense of gratitude is especially intense among the poor
whooffer to pay back in anyway. This is where opportunists thrive. Exploitation of utang na loob
hasbeen 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 beexploited by a
politician or a businessman to exact undue payback, usually in unspokenservices. 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.
Theycannot be taken out by taking out the values. For a culture to be tenable and strong, there oughtto
be check and balance. Other values could limit the excessive, unbounded, or compulsiveobservation of
certain values. Miranda (1990) and other Filipino scholars have proposed thefollowing values or traits in
the Filipino that need to be cultivated for this [Link] (1990) suggests honing makatwirang-
loob (internal uprightness). The use of katwiran could help Filipinos, who tend to be subjective, use
objective moral standards toensure rationality. It could supplement kabutihang-loob or kagandahang-
loob (internalgoodness), a traditional belief that relies on an internal compass presupposing goodness of
thehuman [Link] relating with family and others, several traditional values could guide in
establishingpersonal boundaries: Mapagkilatis (observant) or mapagmasid (aware) ought to bring
backobjectivity in dealings and relationships; Marangal na pamumuhay (dignified living) or pagigingtotoo
(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
[Link] 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 toresult to a
coherent and more humane Filipino culture, where everyone shares and no one issacrificed. In this
context, the other traditional Filipino values for pagmamalasakit ( empathizing ), pakikiramay
(sympathizing), pagtutulungan (helping one another), and bayahihan (mutualassistance) are expected to
be rekindled. These are all considered tenable with p agsasama-sama (inclusiveness, togetherness)
especially considering the different indigenous groupings inPhilippine society. Inclusivity is a value
needed to respect indigenous philosophies and ensureself-determination in the Philippines (Ramiscal,
2013). CONCLUSION As we live, we philosophize. Much remains to be done in addressing ambivalent
valuestowards promoting a more coherent value system. To live out and apply philosophical
insightsrequire sustained and deliberate reflective exercise across levels: self, family, community
andsociety. All parents and educators need to be oriented towards philosophizing. Basic educationmust
not only prepare the young to survive, but also to build a family. Philosophers need toventure in
collaborative projects involving other disciplines. Outside philosophical societies,Filipino philosophers
should seriously consider influencing parent organizations, school curriculaor academic programs, or the
social media. Discussing ambivalent values is an interestingstarting point. REFERENCES Andres, Tomas D.
1989. Filipino values for winning success. Manila, Philippines: Our Lady [Link], Ma.
Lourdes A. and Queena N. Lee-Chua. 2008. The Filipino family surviving theworld: Psychological essays
on the family. Pasig, Philippines: [Link], John W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methodsapproaches. International student edition. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks,
California: [Link] La Salle University. 1990. A life of philosophy: Selected works (1965-1988) of Emerita
[Link] . Manila, Philippines: De La Salle [Link] Eliot, ed. 1991. Culture and modernity: East-
West philosophic perspectives. Honolulu,Hawaii, USA: University of [Link], Vitaliano R., SJ.
1988. Filipino values revisited. Metro Manila: National Book [Link], Rolando M., Jove Jim S.
Aguas, Jovino G. Miroy, eds. 2007. Engaging philosophicaltraditions: Filipino perspectives on certain
philosophical topics. Philosophical Papers , Vol. [Link], Philippines: Philosophical Association of the
[Link], Rolando M. 2013. Filipino philosophy: A Western tradition in an Eastern setting.
Available at [Link]. 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 Filipinoexperience.
Available at [Link]. Accessed: 28 September 2017. Han Sung-Joo, ed. 1999. Changing values in
Asia: Their impact on governance anddevelopment. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Center for International
[Link], 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 [Link], Dionisio M., SVD. 1990. Buting Pinoy: Probe
essays on value as Filipino. Manila:Divine Word [Link], Kelly. 1997. Family values: Subjects
between nature and culture. New York, USA:[Link], Lourdes A. and Felice P. Sta. Maria.
1996. Values education through history:Peace and tolerance. Pasay City, Philippines: UNESCO National
Commission of [Link], Noel G. 2013. Indigenous philosophy and the quest for
indigenous self-determination. Philosophia: International Journal of Philosophy . Vol. 14, No. [Link],
Florentino. 1982. Pilosopiyang Pilipino. Manila: Rex Book [Link], Camilo M. Jr. 2006. Article
Review. Leonardo N. Mercado: Declassifyingthe Filipino cultural philosopher. International Journal of
Philosophy,Philosophia . Vol. 35, No. 2.