1 [Slightly revised (2014) paper published in Kaisipan 1 (1): 2013 [Opisyal Dyornal ng Isabuhay, Saliksikin, Ibigin ang Pilosopia (ISIP), a philosophical association based in Bulacan State University, Malolos, Bulacan.] FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY: PAST AND PRESENT 1 Rolando M. Gripaldo, Ph.D. Contrary to what skeptics believed, there is Filipino philosophy in the Western traditional sense that should be distinguished from ethnophilosophy or cultural philosophy. This paper tries to elucidate this philosophical development by identifying the Western model of philosophizing, by clarifying the meaning of “Filipino philosophy,” by giving examples from the history of Filipino philosophers, and by mentioning the significance and prospects of Filipino philosophizing. INTRODUCTION One of the major activities of the analytic philosophical tradition is the clarification of the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences. I presume from the title of my paper—“Filipino philosophy: Past and present”— that we understand what are meant by the words “past” and “present.” So I will proceed with the phrase “Filipino philosophy” and attempt to clarify its meaning, for it will be useless for us to go on talking about the historical development of Filipino philosophy unless we are clear as to its meaning. There are two terms here to analyze: “Filipino” and “philosophy.” And there are many questions to ask: (1) What or who is a Filipino? (2) What is the meaning of “philosophy”? (3) How can we determine whether a particular kind of thinking is philosophical or not? (4) How do we know whether a particular kind of philosophy is Filipino or not? And (5) Is it necessary for one to be seriously—and even perhaps professionally—called a philosopher to have a degree in philosophy? These are questions we must answer in passing as we go along with our discussions (see Gripaldo 2009a, 1-9; 2012a, 59-65). GREEK PHILOSOPHY AS MODEL The ancient Greeks did not have a constitution that defines who a Greek is, but they were able to identify themselves, by the time of Thales [620-546 BC], the first Greek philosopher, as Greeks living in various city-states and regions. The Greeks 2 came, of course, from various tribes and, according to one version, after the Trojan War these tribes formed the Great Amphictyonic League composed of twelve tribes. 3 When Thales of Miletus, an Ionian philosopher, began philosophizing and spread his philosophical thoughts, historians of philosophy marked him as the father of philosophy. Although it was said that he went to Egypt and gained the perspective of logos rather than of mythos, he did not have a formal training in philosophy. He did not have a degree in philosophy, so to speak. He simply asked a primordial question out of wonder: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For him the fundamental substance of the universe is water. In other words, in reply to our fifth question above (5), it is not necessary to have a degree in philosophy—like Jose Rizal—to be a philosopher but one must be able to show coherence and consistency in his writings or teachings about his philosophical ideas. 4 Thales became the first teacher of philosophy and he had students, one among which was Anaximander, who in turn had a famous student by the name of Anaximenes. Later philosophizing spread to the other regions of Greece until it developed into a golden age in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. After Aristotle, we have the Greek and Roman stoics, hedonists, eclectics, and neoplatonists (see the Sahakians 1970, 581-83). The