Chapter I: Introduction What is Philosophy? Mr.

Rodrigo Abenes *** To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically.".*** - Thoreau

Philosophers: Sage or Lunatic. Perhaps the best way to approach in answering the question what is philosophy? is to look at the portrayal of philosophers in the Philippine society. We, Filipinos, have a pejorative portrayal of philosophers. What made as such is because the word pilosopo entails a negative meaning. To the Filipinos, a pilosopo is a smart aleck--someone who engages in meticulous and abstract reasoning, thereby incurring the ire of other Filipinos. The statement Namimilosopo ka na naman! is a huge slap in the face. Its a way of shutting down reasoned discourse, instead of attempting to refute the logic in question.1 It was for this reason that pilosopo are often regarded weird and unacceptable. A related insult is the statement Napakapilosopo mo! The connotation here is that if you have refuted others, you are sort of smart aleck and you need to shut up your mouth and back off. This is therefore an implication that reasoning or critical thinking is something that is frequently devalued, especially if it challenged authority or rocks the boat. Amidst the conformity of Filipino society, that is simply not tolerable. 2 Another negative connotation perhaps resulted due to the emergence of the concept of Pilosopo Tasyo. In Rizals first novel entitled Noli Me Tangere, Pilosopo Tasyo had been viewed an insane, pessimistic and crazy lunatic thinker, who valued reading knowledge instead of his own health and fortune. It was for this reason that the whole town of San Diego would make fun of his odd ideas and madness. As such, we do belong in the town of San Diego. We are its settlers. Our culture made fun and ridicule philosophers, for philosophers are non-sense and out of this world thinkers. But, taking into consideration, Rizal had portrayed Pilosopo Tasyo differently. According to him, Persons of culture called him Don Anastasio, or Tasio the Sage, while the great crowd of the ignorant knew him as Tasio the Lunatic, on account of his peculiar ideas and his eccentric manner of dealing with others. With such description, who are you personally? Are you one of the persons of culture who appreciate philosophy or are you one of the crowd of ignorants?

The Nature of Philosophy and Pilosopo Tasyo. The characterization of Pilosopo Tasyo is good point of departure in examining the possible avenue on looking at the very nature of philosophy, the creation of the Pilosopo character does provide insight into the perceived importance that Rizal sees in having a philosophers voice. In the novel, Pilosopo Tasyo gives a social commentary on the current conditions of the state, pointing to the fact that a philosopher, while dealing with universal questions, is also a product of the times. 3 Indeed, the character of a Pilosopo manifest that they are important in the society for they deal with a different manner of thinking about the world, himself, society, world and God as something different from the prevailing mode of thinking. Philosophers are particularly insightful for they deal with abstract concepts which alienates him from his fellows who are incapable to do. Philosophers are noteworthy for they have dealt with the first principles of things that others are not capable of. They tried to deal with the reality so as to find meaning with regards to human existence. But why do we need to philosophize? It is a question that is very rooted on our very nature as human. Taking into consideration our very own humanity, we have different needs and pursuits. We need food, shelter and clothing so as to survive. But when these basic needs have been satisfied will there still be something else? Common experience would tell us that we cannot live on bread alone. Yes, of course we need food, love and care. But we as human beings are more than that. There is something else that we need and that is to figure out who we are and why we are here. Looking for such meaning is natural to us human beings. There is a desire for knowledge that is characteristic of all people and a human capacity for metaphysical enguiry.4 Being the highest form of animals, knowledge, therefore, is a law of our rationality. It is a law of our human mind. We are not only after on the fulfillment of our basic needs but also we need to live a nobler life; a life that is more than bodily nourishment; a life that stimulates our intellect to look and seek for knowledge and truth. Although philosophical inquiry is rooted on our very nature, we do not all become philosophers. For many reasons, some are only confined with the satisfaction of their everyday affairs and concerns. They are only concern on series of phenomenal experience, a spontaneous, prescientific form of thinking. They just know what the things are and not its whys and causes. Thus, it is only few that reaches knowledge in a higher form of abstractions. It is only few who could appreciate Pilosopo Tasyo, who is a man in pursuit of knowledge according to its first and ultimate causes. It is only few who desire to know, arising out with the faculty of wonder, has thus led some to penetrate deeply the mysteries of reality. Being a philosopher, therefore, is a challenge. Philosophy emerges as one of noblest of human tasks. It is a challenge to look for higher forms of knowledge; a knowledge that would gives us rational account that is more superior to mere

experience, because it knows the cause and the reason why. With this, a philosopher, therefore, fits with its etymological definition5 that is a lover of wisdom. According to tradition, the term was coined by Pythagoras a well known thinker in ancient Greece. It was said that he coined such in order to distinguish himself with the sophists 6. Philosophers are not self acclaimed intellectual for they tried to look, to search and to look for truth. Socrates is worth telling by his attitude with the Oracle of Delhi. The oracle as it will be recalled, said that there was no wisest than Socrates, which puzzled him because he was aware that he knew nothing and that the god of the Oracle could be mistaken. Socrates being taken as a mere example to make the point that human being was the wisest who, like him, recognized that he was worthless with respect to wisdom. Philosophical Methodology: Faith or Reason. The late Pope John Paul II in his 1998 encyclical entitled Fides et Ratio tried to provide a contemporary general description of philosophy. Accordingly, faith and reason are like two wings in which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth. The encyclical in claiming as such remains very faithful with its Catholic tradition, for Scholasticism or Christian thinkers would claim that that man can likewise come to the knowledge of truth in either be (1) a knowledge of faith (lumen fidei) or (2) knowledge of a supernatural vision (lumen gloriae) or (3) a knowledge of reason (lumen rationales). The first and the second come from divine revelation. Faith, accordingly, offers a higher, more perfect knowledge of reality, because in this case, the infinite and the absolute is not known by means of his effects, but by means of what God Himself had revealed Himself. It is therefore considered as the highest form of human freedom for faith alone makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently", and "this is why the Church has always considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of fundamental decision which engages the whole person." The second is a knowledge of the absolute by means of a direct and mystical experience by way of beatific vision like of that of St. Therese of Avila, St John of the Cross and St. Thomas Aquinas. The latter on the other hand, according to its tradition, is a very limited knowledge. It was for this reason that Scholastics tend to argue that philosophy should be a handmaid in the study of Theology insofar as reason is the handmaid of faith. Thus, Fides et Ratio establishes the primacy of revelation as a source of salvific truths and the primacy of obedient faith in Christ as the most fitting context for the inquiries of reason. Natural reason can discover some salvific truths, but not the most central ones concerning the mission of Jesus Christ for Christ is the answer to the ultimate question that philosophers (and ordinary people insofar as they participate in philosophy) have asked at all times and within all cultures. With such context, Catholic traditions had been biased so as to protect the infallibility of its basic teaching. It would be noted that experience would tells us that

reason is not always in harmony with faith. Most likely, faith had been always in conflict with reason. This had been manifested particularly when philosophy and science gradually broke away from theology during the renaissance period. This had been realized when Galilio, Copernicus and Darwin made their contradicting pronouncement with the Catholic Church. With this kind of scenario, how will an individual would make his own judgment? Catholic tradition opted to simply abandon reason when the conflict becomes imminent. The basic assumption here is that God can be known only if he reveals himself to man through some divinely inspired individuals who thereby pen down these divine revelations. Reason can help in making the revelations understandable to the man on the street, but reason is not entitled to contradict them since they are assumed infallible. Otherwise, reason has to be discarded and, in all likelihood, that part of the revelation where reason fails to elaborate, may be considered a mystery Moreover, Rizal had provided a dialogical approach as far as the relationship of faith and reason is concerned. This dialogical approach was manifested in his correspondence with Padre Pablo Pastell when was in exile in Dapitan. Padre Pablo Pastell noted that the one whose judgment and self-love have been obstructed and falsified by erroneous principles and disorderly affections cannot be guided by the light of his own judgment and conscience. He even added that the lamp of this light is unreliable and no matter how wise we may be, we can never be so wise as to have no need of the knowledge of others. It is therefore necessary to be guided by the lamp of others, or to abide by the criterion and judgment of others. It is a natural lamp the knowledge of which is derived from right reason. He went further on saying that He argues that even if faith exceeds reason, there cannot exist between them a true opposition, because God endows the human soul with the light of reason. Since God cannot deny faith and reason, then the truth of reason cannot contradict the truth of faith. If there is an apparent contradiction, it is either the dogmas of faith have not been properly understood or the ravings of opinion are unworthily considered as axioms of reason. In answering as such Rizal wrote truth may have been polarized, or obstructed and distorted, when it enters ones understanding. He argued that reason can be mistaken and can be limited. Nevertheless, it is only reason that can correct its own mistakes: reason alone knows how to get up everytime it falls as perforce it must in its long pilgrimage here on earth. He even added that it is undeniable that faith is more superior to human reason. But, he went further on asking that who can justly claim that he is the reflector of that supernatural Light? Every religion, as we knows, claims to possess the truth. Truth is seen from different angles and therefore religious, moral, and political truths are complex and must be studied piecemeal. Thus, nobody has the right to judge the beliefs of others, using his very own beliefs as its norm and criteria. Branches of Philosophy. Pilosopo Tasyo is an enigmatic thinker. He had been a vanguard of our manner of thinking. The concept of a Pilosopo Tasyo is, therefore, a relevant concept in the sense that any given society needs to deal with universal

questions that find significance in everyday affairs. Since every people has its own native and seminal wisdom which are, true cultural treasures, tends to find voice and develop in forms which are genuinely philosophical, man himself, therefore had been confronted with many philosophical questions throughout the ages. What prompted him to ask those questions was because he is driven by the desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human being seek to acquire those universal elements of knowledge that spring from the wonder awakened Indeed, there many philosophical questions that we need to ask. How was the world created? Is there any will or meaning behind what happens? Is there life after death? Is there God? Who are you? What are made of? How we ought to live a moral life? These are questions that people had been confronted with throughout the centuries. There are still many questions to ask for it is better to ask rather to look for answers. It was for this reason that Timberza would noted that life itself poses big disturbing problems that demands corresponding answers. We, despites of these disturbing realties, are challenge to search for the ultimate meaning of human life. Looking for such have many forms insofar as they are problems of human conditions.

1 2

http://www.webspawner.com/users/pilosopo/, 2011, p. 1 Ibid, p. 1 3 Mendoza, 2011, p. 1 4 References to Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio) Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II 5 Accordingly, philosophy came from two greek words philo and sophia which means love and wisdom respectively. 6 a group of self-acclaimed intellectuals in Athens who used rhetorics so as to persuade people and earn for a living